Proposed Rules. Notice and request for comments

11,082 words·~50 min read·/register/2005/11/28/05-23299·

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [Docket No. FHWA-2005-22844] Agency Information Collection Activities; Request for Comments; Renewal of Two Information Collections AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)approval to renew two information collections, which are summarized below under Supplementary Information . We are required to publish this notice in the **Federal Register** by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Please submit comments by January 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FHWA-2005-22844 by any of the following methods: • Web site: *http://dms.dot.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • Fax: 1-202-493-2251. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. *Title:* A Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics. *OMB Control Number:* 2125-0032 (Expiration Date: March 31, 2006). *Abstract: A Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics* provides for the collection of information by describing policies and procedures for assembling informational data from the existing files of State agencies. The data includes motor-vehicle registration and fees, motor-fuel use and taxation, driver licensing, and highway taxation and finance. Federal, State, and local governments use the data for transportation policy discussions and decisions. Motor-fuel data are used in attributing receipts to the Highway Trust Fund and subsequently in the apportionment formulae that are used to distribute Federal-Aid Highway Funds. The data are published annually in the FHWA's *Highway Statistics.* Information from *Highway Statistics* is used in the joint FHWA and Federal Transit Administration required biennial report to Congress, *The Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance Report to Congress* , which contrasts present status to future investment needs. *Respondents:* State and local governments of the 50 States, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. *Estimated Average Burden Per Response:* The estimated average reporting burden per response for the annual collection and processing of the data is 825 hours for each of the States (including local governments), the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* The estimated total annual burden for all respondents is 42, 900 hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Howard,

(202)366-2833, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Policy, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Funding and Motor Fuels Division (HPPI-10), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 2. *Title:* Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). *OMB Control Number:* 2125-0028 (Expiration Date: April 30, 2006). *Abstract:* The HPMS data that is collected is used for management decisions that affect transportation, including estimates of the Nation's future highway needs and assessments of highway system performance. The information is used by the FHWA to develop and implement legislation and by State and Federal transportation officials to adequately plan, design, and administer effective, safe, and efficient transportation systems. This data is essential to the FHWA and Congress in evaluating the effectiveness of the Federal-aid highway program. The HPMS also provides miles, lane-miles and travel components of the Federal-Aid Highway Fund apportionment formulae. The data that is required by the HPMS is continually reassessed and streamlined by the FHWA. *Respondents:* State governments of the 50 States, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* The estimated average burden per response for the annual collection and processing of the HPMS data is 1,440 hours for each State, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* The estimated total annual burden for all respondents is 74,880 hours. *For Further Information Contact:* Mr. Robert Rozycki,

(202)366-5059, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Systems Performance (HPPI-20), Office of Highway Policy Information, Office of Policy & Governmental Affairs, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Public Comments Invited You are asked to comment on any aspect of these information collections, including:

(1)Whether the proposed collections are necessary for the FHWA's performance;

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burdens;

(3)ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and

(4)ways that the burdens could be minimized, including use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of these information collections. Privacy Act Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48. Issued on: November 21, 2005. James R. Kabel, Chief, Management Programs and Analysis Division. [FR Doc. E5-6579 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Request for Comments AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this notice announces that the Information Collection Requirements

(ICRs)abstracted below have been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and comment. The ICRs describe the nature of the information collections and their expected burdens. The **Federal Register** notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collections of information was published on September 16, 2005 (70 FR 54798). DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6292), or Mr. Victor Angelo, Office of Support Systems, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6470). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, section 2, 109 Stat. 163

(1995)(codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On September 16, 2005, FRA published a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** soliciting comment on ICRs that the agency was seeking OMB approval. 70 FR 54798. FRA received no comments after issuing this 60-day notice. Accordingly, DOT announces that these information collection activities have been re-evaluated and certified under 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and forwarded to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12(c). Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); *see also* 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 day notice informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); *see also* 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. The summaries below describe the nature of the information collection requirements

(ICRs)and the expected burden. The revised requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA. *Title:* Inspection and Maintenance Standards For Steam Locomotives. *OMB Control Number:* 2130-0505. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Railroads. *Abstract:* The Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act

(LBIA)of 1911 requires each railroad subject to the Act to file copies of its rules and instructions for the inspection of locomotives. The original LBIA was expanded to cover the entire steam locomotive and tender and all its parts and appurtenances. This Act then requires carriers to make inspections and to repair defects to ensure the safe operation of steam locomotives. The collection of information is used by tourist or historic railroads and by locomotive owners/operators to provide a record for each day a steam locomotive is placed in service, as well as a record that the required steam locomotive inspections are completed. Additionally, the collection of information is used by FRA Federal inspectors to verify that necessary safety inspections and tests have been completed, and to ensure that steam locomotives are indeed “safe and suitable” for service and are properly operated and maintained. *Annual Estimated Burden Hours:* 314 hours. *Title:* Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program. *OMB Control Number:* 2130-0548. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* State and local governments, government sponsored authorities and corporations, railroads (including Amtrak), and joint ventures that include at least one railroad. *Abstract:* Prior to the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (“TEA 21”), Title V of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (the “Act”), 45 U.S.C. 821 *et seq.* , authorized FRA to provide railroad financial assistance through the purchase of preference shares (45 U.S.C. 825), and the issuance of loan guarantees (45 U.S.C. 831). The FRA regulations implementing the preference share program were eliminated on February 9, 1996, due to the fact that the authorization for the program expired (28 FR 4937). The FRA regulations implementing the loan guarantee provisions of Title V of the Act are contained in 49 CFR part 260. Section 7203 of TEA 21, Public Law 105-178 (June 9, 1998), replaces the existing Title V financing programs. The collection of information is used by FRA staff to determine the financial eligibility of applicants for a loan regarding eligible projects for the improvement/rehabilitation of rail equipment or facilities, the refinancing of outstanding debt for these purposes, or the development of new intermodal or railroad facilities. The aggregate unpaid principal amounts of obligations can not exceed $3.5 billion at any one time and not less than $1 billion is to be available solely for projects benefitting freight railroads other than Class I carriers. *Annual Estimated Burden Hours:* 2,213 hours. *Title:* U.S. Locational Requirement for Dispatching U.S. Rail Operations. *OMB Control Number:* 2130-0556. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Railroads. *Abstract:* Part 241 requires, in the absence of a waiver, that all dispatching of railroad operations that occurs in the United States be performed in this country, with a minor exception. A railroad is allowed to conduct extraterritorial dispatching from Mexico or Canada in emergency situations, but only for the duration of the emergency. A railroad relying on the exception must provide written notification of its action to the FRA Regional Administrator of each FRA region in which the railroad operation occurs; such notification is not required before addressing the emergency situation. The information collected under this rule will be used as part of FRA's oversight function to ensure that extraterritorial dispatchers comply with applicable safety regulations. *Annual Estimated Burden Hours:* 16 hours. *Addressee:* Send comments regarding this information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. *Comments are invited on the following:* Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of the proposed information collections; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Issued in Washington, DC on November 16, 2005. D.J. Stadtler, Director, Office of Budget, Federal Railroad Administration. [FR Doc. E5-6527 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Bay Area To Central Valley High-Speed Train Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that FRA with the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) will jointly prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement

(EIS)and programmatic (program) environmental impact report

(EIR)for the San Francisco Bay Area to Central Valley portion of the California High-Speed Train

(HST)System in compliance with state and Federal laws, in particular the California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA)and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). FRA is also issuing this notice to solicit public and agency input into the development of the scope of the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS and to advise the public that outreach activities conducted by the Authority and its representatives will be considered in the preparation of the EIR/EIS. The FRA and the Authority recently completed a Program EIR/EIS as the first-phase of a tiered environmental review process for the Proposed California HST system, and as part of the selected HST Alternative defined a broad corridor between the Bay Area and Central Valley generally bounded by (and including) the Pacheco Pass (SR-152) to the South, the Altamont Pass (I-580) to the North, the BNSF Corridor to the East, and the Caltrain Corridor to the West. The Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS will further examine this broad corridor as the next phase of the tiered environmental review process. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the programmatic environmental review, please contact: Mr. Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814, (telephone 916-324-1541) or Mr. David Valenstein, Environmental Program Manager, Office of Passenger Programs, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue (Mail Stop 20), Washington, DC 20590, (telephone 202 493-6368). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The need for a high-speed train

(HST)system is directly related to the expected growth in population and resulting increases in intercity travel demand in California over the next twenty years and beyond. As a result of this growth in travel demand, there will be more travel delays from the growing congestion on California's highways and at airports. In addition, there will be effects on the economy and quality of life from a transportation system that is less and less reliable as travel demand increases and from deteriorating air quality in and around California's metropolitan areas. The intercity highway system, commercial airports, and conventional passenger rail serving the intercity travel market are currently operating at or near capacity, and will require large public investments for maintenance and expansion in order to meet existing demand and future growth. The proposed high HST system would provide a new mode of high-speed intercity travel that would link the major metropolitan areas of the state; interface with international airports, mass transit, and highways; and provide added capacity to meet increases in intercity travel demand in California in a manner sensitive to and protective of California's unique natural resources. Background The California High-Speed Rail Commission, established in 1993 to investigate the feasibility of high-speed rail in California, concluded that a HST system is technically, environmentally, and economically feasible and set forth recommendations for the technology, corridors, financing, and operations of a proposed system. Following the Commission's work, a new nine-member California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) was established in 1996 and is authorized and directed by statute to undertake the planning for the development of a proposed statewide HST network that is fully coordinated with other public transportation services. The Legislature has granted the Authority the powers necessary to oversee the construction and operation of a statewide HST network once financing is secured. As part of the Authority's efforts to implement a HST system, the Authority adopted a Final Business Plan in June 2000, which reviewed the economic feasibility of a 700-mile-long HST system capable of speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour on a dedicated, fully grade-separated state-of-the-art track. The FRA has responsibility for oversight of the safety of railroad operations, including the safety of any proposed high-speed ground transportation system. For the California proposal, the FRA would need to take certain regulatory actions before any new high-speed train system could operate. Between 2001 and 2005, the Authority and FRA completed a Program EIR/EIS for the proposed California HST System. The Authority certified the Program EIR under CEQA and approved the proposed HST System, and the FRA issued a Record of Decision under NEPA on the Program EIS for the proposed California HST system. The Program EIR/EIS established the purpose and need for the HST system, analyzed a proposed high-speed train alternative and compared it with a No Project/No Action Alternative and a Modal Alternative. In conjunction with approving the Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and the FRA selected the High-Speed Train Alternative and selected certain corridors/general alignments, general station locations, mitigation strategies, design practices and further measures to guide development of the HST system at the site-specific project level to avoid and minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. For the Bay Area to Central Valley segment, the Authority and FRA selected a broad corridor between the Bay Area and the Central Valley containing a number of feasible route options and proposed further study in this area to make programmatic selections of alignments and stations. The FRA consulted with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and CEQ concurred that the proposed tiering of programmatic decisions for this segment would be consistent with NEPA and would support compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The primary purpose of the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS environmental process is to do further studies to help identify a preferred alignment between these two parts of the state. The preparation of this Program EIR/EIS is being coordinated with the concurrent preparation of a Bay Area Regional Rail Plan by a coalition of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Peninsula Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) and the Authority. Bay Area voters in 2004 passed Regional Measure 2, which requires MTC to adopt a Regional Rail Plan. As stipulated in the Streets and Highways Code Section 30914.5 (f), the Regional Rail Plan will define the future passenger rail transportation network for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, including an evaluation of the HST options. Information on the Regional Rail Plan is available on the Internet at: *http://www.bayarearailplan.info.* Alternatives An initial alternatives evaluation will consider all reasonable HST alignment and station options within the selected broad corridor at a programmatic level of analysis to identify the most practical and feasible HST options for analysis in the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS. The alternatives will include: *No-Action Alternative:* The take no action (No-Project) alternative is defined to serve as the baseline for comparison of HST alternatives. The No-Build Alternative represents the state's transportation system (highway, air, and conventional rail) as it exists in 2005, and as it would exist after completion of programs or projects currently planned for funding and implementation by 2020, according to the following sources of information: • State Transportation Improvement Program

(STIP)• Regional Transportation Plans

(RTPs)for all modes of travel • Airport plans • Intercity passenger rail plans (Amtrak Five- and Twenty-year Plans) *High-Speed Train Alternatives:* The Authority and FRA have selected a steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HST system for advancement, over 700 miles long (1,126-kilometer long) capable of speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour

(mph)(320 kilometers per hour [km/h]) on dedicated, fully grade-separated tracks, with state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated train control systems that would serve the major metropolitan centers of California, extending from Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area, through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles, Orange County, the Inland Empire, and San Diego. The Authority and the FRA have also selected a broad corridor for the HST between the Bay Area and Merced generally bounded by (and including) the Pacheco Pass (SR-152) to the South, the Altamont Pass (I-580) to the North, the BNSF Corridor to the East, and the Caltrain Corridor to the West. Within this corridor there are several potential alignments and potential station locations that will be considered. In heavily constrained urban areas, potential alignments that assume sharing corridors and/or tracks with other passenger rail services will be considered. The Authority and FRA will consider all reasonable and practical HST alignment and station alternatives and will focus the program environmental analysis on the alternatives that best meet the purpose and need of the HST system. Within the previously selected broad corridor, the Authority would not pursue alignments through Henry Coe State Park or a station at Los Banos. Station placement would be determined on the basis of ridership potential, system-wide needs, and local planning constraints/conditions. Station placement will be coordinated with local and regional planning agencies, and will provide for seamless connectivity with other modes of travel. Potential station locations to be evaluated further include: Gilroy, San Jose, Redwood City, San Francisco International Airport (SFO), San Francisco, Merced, Modesto, Tracy, Pleasanton, Fremont/Union City, Oakland International Airport (OAK), and Oakland. The potential sites listed represent general locations for planning purposes. Scoping and Comments FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS process during scoping and review of the resulting environmental documents. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested agencies and the public at large to insure the full range of issues related to the proposed action and all reasonable alternatives are addressed and all significant issues are identified. In particular, FRA is interested in determining whether there are areas of environmental concern where there might be the potential for significant impacts identifiable at a programmatic level. Public agencies with jurisdiction are requested to advise the FRA and the Authority of the applicable environmental review requirements of each agency, and the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to the agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Public “scoping” meetings have been scheduled together with regional rail plan workshops as an important component of the scoping process for both the State and Federal environmental review. Scoping meetings will be advertised locally and additional public notice will be provided separately with the dates, times, and locations of these scoping meetings. Scoping meetings are scheduled for the following major cities: • Oakland on November 29, 2005—Joseph P. Bort Metrocenter, Larry Dahms Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. • San Jose on November 30, 2005—New San Jose City Hall—Council Wing, Community Room, W120, 200 East Santa Clara Street, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. • San Francisco on December 1, 2005—San Francisco Civic Center Complex, Hiram Johnson Building, Auditorium, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. • Livermore on December 5, 2005—Livermore public San Francisco Civic Center Complex, Hiram Johnson Building, San Diego Room, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. • Modesto on December 6, 2005—DoubleTree Hotel, 1150 Ninth Street, Modesto, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. • Suisun City on December 8, 2005—Suisun City Hall, Council Chambers, 701 Civic Center Blvd., from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Persons interested in providing comments on the scope of the programmatic EIR/EIS should do so by December 16, 2005. Comments can be sent in writing to Mr. David Valenstein at the FRA address identified above. Comments may also be addressed to Mr. Dan Leavitt of the Authority at their address identified above. Information and documents regarding the environmental review process will also be made available through the Authority's Internet site: *http://www.cahighspeedrail.gov/.* Issued in Washington, DC, on November 18, 2005. Mark E. Yachmetz, Associate Administrator for Railroad Development. [FR Doc. E5-6526 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2005-23093] Ferrari S.p.A and Ferrari North America, Inc.; Receipt of Application for a Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 In accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR part 555, Ferrari S.p.A. and Ferrari North America (collectively, “Ferrari”) have applied for a Temporary Exemption from S14.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection,* for the Ferrari F430 model vehicle. The basis of the application is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard. 1 1 To view the application using the Docket number listed above, please go to: *http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm.* We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2), and have made no judgment on the merits of the application. DATES: You should submit your comments not later than December 28, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Calamita in the Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-112, (Phone: 202-366-2992; Fax 202-366-3820; E-Mail: *Christopher.calamita@nhtsa.dot.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Background A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production does not exceed 10,000, as determined by the NHTSA Administrator (15 U.S.C. 1410(d)(1)). Ferrari's total production is approximately 4,000 vehicles per year. Fiat S.p.A., a major vehicle manufacturer, holds a majority interest in Ferrari. Consistent with past determinations, NHTSA has determined that Fiat's interest in Ferrari does not result in the production threshold being exceeded (see, 54 FR 46321; November 2, 1989). The statutory provisions governing motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) do not include any provision indicating that a person is a manufacturer of a vehicle by virtue of ownership or control of another person that is a manufacturer. NHTSA has stated, however, that a person may be a manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured by another person if the first person has a sufficiently substantial role in the manufacturing process that it can be deemed the sponsor of the vehicle. The agency considers the statutory definition of “manufacturer” (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. In the present instance, the Ferrari F430 bears no resemblance to any motor vehicle designed or manufactured by Fiat, and the agency understands that the F430 was designed and engineered without assistance from Fiat. Further, the agency understands that such assistance as Ferrari may receive from Fiat relating to use of test facilities and the like is an arms length transaction for which Ferrari pays Fiat. Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that Fiat is not a manufacturer of Ferrari vehicles by virtue of being a sponsor. II. Why Ferrari Needs a Temporary Exemption and How Ferrari Has Tried in Good Faith to Comply With FMVSS No. 208 Ferrari states that the F430 was originally designed in the mid-1990s and was originally designated as the 360 model. The petitioner states that the Modena (coupe) version of the 360 was launched in 1999, followed by the Spider (convertible) version in 2000, and the Challenge Stradale in 2003. Production of these vehicles continued until the end of 2004. According to the petitioner, shortly thereafter Ferrari began an aesthetic redesign of the vehicle, relying on the same chassis. Ferrari stated that the redesigned vehicle, the F430, will be produced until late 2008. According to Ferrari, 2008 will mark the end of the life cycle for the 360/F430 vehicle. The petitioner states that the 360 and F430 were designed to comply, and do comply, with all of the FMVSSs in effect at the time the 360 was originally designed. The petitioner stated that the provisions of FMVSS No. 208 established in 2000 (65 FR 30680; May 12, 2000; Advanced Air Bag rule) were not anticipated by Ferrari when the 360 vehicle model was designed. Ferrari stated that it has been able to bring the F430 into compliance with all of the high-speed belted and unbelted crash test requirements of the Advanced Air Bag rule. However, it stated that it has not been able to bring the vehicle into compliance with the child out-of-position requirements (S19, S21, and S23), and the 5th percentile adult female out-of-position requirements for the driver seat (S25). Ferrari stated that despite efforts to involve numerous potential suppliers, it has not identified any that are willing to work with the company to develop an occupant classification system that would comply with the S19, S21, S23, and S25. Moreover, Ferrari stated that it is unable to reconfigure the F430 to accommodate an occupant classification system and air bag design that would comply with these requirements. Ferrari has requested an exemption for the F430 from the advanced air bag provisions in FMVSS No. 208 during model years 2007 and 2008 (i.e., September 1, 2006 through August 31, 2008). Ferrari claims that compliance with the advanced air bag provisions would result in substantial economic hardship and has filed this petition under 49 CFR 555.6(a). Ferrari stated that its inability to sell the F430 in the United States through 2007 would lead to a substantial loss of sales and revenue. Ferrari stated that in 2004, sales of the 8-cylinder 360 models, those models being replaced by the F430, accounted for 86 percent of its U.S. sales. Ferrari projected that if it were unable to sell the F430 model in the U.S., it would realize a decrease in net profit of approximately 44 million Euros ($53,000,000) in 2007. Ferrari stated that such consequences demonstrate “substantial economic hardship” within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i). Ferrari has requested that additional specific details regarding its finances and financial forecasts be afforded confidential treatment under 49 CFR 512.4, *Asserting a claim for confidential information* . We have determined that this information is to be afforded such treatment. III. Why an Exemption Would Be in the Public Interest The petitioner put forth several arguments in favor of a finding that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest. Specifically: 1. Ferrari states that the vehicle is equipped with a variety of “active safety” systems beyond that required by the FMVSSs and that these systems “significantly improve vehicle handling and enhance controllability.” Such systems include the Manettino control system, which adjusts vehicle handling and stability to specific driving conditions; the Control Stability System, an electronic stability control system; Electro-Hydraulic Differential, a system that manages torque distribution between the two rear wheels to improve stability; Continuous Damping Control, a system that adjusts to road conditions in order to improve braking; and “Sky-Hook” strategy. 2 2 The “Skyhook” strategy detaches the vehicle body, as a sprung mass, from what is taking place on the axles and wheels by calming the movement of the body * * * In addition to improved comfort, this provides for “optimal control of the vehicle body at all times.” Page 10 of the petition. 2. The petitioner states that the F430 also has a variety of passive safety features not required under the FMVSS, including seat belt pretensioners and a fuel system that complies with the upgraded fuel system integrity requirements in advance of the compliance date. 3. Ferrari notes that the requirements for which the F430 does not comply are primarily designed to protect children from injuries due to air bag deployment. Ferrari argues that it is unlikely that young children would be passengers in the vehicles covered by the exemption. 4. Ferrari states that the F430 will have a manual on/off switch for the passenger air bag. Ferrari also notes that a child restraint system that automatically suppresses the passenger air bag when properly installed would be available upon request of a consumer at no cost. 5. Ferrari states that the F430 was designed and marketed as a high performance, racing type vehicle, and therefore would have negligible on-road operation. Thus, Ferrari states, the impact of the exemption is expected to be minimal. 6. Ferrari argues that granting the exemption would increase choices available to the U.S. driving population in the high-performance vehicle segment. 7. The petitioner argues that granting the exemption would maintain the viability of U.S. firms associated with the sales and maintenance associated with the F430. Ferrari projects the F430 to be a major part of Ferrari sales in the U.S. during the two-year period for which an exemption has been requested. IV. How You May Comment on the Ferrari Application We invite you to submit comments on the application described above. You may submit comments [identified by the DOT Docket number in the heading of this document] by any of the following methods: • Web Site: *http://dms.dot.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site by clicking on “Help and Information” or “Help/Info.” • Fax: 1-202-493-2251. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number

(RIN)for this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket in order to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . We shall consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated below. To the extent possible, we shall also consider comments filed after the closing date. We shall publish a notice of final action on the application in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the authority indicated below. (49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8) Issued on: November 18, 2005. Roger A. Saul, Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards. [FR Doc. E5-6551 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2005-23083] Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 2005 Lamborghini Murcielago Roadster Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2005 Lamborghini Murcielago roadster passenger cars are eligible for importation. SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2005 Lamborghini Murcielago roadster passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States because

(1)they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and

(2)they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards. DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 28, 2005. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the **Federal Register** of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the **Federal Register** . Automobile Concepts, Inc. (“AMC”), of North Miami, Florida (Registered Importer 01-278) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2005 Lamborghini Murcielago roadster passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which AMC believes are substantially similar are 2005 Lamborghini Murcielago roadster passenger cars that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 2005 Lamborghini Murcielago roadster passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards. AMC submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2005 Lamborghini Murcielago roadster passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2005 Lamborghini Murcielago roadster passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102 *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect,* 103 *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems,* 104 *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems,* 106 *Brake Hoses,* 109 *New Pneumatic Tires,* 113 *Hood Latch System,* 116 *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids,* 118 *Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems,* 124 *Accelerator Control Systems,* 135 *Passenger Car Brake Systems,* 201 *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,* 202 *Head Restraints,* 204 *Steering Control Rearward Displacement,* 205 *Glazing Materials,* 206 *Door Locks and Door Retention Components,* 207 *Seating Systems,* 212 *Windshield Mounting,* 214 *Side Impact Protection,* 219 *Windshield Zone Intrusion,* 225 *Child Restraint Anchorage Systems,* 301 *Fuel System Integrity,* 302 *Flammability of Interior Materials,* and 401 *Interior Trunk Release.* In addition, the petitioner claims that the vehicles comply with the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR part 581. The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated: Standard No. 101 *Controls and Displays:* Installation of a U.S.-model instrument cluster and associated software, or installation of an indicator lamp lens cover inscribed with the word “brake” in the instrument cluster in place of the one inscribed with the international ECE warning symbol and conversion of the speedometer to read in miles per hour. Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment:*

(A)Installation of rear side marker lamps that incorporate rear side-mounted reflex reflectors; and

(b)inspection of all vehicles and replacement of any non U.S.-model components necessary to meet the requirements of this standard with U.S.-model components on vehicles that are not already so equipped. Standard No. 110 *Tire Selection and Rims:* Installation of a tire information placard. Standard No. 111 *Rearview Mirrors:* Installation of a U.S.-model passenger side rearview mirror, or inscription of the required warning statement on the face of that mirror. Standard No. 114 *Theft Protection:* Installation of U.S. version software, or installation a supplemental warning buzzer to meet the requirements of this standard. Standard No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection:*

(a)Installation of U.S. version software, or installation of a supplemental buzzer system to ensure that the seat belt warning system conforms to the requirements of this standard; and

(b)inspection of all vehicles and replacement of any non U.S.-model components necessary to meet the requirements of this standard with U.S.-model components on vehicles that are not already so equipped. Petitioner states that the restraint systems used at the front outboard seating positions include airbags and knee bolsters as well as combination lap and shoulder belts. These seat belt systems are self-tensioning and release by means of a single red pushbutton. Standard No. 209 *Seat Belt Assemblies:* Inspection of all vehicles and replacement of any non-U.S.-model seat belts with U.S.-model components on vehicles that are not already so equipped. Standard No. 210 *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages:* Inspection of all vehicles and replacement of any non-U.S.-model seat belt anchorages with U.S.-model components on vehicles that are not already so equipped. The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted. All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the authority indicated below. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. E5-6529 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22654] Notice of Tentative Decision To Partially Rescind Decision That Nonconforming 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of tentative decision to partially rescind decision that nonconforming 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars are eligible for importation. SUMMARY: This document provides notice that NHTSA has tentatively decided to partially rescind its decision that 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States. If NHTSA makes this rescission, Nissan R33 model GTS and GTR passenger cars manufactured between January 1996 and June 1998 would be eligible for importation following the decision; the others would not be eligible for importation following the decision. DATES: The closing date for comments on the tentative decision is December 28, 2005. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.] Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. Where there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) permits a nonconforming motor vehicle to be admitted into the United States if its safety features comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or other evidence (such as an engineering analysis) that NHTSA decides is adequate. Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the **Federal Register** of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the **Federal Register** . NHTSA was petitioned by a registered importer to decide whether 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR Passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. To afford an opportunity for public comment, NHTSA published notice of this petition under Docket Number NHTSA-99-5507 on April 16, 1999 (64 FR 18963). As stated in the notice, the petitioner claimed that 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars have safety features that comply with many standards that apply to passenger cars of the model years in question, and are capable of being altered to comply with other applicable standards. With respect to FMVSS No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, the petitioner stated that the driver's air bags on 1990-1993 models, and the driver and passenger's air bags on 1994-1999 models, would need to be replaced with components manufactured to petitioner's specifications based on the results of dynamic tests conducted by MGA Research Corporation. As indicated by the petitioner, these tests were conducted after it had made certain structural modifications to the vehicles. No comments were received in response to the notice of petition. Based on its review of the information submitted by the petitioner, NHTSA granted the petition on November 15, 1999, and assigned Vehicle Eligibility Number VCP-17 to vehicles admissible under its decision. The agency published notice of the decision on January 19, 2000 (65 FR 3002). The agency has obtained information from Nissan North America, Inc., on behalf of Nissan Motor Company, LTD (Nissan) of Tokyo, Japan, the manufacturer of Nissan 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars. Nissan informed the agency that it manufactured three distinct GTS and GTR models from 1990 to 1999, designated as the R32, the R33, and the R34 models, respectively. Nissan stated that the R32, the R33, and the R34 models differ in terms of their “structural design and restraint performance,” and that each of the models, which followed a chronological sequence, was “newly designed and different from the type preceding it.” Nissan confirmed that the company received official type approval from the Japanese government for each model separately, and that it was “highly likely that each model type would perform differently in the crash tests required by the FMVSS.” Nissan also provided a chart showing production “start” and “end” dates for the R32, the R33, and the R34 models. The R32 models were manufactured from May 1989 through November 1994; the R33 models were manufactured from August 1993 through June 1998; and the R34 models were manufactured from November 1997 through August 2002. Included in the chart is information identifying the production “start” dates when air bags were offered as an option and as standard equipment at both the driver and the front passenger's seating positions on the R32, the R33, and the R34 model vehicles. The agency did not have this information from Nissan at the time of its original decision to grant import eligibility to 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars. Instead, the agency heavily relied on the results of static and dynamic tests on two modified 1996 R33 model vehicles, which, in its overall context, the original petition suggested were representative. As indicated in the original petition, the petitioner had made structural modifications to these two vehicles and replaced the air bags at the driver's and the front passenger's seating positions with components manufactured to its own specifications. The petitioner did not demonstrate full compliance with the performance requirements of FMVSS 208 and other crashworthiness standards ( *e.g.* , FMVSS Nos. 210 *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages* , 212 *Windshield Mounting* and 301 *Fuel System Integrity* ) for R32 and R34 models because no test data was provided to the agency. The agency's decision to grant import eligibility to 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars also relied on the petitioner's assertion that the original equipment driver's air bag on 1990-1993 models, and the driver and passenger's air bags on 1994-1999 models would be replaced with components manufactured to the petitioner's specifications. However, the air bag production chart provided by Nissan shows that no driver's air bags were available in the R32 GTS model until August 1991. For the R32 GTR model, no driver's air bag was offered until February 1994, and it was then offered only as optional equipment. Nissan did not offer passenger's air bags in the R32 model. Nissan began production of the R33 model in August 1993, offering both driver and passenger's air bags as optional equipment on the GTS model. It was not until January 1995 that a driver's air bag was offered on the GTR model. As of January 1995, the driver's air bag became standard on both GTS and GTR models. One year later, in January 1996, the passenger's air bag became standard on both GTS and GTR models. Nissan has informed the agency that it does not possess records that would allow it to determine whether any individual vehicle had the air bags installed when those air bags were offered as optional equipment. The agency can only be assured that R33 vehicles, produced by Nissan beginning in January 1996, will have both driver and passenger's air bags installed as original equipment. On the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the original grant of eligibility to the 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars, comprising R32, R33, and R34 model vehicles, was overly broad. As a consequence, the agency has tentatively decided to rescind that decision in part. If it makes this rescission, only Nissan R33 model GTS and GTR passenger cars manufactured between January 1996 and June 1998 will be eligible for importation in the future. Vehicle Eligibility Number The importer of a vehicle admissible under any import eligibility decision must enter on the HS-7 Declaration form covering the entry the appropriate vehicle eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is eligible for importation. Vehicle eligibility number VCP-17 is currently assigned to 1990-1999 Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars. If this tentative decision is made final, NHTSA will rescind that eligibility number and assign a new eligibility number to Nissan GTS and GTR passenger cars manufactured between January 1996 and June 1998 that are to remain eligible for importation. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the tentative decision described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted. All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action will be published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the authority indicated below. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: November 21, 2005. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. E5-6530 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Privacy Act of 1974; as Amended AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of alteration of Privacy Act system of records. SUMMARY: The Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, gives notice of a proposed alteration to the system of records entitled, “Treasury/IRS 34.022—National Background Investigation Center Management Information System,” which is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a. DATES: Comments must be received no later than December 28, 2005. The alteration will be effective January 9, 2006 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Office of Governmental Liaison & Disclosure, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. Comments will be made available for public inspection and copying in the Internal Revenue Service Freedom of Information Reading Room, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 1621, Washington, DC 20224, telephone number

(202)622-5164, (not a toll free call). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Anderson, Program Analyst, Personnel Security Office, Internal Revenue Service,

(703)647-5477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the alteration is to reflect changes in the system name resulting from system upgrade, system location, record access procedures, and system manager. The alteration will more accurately describe the categories of individuals and records in the system. The alteration is also adding a routine use permitting the disclosure of information to a contractor. The system notice was last published in its entirety in the **Federal Register** , Vol. 66, Number 237, pages 63817-63818, on December 10, 2001. The specific changes to the system notice are as follows: The title of the system of records “National Background Investigation Center Management Information System (NBICMIS)” is being changed to: “Automated Background Investigations System (ABIS). The abbreviation “NBICMIS” which appears throughout the notice is being changed to “ABIS.” The system location is being changed to National Background Investigations Center, 5 Spiral Drive, Suite 2, Florence, KY 41042-1395. Under “categories of individuals covered by the system,” new categories of contractors are being added, as well as a category for IRS employees that require or hold a security clearance. The “categories of records” section is being revised by removing the word “timekeeping” and by adding as a category information about security clearances and the status of the clearances. The Authority for Maintenance of the System is revised to include a new Executive Order 12674 (as modified by Executive Order 12731). Under “routine uses of records maintained in the system,” a new routine use (routine use (9)), is being proposed to permit disclosure of information to a government contractor. Under “retrievability” the description is being revised to include additional means of retrieving information. Under “safeguards” the first sentence is revised to reflect access by additional categories of individuals. Information provided under “retention and disposal,” “system manager(s) and address,” and “record access procedures” is being updated to reflect changes to records manuals, addresses and titles. Under “record source categories” the text is being updated to include information obtained from contractors. Under “exemptions claimed for the system,” the language is being revised to show that the exemption being claimed will be changed from 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5). In a proposed rulemaking being published separately in the **Federal Register** , the Department is proposing to amend its regulations at 31 CFR 1.36. The amendment will change the basis of the exemption claimed for this system of records from that which is provided under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), to that which is provided under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5). The report of an altered system of records, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, has been submitted to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated November 30, 2000. The revised notice for Treasury/IRS 34.022—Automated Background Investigations System

(ABIS)is published in its entirety below. Dated: October 3, 2005. Sandra L. Pack, Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer. Treasury/IRS 34.022 System name: Automated Background Investigations System (ABIS)—Treasury/IRS. System location: National Background Investigations Center, 5 Spiral Drive, Suite 2, Florence, KY 41042. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Current and former employees of the Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of the Mint within the Department of the Treasury, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and private contractors employed by IRS to perform work at IRS facilities, leased space or on IRS systems; contractors employed by the Department of the Treasury; permanent and temporary employees of banks contracted to perform Lockbox activities (the processing of Federal tax payments) for the IRS; and employees of the Internal Revenue Service requiring a security clearance, having their security clearance cancelled or transferred. Categories of records in the system:

(1)ABIS records contain National Background Investigations Center

(NBIC)employee name, office, start of employment, series/grade, title, separation date;

(2)ABIS tracking records contain status information on investigations from point of initiation through conclusion;

(3)ABIS records contain assigned cases and distribution of time;

(4)ABIS case tracking records contain background investigations, and

(5)levels of clearance, date of clearance and any change in status of clearance. Authority for maintenance of the system: 5 U.S.C. 301; 26 U.S.C. 7602, 7608, 7801 and 7803; Executive Order 12674 (as modified by Executive Order 12731). Purpose(s): The purpose of ABIS is to:

(1)Effectively manage NBIC resources and assess the effectiveness of current NBIC programs as well as assist in determining budget and staff requirements.

(2)Provide the technical ability for other components of the Service to analyze trends in integrity matters on an organizational, geographic and violation basis. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: Disclosure of returns and return information may be made only as provided by 26 U.S.C. 6103. Records other than returns and return information may be used to:

(1)Disclose pertinent information to appropriate Federal, State, local, or foreign agencies, or other public authority, responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, where the disclosing agency becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation;

(2)Disclose information to the Department of Justice for the purpose of litigating an action or seeking legal advice. Disclosure may be made during judicial processes;

(3)Disclose information to a Federal, State, local, or other public authority, maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, which has requested information relevant to or necessary to the requesting agency's, bureau's, or authority's hiring or retention of an individual, or issuance of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit;

(4)Disclose information in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which the agency is authorized to appear when:

(a)The agency, or

(b)any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or

(c)any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or the agency has agreed to represent the employee; or

(d)the United States, when the agency determines that litigation is likely to affect the agency, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the agency is deemed to be relevant and necessary to the litigation or administrative proceeding and not otherwise privileged;

(5)Provide information to a Congressional office in response to an inquiry made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains;

(6)Provide information to the news media in accordance with guidelines contained in 28 CFR 50.2 which relate to an agency's functions relating to civil and criminal proceedings;

(7)Provide information to third parties during the course of an investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation;

(8)Disclose information to a public or professional licensing organization when such information indicates, either by itself or in combination with other information, a violation or potential violation of professional standards, or reflects on the moral, educational, or professional qualifications of an individual who is licensed or who is seeking to become licensed;

(9)Disclose information to a contractor when necessary to perform a government contract. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Paper records and magnetic media. Retrievability: By name of individual to whom it applies, social security number, alias, date of birth, case controller, submitting office number, case type, case number or a combination of these fields. Safeguards: Access is limited to authorized IRS personnel including IRS and other U.S. Treasury Department contractors who have a direct need to know. Hard copy of data is stored in rooms of limited accessibility except to employees. These rooms are locked after business hours. Access to magnetic media is controlled by computer passwords. Access to specific ABIS records is further limited by computer security programs limiting access to select personnel. Retention and disposal: Records are maintained in accordance with IRM 1.15, Records Disposition Handbook. System manager(s) and address: Official prescribing policies and practices: Chief, Mission Assurance. Official maintaining the system: Associate Director, Personnel Security and Investigations, National Background Investigations Center, 5 Spiral Drive, Suite 2, Florence, KY 41042. Notification procedure: Individuals seeking to determine if this system of records contains a record pertaining to them may inquire in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, appendix B. Inquiries should be addressed as in “Record access procedures” below. Record access procedures: Individuals seeking access to this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may inquire in accordance with instructions appearing at 31 CFR part 1, subpart C, appendix B. Inquiries should be addressed to IRS Personnel Security and Investigations, OS:MA:AP:PS, 5205 Leesburg Pike, Suite 510, Falls Church, VA 22041-3802, Attn: Disclosure Staff. Contesting record procedures: 26 U.S.C. 7852(e) prohibits Privacy Act amendment of tax records. Record source categories: Current and former employees of the Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Mint and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Private contractors employed by IRS to perform work at IRS facilities, leased space or on IRS systems. Contractors employed by the Department of the Treasury. Permanent and temporary employees of banks contracted to perform Lockbox activities for the IRS. Exemptions claimed for the system: The provisions of the Privacy Act from which this system of records is exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5) are as follows: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f). (See 31 CFR 1.36.) [FR Doc. E5-6588 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Office of Research and Development; Government Owned Invention Available for Licensing AGENCY: Office of Research and Development, VA. ACTION: Notice of Government owned invention available for licensing. SUMMARY: The invention listed below is owned by the U.S. Government as represented by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and is available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 and/or Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) Collaboration under 15 U.S.C. 3710a to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development. Foreign patents are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for U.S. companies and may also be available for licensing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical and licensing information on the invention may be obtained by writing to: Amy E. Centanni, Department of Veterans Affairs, Director, Technology Transfer Program, Office of Research and Development, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420; fax: 202-254-0255; e-mail at: *amy.centanni@mail.va.gov.* Any request for information should include the Number and Title for the relevant invention as indicated below. Issued patents may be obtained from the Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC 20231. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invention available for licensing is: U.S. Patent Application No. 11/113,786 “Quantitation of Endothelial Microparticles.” Dated: November 18, 2005. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. [FR Doc. 05-23299 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 16

Traces to 16 documents

U.S. Code