Rules and Regulations. Notice of meeting of SEC Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies

12,221 words·~56 min read·/register/2005/11/25/05-23303

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 1-10606] Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. To Withdraw Its Common Stock, $.01 Par Value, and the Preferred Share Purchase Rights From Listing and Registration on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. November 18, 2005. On October 27, 2005, Cadence Design Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder, 2 to withdraw its common stock, $.01 par value, and the preferred share purchase rights (collectively “Securities”), from listing and registration on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

(“NYSE”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (d). 2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d). The Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer unanimously approved a resolution on October 24, 2005, to withdraw the Securities from listing and registration on NYSE and to list the Securities on the Nasdaq National Market (“Nasdaq”). The Issuer stated that the Board determined that it is in the best interests of the Issuer to withdraw the Securities from NYSE and list the Securities on Nasdaq. In addition, the Issuer stated that as a result of the Issuer's participation in Nasdaq's dual-listing program, pursuant to which the Issuer's common stock was listed on both NYSE and Nasdaq, the Board has determined that Nasdaq is the preferred marketplace for many of the Issuer's institutional investors and that listing solely on Nasdaq would be cost-effective for the Issuer without adversely affecting the market for the Issuer's common stock.

The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with NYSE's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration by providing NYSE with the required documents governing the removal of securities from listing and registration on NYSE. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing on NYSE and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act, 3 and shall not affect its obligation to be registered under Section 12(g) of the Act. 4 3 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (b). 4 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (g).

Any interested person may, on or before December 14, 2005, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of NYSE, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* .

Please include the File Number 1-10606 or; Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number 1-10606. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ).

Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-6512 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Exchange, Inc. File No. 1-14465] Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of IDACORP, Inc. To Withdraw Its Common Stock, No Par Value, and Preferred Share Purchase Rights From Listing and Registration on the Pacific November 18, 2005.

On October 27, 2005, IDACORP, Inc., an Idaho corporation, (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder, 2 to withdraw its common stock, no par value, and preferred share purchase rights (collectively “Securities”), from listing and registration on the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (d). 2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).

On October 14, 2005, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer adopted resolutions to withdraw the Securities from listing and registration on PCX. The Issuer stated that the Board and management of the Issuer determined to withdraw the Securities from PCX because:

(i)The Issuer maintains the principal listing for the Securities on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”);

(ii)there is limited trading activity of the Securities on PCX; and

(iii)the Board and management of the Issuer have determined that the administrative burden on the Issuer to maintain the listing of the Securities on PCX exceeds the benefits of such listing. The Issuer stated that the Securities will remain listed and registered on NYSE. The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with applicable rules of PCX by providing PCX with the required documents governing the withdrawal of securities from listing and registration on PCX. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Securities from listing on PCX, and shall not affect their continued listing on NYSE or their obligation to be registered under Section 12(b) of the Act. 3 3 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (b). Any interested person may, on or before December 14, 2005, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of PCX, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml);* or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include the File Number 1-14465 or; Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number 1-14465. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 4 4 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(l). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-6514 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 1-14091] Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Sherwood Brands, Inc. To Withdraw Its Common Stock, $.01 Par Value, From Listing and Registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC November 18, 2005. On June 20, 2005, Sherwood Brands, Inc., a North Carolina corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder, 2 to withdraw its common stock, $.01 par value (“Security”), from listing and registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (d). 2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d). The Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer unanimously approved resolutions on March 2, 2005, to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on Amex. The Issuer stated the Board considered several factors relevant to its decision to withdraw the Security from Amex, including, but not limited to the following:

(i)The limited number of holders of the Security;

(ii)the Security is very thinly traded;

(iii)the nature and extent of trading in the Security;

(iv)the lack of analyst coverage and minimal liquidity of the Security; and

(v)the costs, both direct and indirect, associated with the preparation and filing of the Issuer's periodic reports with the Commission and Amex. The Board noted that the Issuer had anticipated its legal, accounting, and insurance costs would increase substantially as a result of recently enacted legislation affecting all public companies ( *e.g.* , Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002). The Board believed that in addition to the significant time and cost savings which would result from deregistration, withdrawing the Security from listing and registration on Amex would allow management to focus its attention and resources on implementing the Issuer's business plan and exploring financing and strategic alternatives for the business. The Issuer stated that it has met the requirements of Amex's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration by complying with all the applicable laws in effect in the state of North Carolina, in which it is incorporated, and by providing Amex with the required documents for withdrawal from Amex. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing on Amex and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act, 3 and shall not affect its obligation to be registered under Section 12(g) of the Act. 4 3 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (b). 4 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (g). Any interested person may, on or before December 14, 2005, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include the File Number 1-14091 or; Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number 1-14091. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-6513 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. 1-14783] Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of State Bancorp, Inc. To Withdraw Its Common Stock, $5.00 Par Value, From Listing and Registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC November 18, 2005. On October 31, 2005, State Bancorp, Inc., a New York corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder, 2 to withdraw its common stock, $5.00 par value (“Security”), from listing and registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”). 1 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (d). 2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d). On May 24, 2005, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer approved resolutions to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on Amex and to list the Security on the Nasdaq National Market (“Nasdaq”). The Issuer stated that the Board determined it is in the best interests of the Issuer and its stockholders to withdraw the Security from Amex and list the Security on Nasdaq in an effort to improve liquidity and market visibility on Nasdaq. The Issuer stated that it has complied with the requirements of Amex's rules governing an issuer's voluntary withdrawal of a security from listing and registration by complying with all the applicable laws in effect in the State of New York, the state in which it is incorporated. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing on Amex and from registration under Section 12(b) of the Act, 3 and shall not affect its obligation to be registered under Section 12(g) of the Act. 4 3 15 U.S.C. 781(b). 4 15 U.S.C. 78 *l* (g). Any interested person may, on or before December 14, 2005, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include the File Number 1-14783 or; Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number 1-14783. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml* ). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 5 5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-6515 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release Nos. 33-8635; 34-52800, File No. 265-23] Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Notice of meeting of SEC Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies. The Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, December 14, 2005, in Multi-Purpose Room L006 of the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, beginning at 9 a.m. The meeting is expected to last until approximately 4 p.m. with a lunch break from approximately noon to 1 p.m. The meeting will be audio webcast on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.sec.gov* . The agenda for the meeting includes consideration of proposals of the Advisory Committee's four subcommittees on possible recommendations for changes to the current securities regulatory system for smaller companies. The public is invited to submit written statements for the meeting. *Due Date:* Written statements should be received on or before December 7, 2005. ADDRESSES: Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Statements • Use the Commission's Internet submission form ( *http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acspc.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail message to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number 265-23 on the subject line; or Paper Statements • Send paper statements in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File No. 265-23. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission staff will post all statements on the Advisory Committee's Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov./info/smallbus/acspc.shtml* ). Statements also will be available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549. All statements received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin M. O'Neill, Special Counsel, at

(202)551-3260, Office of Small Business Policy, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.-App. 1, Section 10(a), and the regulations thereunder, Gerald J. Laporte, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, has ordered publication of this notice. Dated: November 18, 2005. Jonathan G. Katz, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E5-6516 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52785; File No. SR-DTC-2005-17] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Systems Enhancement for the Processing of Information in Its Restricted Deposit Service November 16, 2005. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 notice is hereby given that on October 11, 2005, The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change and on November 16, 2005, amended the proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily by DTC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The proposed rule change would effect a systems enhancement in DTC's Restricted Deposit Service (“RDS”) to permit users to transmit restricted stock information directly to DTC rather than manually entering the information. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and

(C)below, of the most significant aspects of these statements. 2 2 The Commission has modified the text of the summaries prepared by DTC.

(A)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change RDS allows DTC participants to use the depository to handle the removal of restrictions on securities. DTC provides negotiability and documentation review of deposited restricted securities, images and delivers them to transfer agents, and arranges for their prompt transfer into unrestricted securities. Restricted securities generally are securities purchased in private placements directly from an issuer before the company is public. They may also be stock acquired through a corporate reorganization or acquisition, in return for services, or from an original shareholder. 3 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41891 (September 20, 1999), 64 FR 52115 (September 27, 1999) [File No. SR-DTC-99-101]. Currently, a participant seeking to initiate use of RDS will transmit restricted securities deposit information to DTC through the Restricted Deposit Service by Participant function (“RDSP”) of DTC's Participant Terminal System. Until now the transmission of such information has required the participant to manually input data directly into RDSP; however, participants often have already input such information into other applications and thus transmitting the information to RDSP requires duplication of effort. With this filing, DTC proposes to enhance this process to permit participants to transfer such information directly from another application containing the information to RDSP. The application used for transmission of information to RDSP would either be one selected by DTC or at the election of the participant another application so long as such application meets technical requirements as determined by DTC. The proposed change is consistent with section 17A of the Act 4 and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC because it is designed to remove impediments to and perfect a mechanism for the prompt and accurate clearance ad settlement of securities transactions. 4 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

(B)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact or impose any burden on competition.

(C)Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet been solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 5 and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) 6 thereunder because the proposed rule effects a change in an existing service of DTC that

(i)does not adversely affect the safeguarding of securities or funds in the custody or control of DTC or for which it is responsible and

(ii)does not significantly affect the respective rights or obligations of DTC or persons using the service. At any time within sixty days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 7 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 6 17 CFR 249.19b-4(f)(4) 7 For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on the date on which the last amendment to the proposed rule change was filed with the Commission. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ) or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-DTC-2005-17 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2005-17. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTC's Web site at *https://login.dtcc.com/dtcorg/.* All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2005-17 and should be submitted on or before December 16, 2005. For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-6470 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5236] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Form DS-71, Affidavit of Identifying Witness; OMB Number 1405-0088 ACTION: Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information. SUMMARY: The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. *Title of Information Collection:* Affidavit of Identifying Witness *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0088. *Type of Request:* Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. *Originating Office:* Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, Passport Services, Office of Field Operations, Field Coordination Division. CA/PPT/FO/FC. *Form Number:* DS-71. *Respondents:* Individuals or Households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 140,000. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 140,000. *Average Hours Per Response:* 1/2 (5 min.). *Total Estimated Burden:* 11,700. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Obligation to Respond:* Required To Obtain a Benefit. DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for up to 30 days from December 27, 2005. ADDRESSES: Direct comments and questions to Katherine Astrich, the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who may be reached at 202-395-4718. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: * Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov* . You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and OMB control number in the subject line of your message. • Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. • Fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents, to Susan Cowlishaw, U.S. Department of State, CA/PPT/FO/FC, 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor/Room 3040 SA-29, Washington, DC 20037, who may be reached on 202-261-8957 or Cowlishawsc@state.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary to properly perform our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology. *Abstract of proposed collection:* The Affidavit of Identifying Witness (Form DS-71) is used by the Department of State in making a determination of the applicant's eligibility to be documented as a citizen or a non-citizen national of the United States. The form is used by Acceptance Agents and Consular Officers to collect information for the purpose of establishing the identity of a passport applicant who has not submitted adequate evidence with his/her passport application. The primary purpose for soliciting the information is to establish identity and entitlement to issuance of a United States passport, and to properly administer and enforce the laws pertaining to issuance thereof. Lack of identity information may result in the refusal to issue a United States passport. Inaccurate identity evidence could possibly result in issuance of a passport to a non-U.S. citizen or to someone using an assumed identity. *Methodology:* The Affidavit of Identifying Witness (Form DS-71) is used in conjunction with the Application for A U.S. Passport (Form DS-11). Along with the DS-71, the customer's insufficient or unacceptable identity documents are recorded. The identifying witness completes the form for a person applying for a passport who is unable to properly identify himself or herself at the acceptance facility/passport agency in the presence of the Acceptance Agent/Consular Officer. Frank Moss, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E5-6520 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5237] 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Form DS-64, Statement Regarding a Lost or Stolen Passport, OMB #1405-0014 ACTION: Notice of Request for public comment and submission to OMB for proposed collection of information. SUMMARY: The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. • *Title of Information Collection:* Statement Regarding a Lost or Stolen Passport. • *OMB Control Number:* 1405-0014. • *Type of Request:* Revision of a Currently Approved Collection. • *Originating Office:* CA/PPT/FO/FC. • *Form Number:* DS-64. • *Respondents:* Individuals or Households. • *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 105,000. • *Estimated Number of Responses:* 105,000. • *Average Hours Per Response:* 1/12 hour. (five minutes). • *Total Estimated Burden:* 8,800. • *Frequency:* On occasion. • *Obligation to Respond:* Required to Obtain Benefit. DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for up to 30 days from December 27, 2005. ADDRESSES: Direct comments and questions to Katherine Astrich, the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who may be reached at 202-395-4718. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • E-mail: *Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov.* You must include the DS form number, information collection title, and OMB control number in the subject line of your message. • Mail (paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions): Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. • Fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents, to Susan Cowlishaw, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20037, who may be reached on 202-261-8957, or at *Cowlishawsc@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to: • Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions. • Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used. • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology. *Abstract of proposed collection:* The form is used prior to passport issuance and solicits information relating to the loss of a valid U.S. passport. The information is used by the United States Department of State to ensure that no person shall bear more than one valid or potentially valid U.S. passport at any one time, except as authorized by the Department, and is also used to combat passport fraud and misuse. *Methodology:* This form is used in conjunction with the Form DS-11 Application for a U.S. passport or submitted separately to report loss or theft of a U.S. passport. Passport Services collects the information when a U.S. citizen or non-citizen national applies for a new U.S. passport and has been issued a previous, still valid U.S. passport that has been lost or stolen, or when a passport holder independently reports it lost or stolen. Passport applicants can either download the form from the internet or pick one up at any Passport Agency or Acceptance Facility. Frank Moss, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E5-6521 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5235] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; Determinations: “Robert Rauschenberg: Combines” AGENCY: Department of State. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Robert Rauschenberg: Combines,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign lenders. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about December 20, 2005, to on or about April 2, 2006; The Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, CA, from on or about May 14, 2006, to on or about September 4, 2006, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julianne Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8049). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: November 18, 2005. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant, Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E5-6519 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Transport Airplane and Engine Issues AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee

(ARAC)to discuss transport airplane and engine

(TAE)issues. DATES: The meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 12, 2005, starting at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Arrange for oral presentations by December 8, 2005. ADDRESSES: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW., Room 810, Washington, DC 20591. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Linsenmeyer, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-207, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone

(202)267-5174, FAX

(202)267-5075, or e-mail at *john.linsenmeyer@faa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app. III), notice is given of an ad hoc ARAC meeting to be held December 12, 2005 at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., Room 810, Washington, DC. The meeting/teleconference is being held to consider the report on recommended guidance for Aging Airplane Safety from the Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (AAWG). This ad hoc TAE meeting is necessary because the report from the AAWG is a critical part of FAA's effort to develop new guidance to support the Aging Airplane Safety Rule, issued January 25, 2005. The agenda will include: • Opening Remarks. • AAWG Report. Attendance is open to the public, but will be limited to the availability of meeting room space. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than December 8, 2005. Please provide the following information: Full legal name, country of citizenship, and name of your industry association, or applicable affiliation. If you are attending as a public citizen, please indicate so. For persons participating domestically by telephone, the call-in number is

(202)493-4180; the Passcode is “5513.” To insure that sufficient telephone lines are available, please notify the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of your intent to participate by telephone by December 8. Anyone calling from outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area will be responsible for paying long-distance charges. The public must make arrangements by December 8, 2005, to present oral statements at the meeting. Written statements may be presented to the committee at any time by providing 25 copies to the Assistant Executive Director for Transport Airplane and Engine Issues or by providing copies at the meeting. Copies of the document to be presented to ARAC for decision by the FAA may be made available by contacting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If you need assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Sign and oral interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if requested 10 calendar days before the meeting. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2005. Brenda D. Courtney, Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E5-6528 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration [Docket No. FRA-2005-22796] FRA Emergency Order No. 24, Notice No. 2; Emergency Order No. 24: Hand-Operated Main Track Switches; Amendment SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)of the United States Department of Transportation

(DOT)issues this notice to amend Emergency Order No. 24 (EO 24) in response to informal comments received from railroads and labor organizations. This amendment provides additional guidance, clarifying amendments and expanded relief from the EO. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas H. Taylor, Staff Director, Operating Practices Division, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., RRS-11, Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6255); or Alan H. Nagler, Senior Trail Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., RCC-11, Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-493-6038). Background EO 24 was issued on October 19, 2005, published in the **Federal Register** on October 24, 2005 (70 FR 61496) and required that railroads modify their operating rules and take certain other actions necessary to ensure that railroad employees who dispatch trains in non-signaled territory or who operate hand-operated main track switches (switches) in non-signaled territory, ensure the switches are restored to their proper (normal) position after use. EO 24 required that railroads “immediately initiate steps to implement this EO * * * [and] complete implementation no later than November 22, 2005.” 70 FR 61496, 61500. As the resulted community began implementation, practical concerns were raised with FRA regarding some aspects of the EO. In response to these informal comments, FRA has decided to provide the railroads and employees additional flexibility in complying with the EO. Because FRA is granting additional flexibility to the railroads and the employees, the November 22, 2005 effective date of the EO is not changing. On November 4, 2005, FRA posted on its Web site at *http://www.fra.dot.gov/* an additional document, in a question and answer format, that provided timely guidance to the informal comments offered by the regulated community. This Notice No. 2 reflects the guidance provided in that question and answer document. In addition, this Notice No. 2 specifies additional relief granted by amending the “Relief” section in its entirety and issues clarifying amendments to the “Finding and Order” section of EO 24, Notice No. 1. I. Discussion of Comments The comments received by FRA were informally provided by a diverse number of railroads and the following associations and labor organizations. The American Short Line & Regional Railroads Association (ASLRRA), the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division (BMWED), the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

(BRS)and the United Transportation Union (UTU). By discussing the comments and our responses in this notice, FRA is providing consistent information to the entire regulated community. Jurisdiction Some railroads, especially tourist railroads, contacted FRA regarding whether the EO applied to them. FRA responded that the EO applies to all railroads that have employees or contractor employees who operate hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory or dispatch trains in that type of territory unless specific relief has been granted. 70 FR 61500. Tourist railroads, or other railroads, that are unsure as to whether FRA exercises jurisdiction over them should refer to FRA's published statement on the extent and exercise of FRA's safety jurisdiction. 49 CFR Part 209, App. A. If a railroad is still unsure on this issue, please contact FRA's Office of Chief Counsel at

(202)493-6038. Initial and Periodic Instruction Railroads and labor organizations alike were concerned that FRA did not adequately describe the method for initial and periodic instruction. Meanwhile, FRA believes the current instruction requirement is adequate and provides the following further guidance. Given that this is an emergency situation requiring railroads to quickly and effectively instruct employees, FRA's expectation is that the minimum initial instruction and distribution of the EO would include a face-to-face on-the-job briefing covering the requirements of this EO and the operating rules to which they relate. In order to be effective, this job briefing must include examples or real time applications of the EO, as well as a reasonable opportunity for employees to ask questions. Regarding periodic instruction, railroads will include this instruction as part of their program of instruction pursuant to 49 CFR 217.11. Some railroads indicated that they already had operating rules that complied with this EO and had recently instructed their employees on those rules; thus, these railroads asked whether the prior training could count as the required initial training. FRA decided that any training prior to issuance of the EO was insufficient. FRA has identified an emergency situation and wants to raise the level of awareness for all employees who operate hand-operated switches in non-signaled territory or who dispatch trains in that type of territory. In addition, it is significant for affected employees to understand that the Federal government will be able to assess civil penalties of up to $27,000 for a violation of the EO by any person. That said, FRA does not expect railroads to entirely discount prior instruction. This new instruction can build upon the prior instruction—prior instruction on an unchanged operating rule does not need to be as in-depth as it would be if the employees were being instructed on the relevant operating rules for the first time. Receipt or Acknowledgment of the EO by Employees Some railroads, and the associations that represent them, questioned the necessity for providing a copy of the EO to each employee and the method for keeping a receipt or acknowledgment. FRA explained that because of the critical importance of this EO and the importance of individual railroad employees' compliance and accountability, FRA must be assured that employees have received their own paper copy of the EO. However, FRA did not intend to preclude the creation or retention of the receipt or keeping of the acknowledgment electronically. As long as the receipt or acknowledgment is a permanent record that is kept for each affected employee and can be searched and printed for FRA upon request, electronic recordkeeping is acceptable. The electronic recordkeeping system should have system integrity to prevent fraudulent entries, and may be added onto existing systems, e.g., those systems that already track attendance at railroad operating rules classes. If those systems do not allow employees to enter an acknowledgment, the attendance sheet at the face-to-face job briefing on the EO should indicate that the attendee's signature reflects both attendance and receipt of a copy of the EO. A related concern is whether railroads also need to provide a copy of this Notice No. 2, to all affected employees. This Notice No. 2 provides guidance, relief and clarifying amendments from the earlier notice, but does not create additional burdens, and thus it is possible for compliance to be achieved by following Notice No. 1 only. FRA therefore is not requiring railroads to provide a copy of this Notice No. 2 to all affected employees. Certainly, any railroad amending its operating rules with regard to this Notice No. 2 will need to instruct its employees accordingly and may choose to post or distribute it. Hand-Operated Main Track Switches—Operational Concerns FRA received a number of inquiries requesting more information on the safety basis for certain operational requirements. Some railroads requested eliminating the requirement that the dispatcher confirm that both the conductor and engineer have initialed the switch position awareness form (SPAF). FRA has denied this request because of the strong safety reasons for its retention. While other requirements involve intra-crew communication, the dispatcher's confirmation provides an additional level of communication so that the crewmember releasing the train's authority ensures that both the engineer and conductor have properly recorded on the SPAF the position of all switches operated and that there is no confusion among crewmembers as to the alignment of those switches. At least one railroad wanted to do away with the requirements that the engineer initial each entry, as opposed to only the final entry; however, FRA is denying this request because the engineer's action of initialing each entry encourages intra-crew communication while employees are still at each switch. BLET asked that FRA clarify that entry of the engineer's initials is an affirmation that the communication (representation) has been received and not that the engineer can personally vouch for the actions taken on the ground. FRA affirms that the engineer's responsibility is to acknowledge the information provided by the conductor or brakeman, not to act as a guarantor with respect to the actual position in which the switch was left. Several concerns were raised regarding what FRA meant by the term “releasing the limits of a main track authority.” The term means releasing all or a portion of the limits (i.e., rolling up the limits) of an existing main track authority. Railroads and labor organizations alike raised concerns regarding whether a train crew that is relieved on line-of-road must take the SPAF with them or whether the SPAF could be left for the subsequent train crew. The purpose of EO 24 was to establish responsibility, shared among the crew and the dispatcher, for confirmation of switch position for all switches operated before the authority is released. A subsequent crew will not have actual knowledge of the position of switches in the track segment(s) utilized by the relieved crew. Further, the declarations made on the SPAF are personal to each employee participating, and it is not possible for subsequent crew members to verify information about which they did not have contemporaneous knowledge. Accordingly, to accomplish the purpose of EO 24, the crew being relieved should contact the dispatcher and confirm the position of switches operated, at the same time releasing (rolling up) any portion of the authority not required by the relieving crew. The crew going off duty would finalize their SPAF at that time. The relieving crew would then initiate a new SPAF. The order has been amended to so provide. At least one request was received for clarification regarding the requirements of the EO if the limits of a main rack authority are rolled up behind a train or on-track equipment

(OTE)by the dispatcher without the train crew's or OTE operator's knowledge. FRA's position is that, in addition to determining the train's or OTE's location, the dispatcher must confirm the position of all switches operated by the employees within the limits being rolled up. There have been several concerns expressed regarding whether the EO applied in certain specific situations. For instance, FRA wants to make clear that the EO does not apply in Rule 251 or GCOR Rule 9.14 territory, i.e., current of traffic, signaled in one direction only. However, the EO is applicable if the signal system for a track segment is suspended. Furthermore, the EO is applicable if a track, or portion thereof, is out-of-service, unless the operating rules or special instructions require all trains to approach all facing point hand-operated switches prepared to stop during the entire period the track is out-of-service. Finally, at least one comment was received regarding the requirement that before releasing the limits of a main track authority, the employee releasing the limits must report to the train dispatcher that all hand-operated main track switches operated have been restored to their normal position, unless the train dispatcher directs otherwise. The commenter noted that another sentence in this section regarding “hand-operated main track switches” permitted the normal position of a main track switch to be designated by the railroad and the switch to be lined and locked in that position when not in use, except “when the switch is left in the charge of a crewmember of another train” or the train dispatcher directs otherwise. Accordingly, the commenter requested a clarifying amendment so that in addition to the train dispatcher exception, the switch may be left in the charge of a crewmember of another train before releasing the limits. FRA agrees with the commenter that this exception provides at least an equivalent level of safety and a clarifying amendment has been made in this notice. BLET asked that language in item

(2)of the order be amended to delete “except when the switch is left in the charge of a crewmember of another train or the train dispatcher directs otherwise,” following the requirement that switches be left in normal position when not in use. BELT suggested that this would heighten the sense of individual responsibility that the order seeks to promote. FRA appreciates the suggestion and recognizes that it is thematically consistent with the general thrust of the order. However, FRA is unable to act upon it for three reasons. First, this change does not appear to be necessary to abate the emergency. Recent accidents caused by misaligned switches have generally involved error on the part of the crew initially reversing the switch, rather than than miscommunication or lapses associated with handing off responsibility for the switch. Second, such a change could expose employees to hazards unnecessarily, as when it might be necessary to cross live tracks, walk on uneven ballast, or traverse areas covered with snow or ice. Third, imposing this requirement would cause significant delay and inefficiency in railroad operation. Line Segment Relief Versus System Basis Relief Previously Granted Several railroads requested that the automatic relief granted to a railroad, where operating rules require trains to approach all facing point hand-operated switches prepared to stop on a system basis, be extended to a line segment basis. The request also covered the two other situations articulated in the EO; i.e., where hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory (unless out of service) are protected by either distant switch indicators or by switch point indicators. FRA is granting this relief although, in our opinion, this relief is a logical extrapolation from the relief previously provided. FRA will grant automatic relief on a line segment basis when the relief is predicated on a permanent application of the relevant operating rules and special instructions for the territory involved. Employees or dispatchers involved with more than one line segment may require instruction if one of the other line segments does not meet any of the conditions for relief. Distant switch indicators are arrangements that provide crews with advance indication of switch position in a manner similar to an approach signal. These arrangements are typically designed and maintained in a manner similar to technology employed under 49 CFR Part 236, the Rules, Standards and Instructions for signal and train control systems and have a well-established history of performance in the industry. In this Notice, FRA has required specific acceptance of “switch point indicators” as alternative to the rule because the term does not apply to a closed set of technologies and in order to provide FRA an opportunity to evaluate whether the technology provides safety equivalently to that provided by compliance with this order by properly qualified employees. In part because of the risk to trains associated with unauthorized operation of switches by vandals, FRA is encouraging exploration and implementation of appropriate technology that can detect misaligned main track switches and provide a means of safeguarding train operations. On-Track Safety Many comments were received expressing concern that the EO was largely silent regarding employees involved with on-track safety such as signalmen, maintenance-of-way employees, bridge workers, and others. Some commenters were unsure of whether the EO applied to employees involved with on-track safety. When FRA explained that the EO applied to these workers, more comments were received questioning the logistics of how the EO would apply in practice. In consideration of these comments, FRA has decided to issue clarifying amendments (discussed below) that should allow for smoother operations—although the EO 24, Notice No. 1 requirement of having each employee fill out a SPAF is a feasible option as well. FRA is issuing a clarifying amendment to allow an employee responsible for on-track safety, such as an employee in charge (EIC), to complete the SPAF for all employees working under the EIC's jurisdiction. The employee responsible for on-track safety pursuant to 49 CFR 214, Subpart C, may maintain the SPAF in lieu of the individual worker(s) operating switches. Likewise, FRA is amenable to issuing a clarifying amendment so that each railroad could choose whether to create a SPAF specifically tailored to the communications among employees involved with on-track safety. Of course, if a worker operates a switch, that worker must still be qualified, i.e., instructed on, the relevant operating rules for operating a switch, even if they are not the employee completing a SPAF. Additionally, FRA is clarifying that if an EIC of on-track safety permits a train into the EIC's authority limits and there are switches operated by that train crew, both the EIC and the train crew must complete a SPAF. This clarification does not require an amendment to the EO. Some commenters did not understand whether the EO required the EIC to complete the SPAF in a situation when trains are operating through the limits of an EIC's authority and the EIC instructs all trains to operate at restricted speed. FRA explained that the EO does not need amending as this is a temporary application of the relevant operating rules for the territory involved and thus the EIC in that situation must complete a SPAF. Another concern regarding OTE was a request for clarification on the SPAF requirements when an OTE is moving to a work location. FRA's expectation is that the employee that receives the authority will complete the SPAF for all switches operated while under that authority. Furthermore, a SPAF is still required if an employee operates a switch when it is not necessary to receive permission from a dispatcher. Switch Position Awareness Form

(SPAF)Some commenters were confused as to how the EO applied to an employee, other than a crewmember, who lines a switch for a train. FRA believes the EO clearly conveys that each employee, other than a crewmember, operating a switch for a train must complete a SPAF for all switches operated. The SPAF's content was also criticized as being too specific to train crews, rather than more general in nature so as to apply to any employee handling a switch. By requiring both the engineer's and conductor's names, the engineer's initials for each entry, and the conductor's signature when the form is completed, FRA addressed the common situation of a two-person crew in which the conductor is operating the switches. The commenters explained that there may be regular circumstances in which someone other than the conductor is operating a switch and therefore that person's initials must appear on the SPAF instead of the conductor's. One commenter asked whether a SPAF can provide spaces for the engineer and the person handling the switch to initial, and a space for the conductor to sign when the form is completed. FRA finds that such a SPAF would be in compliance with the EO. A question was raised regarding the requirement that the date be entered on the SPAF when an employee's tour of duty spans two calendar days. FRA's requirement is fulfilled as long as the date entered is the date that the tour of duty began. Of course, this is a minimum requirement and railroads are permitted to require multiple dates. For example, a railroad would be in compliance with the EO if it chooses to require the date for each switch entry instead of the date the crew started its tour of duty. Furthermore, FRA would certainly not find fault with an employee who chose to be more exacting than FRA has required—even if not required by railroad operating rules. Some railroads raised concerns that the SPAF was too specific in requiring employees to identify the track segment by a “subdivision” entry in that some railroads do not have subdivisions. FRA understands that some railroads do not have subdivisions and that instead of “subdividion” the SPAF may be filled out to include branch, secondary track, or some other appropriate designation. FRA has added a clarifying amendment to address this issue. Communication A concern shared by many commenters was that the EO was written in such a way as to indicate that unless radio communication was inoperable, no alternative method of communication among crewmembers would be acceptable to indicate a switch position. Some railroads requested an amendment because they preferred to use a method of communication other than radio as their primary method, such as hand or whistle signals. FRA has issued a clarifying amendment to indicate that it will accept alternate methods of intra-crew communication when they afford an equivalent level of communication integrity relevant to the prevailing operating conditions. FRA agrees with a comment from BLET that there will be situations where hand signals do not provide unambiguous information, as where a ground employee is expected to restore a switch behind a movement that will not be using the switch to exit the area. In those cases, radio communications or face-to-face communication will be required. An Exception to Initialing the SPAF Prior to Leaving a Switch Several commenters raised concerns regarding the requirement that before employees leave the location of a switch, they must make the required entries on the SPAF “as soon as practicable.” Some commenters did not understand what the phrase “as soon as practicable” meant, and asked for clarification. Other commenters requested an amendment because there could be situations in which all involved employees might find it impracticable to initial the SPAF prior to leaving the switch. Regarding the phrase “as soon as practicable,” FRA's expectations are that when employees are in close prosimity, the required SPAF entries will be personally completed by the individual employees before they actually leave the location of the switch. FRA is not concerned if there is some delay in filling out the entries on the SPAF if other duties would normally, logically, or operationally be performed first. Of course, if the SPAF is readily available to the employee, it is a best practice for the employee to fill out the form first lest the employee forget either to fill it out or record exactly how the switch was last positioned. FRA recognizes that there are operating conditions, such as extreme physical separation, which would make recording the required entries on the SPAF before employees leave a location of a switch impracticable. In circumstances such as this, where it is logistically unfeasible, and in some situations unsafe, to record the required entries on the SPAF before leaving the location of a switch, FRA is issuing a clarifying amendment so that the crewmember completing the SPAF may make an appropriate entry on the SPAF. An appropriate entry would state that the necessary radio job briefing concerning the switch position was accomplished. Furthermore, the crewmember completing the SPAF should then enter the required employee's initials for that employee, clearly reflecting who made the entry (e.g., “AD for CS”). FRA will consider the entries on teh SPAF for that switch to be complete at that time. For example, a conductor reverses a main switch for an intended 100-car shoving movement into a 2-mile industrial lead. After lining the switch, the conductor begins the shoving movement, remaining on the leading end to protect the movement. When the engine clears the switch, the movement stops, and the brakeman lines the main track switch to its normal position, and the shoving movement resumes, with the conductor still protecting the lending end of the movement. In this case, it would be impracticable to require the conductor to talk back 100 car-lengths to the engine in order to obtain the brakeman's initials on the SPAF, and then walk back 100 car-lenghts to the lending end to continue protecting the movement. Thus, the clarifying amendment would allow the conductor to complete the SPAF by

(1)noting that the brakeman confirmed that the switch was normalized by radio, or other acceptable communication, and

(2)entering the brakeman's name or initials. Application of the Hours of Service Laws Some comments regarding the application of the hours of service laws in conjunction with the EO. One question was whether the act of filling out a SPAF is itself covered service. This issue raised the beggest concern for maintenance-of-way employees because they are not otherwise typically performing work that is considered covered service under the hours of service laws. FRA wants to be clear that the act of filling out any portion of a SPAF does not by itself trigger covered service. Meanwhile, for employees that are covered by the hours of service laws, the act of filling out a SPAF is commingled service that should be performed within the statutory period. Railroads and employees are responsible for completing all activities required of them within that period. A railroad that requires an employee to perform a task in the last few minutes of a tour of duty must be mindful of whether it is possible to complete all required tasks within the allotted time. Meanwhile, employees should be mindful that many of the accidents that led to FRA issuing this EO could have been prevented if the employees had been more diligent about complying with railroad operating rules regarding the alignment of hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory at the end of their tours of duty. Thus, regardless of the hours of service implications, employees should not hastily fill out a SPAF at the end of a tour of duty, with disregard to its accuracy, or release or roll up their limits without conferring that the entries on the SPAF have been completed, as these actions require the type of communication among employees that can prevent life-threatening accidents. At least one commenter was concerned about the legistical issue of how the time associated with completion of the SPAF should be recorded on the time return or in the hours of service electronic system. For employees otherwise subject to the hours of service laws, there is no requirement to make a separate entry of the time associated with completion of the form. It is intended that completion of the form be integral to the accomplishment of the work, so it may be considered as part of covered service for hours of service recordkeeping purposes. II. Amendment to Emergency Order No. 24 The “Finding and Order” section of EO 24 is amended by adding the following clarifying amendments. Clarifying Amendments Instruction • Given that this is an emergency situation requiring railroads to quickly and effectively instruct employees, the minimum initial instruction and distribution of the EO would include a face-to-face on-the-job briefing covering the requirements of this EO and the operating rules to which they relate. In order to be effective, this job briefing must include examples or real time applications of the EO, as well as a reasonable opportunity for employees to ask questions. Regarding periodic instruction, railroads will include this instruction as part of their program of instruction pursuant to 49 CFR 217.11. • Any instruction completed prior to issuance of the EO is sufficient to meet the instruction requirements. However, FRA does not expect railroads to entirely discount prior to instruction as this new instruction can build upon the prior instruction. Thus, prior instruction on an unchanged operating rule does not need to be as in-depth as it would be if the employees were being instructed on the relevant operating rules for the first time. Hand-Operating Main Track Switches • EO 24 contains a requirement that before releasing the limits of a main track authority, the employee releasing the limits must report to the train dispatcher that all hand-operated main track switches operated have been restored to their normal position, unless the train dispatcher directs otherwise. This requirements remains in effect except that FRA will also permit the employee releasing the limits to report to the train dispatcher the switches that were left in the charge of a crewmember of another train before releasing the limits, if left in other than normal position. • The EO does not apply in Rule 251 or GCOR Rule 9.14 territory, i.e., current traffic, signaled in one direction only. However, the EO is applicable if the signal system for a track segment is suspended or a track is out-of-service, unless the operating rules or special instructions require trains to approach all facing point hand-operated switches prepared to stop during the entire period the signal system is suspended or the track is out of service. Switch Position Awareness Form

(SPAF)• FRA specifically amending the requirement that an employee operating a hand-operated main track switch in non-signaled territory shall be the employee to complete a SPAF. As an alternative, FRA will allow an employee responsible for on-track safety, such as an employee in charge (EIC), to complete a SPAF for all employees working under the EIC's jurisdiction. An employee responsible for on-track safety pursuant to 49 CFR Part 214, Subpart C, may maintain a SPAF in lieu of the individual worker(s) operating switches. • In conjunction with the above clarifying amendment for on-track safety, FRA is clarifying the requirement in EO 24 that the SPAF must contain the engineer's initials for each entry and the conductor's signature when the form is completed because those SPAF requirements would not be applicable to an on-track safety situation. Each railroad may continue to use the train crew oriented SPAF, as described in EO 24, Notice 1, for its on-track safety situations. Similarly, a railroad may permit its employees involved in on-track safety the discretion to make notes or modify the SPAF so that it both contains the mandatory information and is understandable in the context of an on-track safety situation. Alternatively, FRA has no objection to railroads exceeding the EO's requirements by creating a SPAF that is tailored to communications among employees involved with on-track safety. • FRA is amending the requirement that each SPAF must identify the track segment by a “subdivision” entry as not every railroad has subdivisions. Employees cannot be expected to provide a subdivision designation when no such designation exists. However, a railroad that does not have subdivisions should instruct its employees to provide some other appropriate designation, such as branch or secondary track, for the “subdivision” entry. To facilitate the appropriate designation entry, a railroad that does not have subdivisions is encouraged to amend its SPAF by replacing the “subdivision” entry with a more suitable entry. If the exact name and location of a main track switch to be operated by an employee is identified, but there is no suitable entry for subdivision, branch, secondary track, etc., an employee may leave that entry blank or identify that entry as not applicable. • EO 24 requires that entries made with respect to a specific hand-operated main track switch is non-signaled territory must be recorded as soon as practicable after the switch is reversed, and as soon as practicable after the switch is returned to its normal position before leaving the location. FRA recognizes that there are operating conditions which would make recording the required entries on the SPAF before employees leave a location of a switch impracticable due to extreme physical separation. Thus, in circumstances in which it is logistically unfeasible or unsafe to record the required entries on the SPAF before leaving the location of a switch, FRA will allow the crewmember completing the SPAF to make an appropriate entry on the SPAF. Such entry would stat that the necessary radio job briefing concerning the switch position was accomplished. Furthermore, the crewmember completing the SPAF should then enter the required employee's initials for that employee. FRA will consider the entries on the SPAF for that switch complete at that time. • When a train crew is relieved on line-of-road, a member of the train crew, typically the conductor, shall either retain the SPAF for the required five days or turn it in to the designated railroad official who shall retain it for the required period. A SPAF should not be left for the subsequent train crew unless the relieved crew purposely makes an extra copy for the benefit of the relieving crew. The purpose of EO 24 was to establish responsibility, shared among the crew and the dispatcher, for confirmation of switch position for all switches operated before the authority is released. A subsequent crew will not have actual knowledge of the position of switches in the track segment(s) utilized by the relieved crew. Further, the declarations made on the SPAF are personal to each employee participating, and it is not possible for subsequent crew members to verify information about which they did not have contemporaneous knowledge. Accordingly, to accomplish the purpose of EO 24, the crew being relieved must contact the dispatcher and confirm the position of switches operated, at the same time releasing (rolling up) any portion of the authority not required by the relieving crew and closing out the SPAF. The crew going off duty would finalize its SPAF at that time. The relieving crew would then initiate a new SPAF. Radio Communication • EO 24 requires that train crewmembers shall communicate by radio unless the radio is inoperable. FRA amends the EO so that alternate methods of intra-crew communication will be acceptable, regardless of whether the radios are operable, when they afford an equivalent level of communication integrity relevant to the prevailing operating conditions. Hand or whistle signals are examples of acceptable methods of alternate intra-crew communications. Distribution of Emergency Order • A railroad may retain an electronic receipt or acknowledgment, as an alternative to a written receipt or acknowledgment, for each employee affected by the EO that indicates that the employee was provided with a copy of EO 24, Notice No. 1. As long as the receipt or acknowledgment is a permanent record that is kept for each affected employee and can be searched and printed for FRA upon request, electronic recordkeeping is acceptable. The electronic recordkeeping system should have system integrity, to prevent fraudulent entries, and may be added onto existing systems, e.g., those systems that already track attendance at railroad operating rules classes. If those systems do not allow employees to enter an acknowledgment, the attendance sheet at the face-to-face job briefing on the EO should reflect that the attendee's signature reflects both attendance and receipt of a copy of the EO. • FRA is not requiring railroads to provide a copy of this Notice No. 2 to all affected employees. Certainly, any railroad that amends its operating rules with regard to Notice No. 2 will need to instruct its employees accordingly and may choose to post or distribute this notice. The “Relief” section of Emergency Order No. 24 is amended in its entirety to read as follows: Relief Petitions for special approval to take action not in accordance with EO 24 may be submitted to the Associate Administrator for Safety, who shall be authorized to dispose of those requests without the necessity of amending this EO. In reviewing any petition for special review, the Associate Administrator for Safety shall only grant petitions in which a petitioner has clearly articulated an alternative action that will provide, in the Associate Administrator for Safety's judgment, at least an equivalent level of safety as this EO provides. A copy of this petition should be submitted to the Docket Clerk, Department of Transportation Central Docket Management System, Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. Such request may be in written or electronic form consistent with the standards and requirements established by the Central Docket Management System and posted on its Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FRA recognizes that certain railroad operating rules or equipment used by some railroads already provide a level of safety equivalent to this EO. If all of a railroad's hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory are covered by one or more of the protective measures identified below, a railroad need not apply for relief from this EO as relief shall be deemed automatically granted. FRA also grants automatic relief on a line segment basis when the relief is predicated on a permanent application of the relevant operating rules and special instructions for the territory involved. Relief from this EO is automatically granted when: • Operating rules require trains to approach all facing point hand-operated switches in non-signaled territory prepared to stop; • Hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory (unless out of service) are protected by distant switch indicators; or • Hand-operated main track switches in non-signaled territory are protected by switch point indicators accepted by the Associate Administrator as providing safety equivalent to that provided by positioning and securing of switches in compliance with this order. This amendment is effective from the date of issue of this notice. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 18, 2005. Joseph H. Boardman, Administrator. [FR Doc. 05-23303 Filed 11-21-05; 4:31 pm]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

CFR