Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-01-06 · NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION · Notices

Notices. Notice

25,779 words·~117 min read·/register/2006/01/06/06-110

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

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-17; License No. SNM-2509] In the Matter of PacifiCorp (Trojan Nuclear Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation); Order Approving Application Regarding Proposed Acquisition Indirect Transfer of Materials License SNM-2509 I By application dated June 30, 2005, and supplemented on August 12, 2005, PacifiCorp, together with PacifCorp Holdings, Inc., and MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company (MEHC), requested approval of the indirect transfer of control of Materials License No.
SNM-2509 for the Trojan Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), with regard to PacifiCorp's 2.5 percent interest in the Trojan ISFSI, to MEHC. PacifiCorp is a non-operating licensee of the Trojan ISFSI, and will continue to hold the license. The request was in connection with the sale of PacifiCorp, which will become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of MEHC. The supplemental letter cited above did not expand the scope of the application beyond that noticed in the **Federal Register** on July 27, 2005 (70 FR 43461).
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)10 CFR Part 50 license for the Trojan Nuclear Plant (License No. NPF-1) was terminated on May 23, 2005, after completion of the radiological decommissioning of the nuclear plant. The Trojan ISFSI holds spent fuel from the former Trojan Nuclear Plant. PacifiCorp is a wholly owned subsidiary of PacifiCorp Holdings, Inc. (PHI), which in turn is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Scottish Power, plc. PacifiCorp will be sold to PPW, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of MEHC. The name of the MEHC subsidiary that will acquire PacifiCorp was changed from NWQ Holdings, LLC to PPW Holdings, LLC. PacifiCorp operates an electric utility in six western states of the United States, serving approximately 1.6 million retail customers with annual revenues of approximately $3 billion per year. PacifiCorp will remain an electric utility after the sale to MEHC. MEHC, a global electric and natural gas utility operating in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Philippines, serves approximately 4.4 million electric customers and 680,000 natural gas customers. Its annual operating revenue is approximately $6.5 billion. MEHC will purchase all the outstanding shares of PacifiCorp from PHI for a value of approximately $9.4 billion, consisting of approximately $5.1 billion in cash and approximately $4.3 billion in net debt and preferred stock which will remain outstanding at PacifiCorp. The Trojan ISFSI is jointly owned by three licensees: Portland General Electric Company
(PGE)(67.5%); Eugene Water & Electric Board (30%); and PacifiCorp (2.5%). PGE has always been the sole operator of the Trojan ISFSI and will remain the sole operator. The Eugene Water & Electric Board and PacifiCorp are non-operating licensees. PacifiCorp has no right of access to the ISFSI. No physical changes will occur to the Trojan ISFSI as a result of the change in ownership of PacifiCorp. Thus, both the management and operation of the ISFSI will remain unchanged. II The applicant requested approval of the indirect transfer of the Trojan ISFSI license, to the extent held by PacifiCorp, to MEHC, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.50(a) which states: No license or any part included in a license issued under this part for an ISFSI [Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation] or MRS [Monitored Retrievable Storage Installation] shall be transferred, assigned, or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license to any person, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the indirect transfer of a license, if, after appropriate notice and observance of required procedures, the Commission determines that:
(1)The underlying transaction effecting the indirect transfer will not affect the qualifications of the holder of the license; and
(2)the indirect transfer of the license is consistent with applicable provisions of the law, and the regulations and orders issued by the Commission. Upon review of the information in the application, and other information before the Commission, the NRC staff has determined that MEHC's proposed purchase of all the outstanding shares of PacifiCorp from PHI will not affect the qualifications of PacifiCorp as holder of Materials License No. SNM-2509, and that the indirect transfer of the license, to the extent effected by the proposed acquisition, is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission, subject to the conditions set forth herein. These findings are supported by “Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, PacifiCorp, Trojan Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Docket No. 72-17,” dated October 27, 2005. III In view of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the acquisition of PacifiCorp by MEHC will not affect the qualifications of PacifiCorp to hold the Trojan ISFSI Materials License to the extent now held by PacifiCorp, and the indirect transfer of control of the license to MEHC is otherwise consistent with the applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 72.50, *it is hereby ordered* that the application regarding the indirect license transfer related to the proposed acquisition is approved, subject to the following conditions:
(1)PacifiCorp shall provide the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards a copy of any application, at the time it is filed, to transfer (excluding grants of security interests or liens) from PacifiCorp to its direct or indirect parent, or to any affiliated company, facilities for the production, transmission, or distribution of electric energy having a depreciated book value exceeding 10 percent (10%) of PacifiCorp's net utility plant, as recorded on its books of account.
(2)Should the proposed indirect license transfer not be completed by December 31, 2006, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, upon application and for good cause shown, such a date may be extended. This Order is effective upon issuance. For further details with respect to this Order, see the application dated June 30, 2005, and supplement dated August 12, 2005, and the safety evaluation report dated October 27, 2005, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 29th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Robert C. Pierson, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-9 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53040; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-116] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend a Pilot Program Relating to Electronic DPMs and Affiliated Market-Makers December 28, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (”Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 23, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change CBOE proposes to extend the pilot allowing Electronic DPMs (“e-DPMS”) to have up to one affiliated Market-Maker trade in classes assigned to the e-DPM. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.93(vii) to extend the pilot program allowing an e-DPM the option to have up to one separate affiliated Market-Maker physically present in the trading crowds where it operates as an e-DPM (such Market-Makers would be required to trade on a separate membership). The pilot would be extended from January 12, 2006 until September 14, 2006. In July of 2004, the SEC approved File No. SR-CBOE-2004-24, which established the e-DPM program, including the pilot program. 5 The pilot allows e-DPM firms to maintain a physical presence in the trading crowd through an affiliated Market-Maker, who would also be able to electronically stream a quote. The pilot, however, limits the number of separate affiliates per trading crowd to one. 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50003 (July 12, 2004), 69 FR 43028 (July 19, 2004). CBOE will be sending the Commission, under separate cover, data relating to:
(1)The size of the orders that e-DPM's and affiliated Market-Makers both trade with electronically;
(2)the price and size of the e-DPM's and the affiliated Market-Maker's respective quotes;
(3)the price and size of quotes of other participants in the classes where an e-DPM and an affiliate are quoting; and
(4)a breakdown of how orders are allocated to the e-DPM, the affiliated Market-Maker, and any other participants. The date chosen to extend the pilot program corresponds with the ending date of a matching pilot program for Remote Market-Makers
(RMMs)found in CBOE Rule 8.4(c)(i). Thus, the date chosen would allow the Commission to evaluate both pilot programs simultaneously. 2. Statutory Basis CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 6 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 7 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to protect investors and the public interest. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing proposed rule does not
(i)significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, provided that the Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 9 At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) of the Act, 10 the proposal does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission accelerate the 30-day operative date and waive the five day pre-filing requirement. The Commission, consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, has determined to accelerate the 30-day operative date and waive the five day pre-filing requirement, so that the e-DPM pilot program may continue without interruption. 11 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 11 For purposes only of accelerating the 30-day operative period for this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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-CBOE-2005-116 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-CBOE-2005-116. 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 the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2005-116 and should be submitted on or before January 27, 2006. 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-19 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53044; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-114] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Extension of the Prospective Fee Reduction and DPM Linkage Fee Credit Programs December 30, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 16, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On December 22, 2005, CBOE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 CBOE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by a self-regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 5 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No. 1, CBOE deleted all references to an extension of the Fixed Annual Fee Program. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change CBOE proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to extend through January 31, 2006 the Prospective Fee Reduction Program and the DPM Linkage Fees Credit Program. The text of the proposed rule change is available on CBOE's Web site, *http://www.cboe.com,* at CBOE's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to extend two Exchange-fee related programs through the end of January 2006: The Prospective Fee Reduction Program and the DPM Linkage Fees Credit Program. 6 Each program is currently due to expire at the end of 2005. The Exchange has determined to extend each of these programs for an additional month because the Exchange's 2006 budget is expected to be approved in January 2006. 6 *See* Sections 19 and 21 of the CBOE Fees Schedule, respectively. *Prospective Fee Reduction Program.* The Exchange proposes to continue the Prospective Fee Reduction Program (“PFRP”) through January 31, 2006. No other changes to the PFRP are proposed. The current PFRP took effect on August 1, 2004. 7 The PFRP is intended to reduce Market-Maker and DPM transaction fees in periods of high volume. The Exchange will determine as part of its annual budget review process whether the PFRP should be continued, modified or eliminated in the future. Any proposed changes to the PFRP would be filed with the Commission. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50175 (August 10, 2004), 69 FR 51129 (August 17, 2004) (SR-CBOE-2004-38). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52111 (July 22, 2005), 70 FR 43729 (July 28, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-52) (extension of PFRP through the end of 2005). *DPM Linkage Fees Credit Program.* The Exchange proposes to continue the DPM Linkage Fees Credit Program (“Linkage Fees Credit”) through January 31, 2006. No other changes to the Linkage Fees Credit are proposed. The Linkage Fees Credit took effect on February 2, 2004 and was amended twice. 8 The Linkage Fees Credit is a program that credits DPMs for transaction fees they incur related to the execution of outbound P/A orders, as defined in the Plan for the Purpose of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage, to assist DPMs in offsetting the additional costs they incur in routing orders to other exchanges in order to obtain the National Best Bid or Offer. The Exchange will determine as part of its annual budget review process whether the Linkage Fees Credit should be continued, modified or eliminated in the future. Any proposed changes to the Linkage Fees Credit would be filed with the Commission. 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 49341 (March 1, 2004), 69 FR 10492 (March 5, 2004) (SR-CBOE-2004-08); 49769 (May 25, 2004), 69 FR 31145 (June 2, 2004) (SR-CBOE-2004-13); and 52660 (October 24, 2005), 70 FR 62355 (October 31, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-80). 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 10 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE believes that the proposed rule change would impose no burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others CBOE did not solicit or receive any written comments with respect to the proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 11 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 12 thereunder. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 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. 13 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 13 The effective date of the original proposed rule change is December 16, 2005, and the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is December 22, 2005. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change, as amended, under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period to commence on December 22, 2005, the date on which CBOE submitted Amendment No. 1. *See* 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-CBOE-2005-114 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-114. 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 Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-CBOE-2005-114 and should be submitted on or before January 27, 2006. 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53045; File No. SR-PCX-2005-132] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Obligations of Lead Market Makers December 30, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 30, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “PCX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act, 3 which rendered the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to delete PCX Rule 6.82(c)(15) in its entirety. The Exchange also proposes to amend Commentary .02 to PCX Rule 6.82. The text of the proposed rule change is available on PCX's Web site, *http://www.pacificex.com* , at PCX's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Section. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The purpose of this filing is to delete PCX Rule 6.82(c)(15), a sub-paragraph of Obligations of Lead Market Makers. Along with the deletion of PCX Rule 6.82(c)(15), the PCX proposes to amend Commentary .02 to PCX Rule 6.82, which addresses PCX Rule 6.82(c)(15). This rule, dealing with the handling of public customer orders that are not automatically executed on the PCX because there is a better-displayed bid or offer on another exchange, is scheduled to be operative on January 1, 2006. Under PCX Rule 6.82(c)(15), when a public customer order is not automatically executed on the PCX due to a better bid or ask price being displayed on another exchange, a Lead Market Maker (“LMM”) is obligated, as soon as practical, to address the order by either executing the public customer order at a price that matches the best available price displayed at any other exchange or by routing the public customer order via intermarket linkage (“Linkage”) for execution at any other exchange displaying the best price in the market at the time. Outbound Linkage orders on the PCX are still handled via manual interaction with the Linkage system. Manual interaction with the Linkage system can be a time consuming process that potentially could result in the delay of a public customer order being executed at a better price available at a competing exchange. By deleting PCX Rule 6.82(c)(15), in the event that an LMM does not execute the order at the better price displayed on another exchange, the LMM would not be required to send the order to the competing exchange via Linkage. Public customer orders that are not executed on the PCX could still be rejected to the initiating brokerage firm for rerouting to a competing exchange. Due to delays in technology development, the PCX has not been able to implement an automated outbound Linkage function into the PCX Plus trading system. The PCX is presently developing a new enhanced options trading system, called the OX System. Included in the design plans for the OX System is functionality that will route outbound Linkage orders to other exchanges via an automated process. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 4 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act 5 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the proposed rule change:
(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii)by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 6 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 7 6 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 7 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period for “non-controversial” proposals and make the proposed rule change effective and operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, because PCX Rule 6.82(c)(15) has never become operative (as its operative date was January 1, 2006), and deleting a rule that has never become operative has no real effect and thus raises no issues of regulatory concern. For this reason, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 8 8 For the purposes only of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 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 the furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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-PCX-2005-132 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-PCX-2005-132. 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 the Exchange. 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-PCX-2005-132 and should be submitted on or before January 27, 2006. 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53043; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-72] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Remote Streaming Quote Trader Permit Fees December 29, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on November 10, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. On December 19, 2005, the Phlx submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Phlx pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 5 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. 6 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposed rule text to clarify that RSQTs and SQTs will be included in the ROT permit fee category. The Exchange also amended the purpose section to clarify that, by including RSQTs in the ROT permit fee category, the Exchange will be assessing a new permit fee on RSQTs. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 6 The effective date of the original proposed rule change is November 10, 2005, and the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is December 19, 2005. 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 December 19, 2005, the date on which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Phlx proposes to amend its permit fee schedule to assess a permit fee on Remote Streaming Quote Traders (“RSQTs”) 7 under the Registered Options Trader (“ROT”) permit fee category. In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend its permit fee schedule to clarify that Streaming Quote Traders (“SQTs”) 8 are currently included in the ROT permit fee category. 9 The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site ( *http://www.phlx.com* ), at the Phlx, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 7 An RSQT is an Exchange ROT that is a member or member organization of the Exchange with no physical trading floor presence who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically through the Exchange's Automated Options Market in eligible options in which such RSQT has been assigned. An RSQT may only trade in a market making capacity in classes of options in which he is assigned. An RSQT may only submit such quotations electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. *See* Phlx Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B). 8 An SQT is a ROT who has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically through an electronic interface with the Exchange's automated options market (“AUTOM”) via an Exchange approved proprietary electronic quoting device in eligible options to which the SQT is assigned. *See* Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii). 9 Currently, SQTs are assessed a permit fee under the ROT (on any trading floor) category, but are not specifically referred to on the Exchange's fee schedule. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx 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. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Phlx recently adopted equity option fees applicable to RSQTs. 10 In addition to the equity options fees assessed on RSQTs, RSQTs must also pay a monthly permit fee. Presently, RSQTs do not pay a ROT permit fee because they are not on any trading floor 11 and are thus not included in the ROT permit fee category on the Exchange's fee schedule. However, RSQTs pay a permit fee under another category of permit fees such as a specialist or an order flow provider. 12 Currently, monthly permit fees are assessed as follows: 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51428 (March 24, 2005), 70 FR 16325 (March 30, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-12). 11 *See* definition of “RSQT,” *supra* note 7. 12 The Exchange assesses permit fees on its members. Monthly permit fees are assessed based on how each permit is used, for example, order flow provider, specialist or floor broker. However, any member who qualifies a member organization in more than one category of permit fees pays the higher of the applicable fees for such permit. For example, if an RSQT permit holder qualifies a member organization as an order flow provider and the RSQT permit holder associated with the member organization then registered as a floor broker on the Exchange for that or another member organization, that RSQT permit holder would be subject to a permit fee of $1,200, the higher of $200 (the order flow provider permit fee) and $1,200 (the floor broker permit fee), but not both fees. Permit Fees 13 13 The Exchange has established the date of notification of termination of a permit as the date that permit fee billing will cease. Additionally, a permit holder will be billed only one monthly permit fee if the holder transfers from one member organization to another previously unrelated member organization as a result of a merger, partial sale or other business combination during a monthly permit fee period in order to avoid double billing in the month the merger or business combination occurred. If the permit holder transfers from one member organization to another unrelated member organization in the same month, both member organizations are assessed a permit fee in the same billing period. Order Flow Provider Permit Fee 14 14 This fee applies to a permit held by a permit holder who does not have physical access to the Exchange's trading floor, is not registered as a Floor Broker, Specialist or ROT (on any trading floor) or Off-Floor trader, and whose member organization submits orders to the Exchange. Phlx Rule 620(a) requires such registration. a. Permits used only to submit orders to the equity, foreign currency options, or options trading floor (one floor only): $200.00 per month. b. Permits used only to submit orders to more than one trading floor: $300.00 per month. Floor Broker, Specialist, or ROT (on any trading floor) or Off-Floor Trader Permit Fee a. First Permit: $1,200.00 per month. b. Additional permits for members in the same organization: $1,000.00 per month. Excess Permit Holders: $200.00 per month. Other Permit Holders: 15 $200.00 per month. 15 A permit holder or the member organization they solely qualify must apply for “other” status in writing to the Membership Services Department. This status requires that a permit holder or the member organization have no transaction activity for the applicable monthly billing period. Should a permit holder actively transact business during a particular month, the highest applicable monthly permit fee will apply to such permit holder and member organization for that monthly period. The “other” status only applies to permit holders who solely qualify their member organization. These policies were effective as of February 2, 2004. Any member who is associated with one or more member organizations and uses a permit in more than one category pays the higher of the applicable fees for such permit. Because RSQTs do not have a physical presence on the trading floor, but are a subset of ROTs, the Exchange proposes to assess the same permit fees on RSQTs as ROTs on any trading floor. As such, the Exchange proposes to replace the words “on any trading floor” that appear after the ROT category with “including RSQTs and SQTs.” 16 16 As a practical matter, the effect of including RSQTs in the ROT permit fee category should not increase overall costs to the RSQTs due to the fact that RSQTs receive a permit credit, which is applied against a member organization's RSQT fees. Specifically, pursuant to the Exchange's fee schedule, RSQTs are assessed an RSQT fee based on the number and type of option issues in which an RSQT is assigned. A credit is given to RSQTs based on the total number of permits held by the RSQT in a particular calendar month. For example, currently an RSQT may receive a monthly credit of $200 (which is the same amount as the permit fee) because the permit holder qualifies a member organization as an order flow provider. Now, under this proposal, the RSQT will be charged a higher permit fee of $1,200, but receive a permit credit of $1,200 to be applied against the RSQT fee. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51428 (March 24, 2005), 70 FR 16325 (March 30, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-12). In addition, although SQTs have a physical presence on the trading floor and are thus currently included in the ROT (on any trading floor) permit fee category, the Exchange proposes to specifically refer to SQTs on the fee schedule in order to help clarify that SQTs are also included in the ROT category. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act, 17 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, 18 in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among Exchange members. 17 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 18 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 19 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 20 thereunder. Accordingly, the proposal will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of Amendment No. 1 to 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. 21 19 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 20 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). 21 *See supra* note 6. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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-Phlx-2005-72 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-Phlx-2005-72. 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 Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-Phlx-2005-72 and should be submitted on or before January 27, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 22 22 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-21 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request The Social Security Administration
(SSA)publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for new information collections, approval of existing information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections, and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections. SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed and/or faxed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below:
(OMB)Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974.
(SSA)Social Security Administration, DCFAM, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1333 Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235. Fax: 410-965-6400. I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above. 1. Work Activity Report—Employee—20 CFR 404.1520(b), 404.1571-.1576, 404.1584-.1593, and 416.971-.976—0960-0059. Form SSA-821-BK collects information that provides evidence necessary to determine initial or continuing eligibility for Supplemental Security Income
(SSI)or Social Security disability benefits. An individual's entitlement to benefits ends if he/she demonstrates an ability to perform substantial gainful activity (SGA). This form is used to determine whether work an individual performs in employment is at the SGA level. The respondents are Social Security disability applicants and beneficiaries; and SSI applicants. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 300,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 45 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 225,000 hours. 2. Homeless Outreach Project and Evaluation (HOPE)—0960-0704. *Background* . Congress passed the McKinney Act of 1987 in recognition of and in an effort to address situations and conditions facing people without permanent shelter. The Act funded 15 emergency services and nine individual titles to authorize the provision of specific programs by Federal agencies. The Act also established the Interagency Council on Homelessness
(ICH)composed of leaders from 15 Federal agencies who are in charge of coordinating efforts to assist people who are homeless. During the past decade, SSA and other ICH agencies have compiled important data about people who are homeless and have carried out evaluations of services which have generated evidence about “best” or “promising practices” well suited to combating homelessness. In fiscal year 2003, President George W. Bush announced an initiative to end chronic homelessness in 10 years. As a result, SSA developed Project HOPE and in May 2004 awarded 34 Cooperative Agreements to organizations which provide outreach, support services and benefit application assistance to the chronically homeless and other underserved populations. An additional 7 cooperative agreements were awarded in November 2004 for a total of 41. The goal of Project HOPE is to improve both the quantity and quality of applications for disability benefits. Project HOPE gives focused support to Cooperative (co-op) awardees via a training program and ongoing technical assistance. *Evaluation of Project HOPE* . SSA uses the project HOPE evaluation to determine the effectiveness and the efficiency of the program. To obtain the information needed for the evaluation, SSA has developed an interactive Web site that is used by co-op awardees to input client and program data, and by SSA to communicate project-wide announcements to the awardees. The respondents are HOPE grantees/non-profit social services organizations serving people who are homeless and disabled. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 41. *Frequency of Response:* 12. *Average Burden Per Response:* 65 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 533 hours. 3. Report to United States Social Security Administration by Person Receiving Benefits for a Child or for an Adult Unable to Handle Funds and Report to United States Social Security Administration—0960-0049. SSA needs the information on Form SSA-7161-OCR-SM to monitor the performance of representative payees outside the U.S. and the information on SSA-7162-OCR-SM to determine continuing entitlement to Social Security benefits and correct benefit amounts for beneficiaries outside the U.S. The respondents are individuals outside the U.S. who are receiving benefits either for someone else, or on their own behalf under title II of the Social Security Act. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. Forms Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (in minutes) Burden hours SSA-7161-OCR-SM 30,000 1 15 7,500 SSA-7162-OCR-SM 227,000 1 5 18,917 Totals 257,000 26,417 II. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above. 1. Report of New Information in Disability Cases—20 CFR 404.460, 404.468, 404.408, and 404.1588—0960-0071. The information collected on the form SSA-612 is used to update the disability records of a respondent based on reported changes contained in the form. These changes may affect the respondent's Title II disability benefits. The respondents are applicants for Title II disability benefits. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 27,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 2,250 hours. 2. Statement of Marital Relationship (By one of the parties)—20 CFR 404.726—0960-0038. SSA uses the information collected on Form SSA-754-F4 to determine whether the conditions for establishing a common-law marriage under state law are met. The respondents are applicants for spouse's benefits. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 30,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 15,000 hours. 3. Employee Verification Service (EVS)—0960-0669. *Background* . Under Internal Revenue Service regulations, employers are required to provide wage and tax data to SSA using form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement or its electronic equivalent. As part of this process, the employer must furnish the employee's name and Social Security Number (SSN). This information must match SSA's records in order for the employee's wage and tax data to be properly posted to the earnings record. Information that is incorrectly provided to the Agency must be corrected by the employer using an amended reporting form, which is a labor-intensive and time-consuming process for both SSA and the employer. Therefore, to help ensure that employers provide accurate name and SSN information on their wage reports, SSA offers the EVS service whereby employers can verify, via magnetic tape, cartridge, diskette, paper, and telephone, if the reported name and SSN of their employee matches SSA's records. *EVS Collection* . SSA will use the information collected through the EVS to verify that the employee name and SSN information, provided by employers, matches SSA records. SSA will respond to the employer informing them only of matches and mismatches of submitted information. Respondents are employers who provide wage and tax data to SSA who elect to use EVS to verify their employees' names and SSNs. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-Approved Information Collection. *Number of Respondents:* 50,000. *Frequency of Response:* 12. *Average Burden per Response:* 10 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 100,000 hours. 4. Application for Parent's Insurance Benefits—20 CFR 404.370-404.374, 20 CFR 404.601-404.603—0960-0012. Form SSA-7-F6 collects information to entitle an individual to his parent's insurance benefits. The respondents are individuals who wish to apply to receive their parent's insurance benefits. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 1,400. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 350 hours. 5. Application for Supplemental Security Income—20 CFR 416.305-416.335—0960-0444. The information collected on the SSA-8001-BK is needed and used to determine eligibility for SSI, and the amount of SSI benefits payable to the applicant. Respondents are applicants for SSI benefits. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. Title of collection Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (in minutes) Burden hours MISSICS 840,088 1 16 224,023 MISSICS/Signature Proxy 280,029 1 15 70,007 Paper 25,982 1 19 8,228 Paper/Signature Proxy 8,661 1 18 2,598 Totals 1,154,760 304,856 6. Medical Source Statement of Ability To Do Work Related Activities (Physical and Mental)—20 CFR 404.1512-404.1514, 404.912-404.914, 404.1517, 416.917, 404.1519-404.1520, 416.919-416.920, 404.946, 416.946—0960-0662. The HA-1151 and HA-1152 are used to collect data that is required to determine the residual functional capacity
(RFC)of individuals who are appealing denied claims for benefits based on disability. RFC must be determined to decide cases that cannot be decided based on current work activity or on medical facts alone. The respondents are medical sources that are paid by SSA to provide reports based either on existing medical evidence or on consultative examinations conducted for the purposes of the report. We estimate each respondent will submit approximately 20 responses per year. *Type of Request:* Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. Forms Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (in minutes) Burden hours HA-1151 5,000 20 15 25,000 HA-1152 5,000 20 15 25,000 Totals 10,000 50,000 Dated: December 30, 2005. Elizabeth A. Davidson, Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration. [FR Doc. E6-34 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request The Social Security Administration
(SSA)publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection request included in this notice is for a revision to an existing information collection. SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection should be submitted to the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed and/or faxed to the individuals at the addresses and fax number listed below: Social Security Administration, DCFAM, (SSA), Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1333 Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235. Fax: 410-965-6400. The information collection listed below is pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance package by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above. Application for a Social Security Card—20 CFR 422.103-.110—0960-0066. Forms SS-5 (used in the United States) and SS-5-FS (used outside the United States) are used to apply for original and replacement Social Security cards. Changes are being made to these forms to reflect new statutory limits on the number of allowable replacement cards. The respondents are requestors of new or replacement Social Security cards. Note: This Notice is for the full clearance of the collection, which received a temporary emergency clearance through April 2006. Application scenario Number of annual respondents Completion time (in minutes) Burden hours Respondents who do not have to provide parents' SSNs 13,000,000 8 1/2 1,841,667 Respondents who are asked to provide parents' SSNs (for application for original SSN cards for children under age 18) 540,000 9 81,000 Applicants age 12 or older who need to answer additional questions so SSA can determine whether an SSN was previously assigned 40,000 9 1/2 6,333 Applicants asking for a replacement SSN card beyond the new allowable limits (i.e., who must provide additional documentation to accompany the application) 4,000 60 4,000 Totals 13,584,000 1,933,000 Dated: December 30, 2005. Elizabeth A. Davidson, Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration. [FR Doc. E6-38 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Rate for Assessment on Direct Payment of Fees to Representatives in 2006 AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Social Security Administration is announcing that the assessment percentage rate under section 206(d) and 1631(d)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 406(d), and 1383(d)(2)(C) is 6.3 percent for 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Winn, Associate General Counsel for Program Law, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Phone:
(410)965-3137, e-mail *jim.winn@ssa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 406 of Public Law No. 106-170, the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, established an assessment for the services required to determine and certify payments to attorneys from the benefits due claimants under Title II of the Act. This provision is codified in section 206 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 406). That legislation set the assessment for the calendar year 2000 at 6.3 percent of the amount that would be required to be certified for direct payment to the attorney under section 206(a)(4) or 206(b)(1) before the application of the assessment. For subsequent years, the legislation requires the Commissioner of Social Security to determine the percentage rate necessary to achieve full recovery of the costs of determining and certifying fees to attorneys, but not in excess of 6.3 percent. Beginning in 2005, sections 302 and 303 of Public Law 108-203, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004
(SSPA)extended the direct payment of fees to attorneys in cases under Title XVI of the Act and to eligible non-attorney representatives in cases under Title II and/or Title XVI of the Act. Fees directly paid under these provisions are subject to the same assessment. In addition, sections 301 and 302 of the SSPA imposed a dollar cap on the amount of the assessment, so that the assessment may not exceed the lesser of that dollar cap or the amount determined using the assessment percentage rate. The Commissioner of Social Security has determined, based on the best available data that the current assessment percentage rate of 6.3 percent will continue for 2006. We will continue to review our costs on a yearly basis. Dated: December 23, 2005. Dale W. Sopper, Deputy Commissioner for Finance, Assessment and Management. [FR Doc. E6-31 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [Docket No. OST-95-950] Notice of Request for Extension of a Previously Approved Collection AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request
(ICR)abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for renewal and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on October 19, 2005 [FR Vol. 70, No. 201, page 60869]. No comments were received. DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by February 6, 2006 and sent to the attention of the DOT/OST Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Schmidt,
(202)366-5420, Office of Aviation Analysis, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Passenger Manifest Information. *OMB Control Number:* 2105-0534. *Affected Public:* All U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers operating international flights to and from the United States, travel agents doing business in the U.S. and the traveling public. Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 833,464. In the 60-day notice mentioned above, the annual burden hours were shown as 1.05 million. Since the time of that notice, the methodology used to calculate the burden hours was updated to reflect international travel growth as well as improved efficiencies resulting from technological changes especially from an increased use of the Internet. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the continued collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Issued in Washington, DC, on December 29, 2005. Steven B. Lott, Manager, Strategic Integration IT Investment Management Office. [FR Doc. E6-10 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-62-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); Opportunities for State and Other Qualifying Agencies To Gain Authority to Toll Facilities Constructed Using Federal Funds AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; process to solicit participation in various programs that grant authority to toll Federal-aid facilities. SUMMARY: This notice provides summary information on all of the various non-grant tolling and pricing opportunities available in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). This notice and a companion notice, which refers to the Value Pricing Pilot
(VPP)program, are both in today's **Federal Register** . Together they are intended to explain all of the opportunities for States and other qualifying transportation agencies requesting permission to toll their respective facilities. In addition to describing each of the relevant programs, this notice also describes the initial review process that will help to identify which of the programs are candidate for a States' particular project, and of those, which is most appropriate to gain successful approval. That process applies to every program contained in this notice and also to the VPP program. The process is initiated with an Expression of Interest, which is fully defined later in this notice. Due to the nature of the deadlines required to solicit, review, and award the grant funds annually, the VPP program requires its own **Federal Register** notice, and is published in its entirety elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** under the title “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); Value Pricing Pilot Program Participation.” Finally, this notice announces the availability of a website that will serve as a clearinghouse of information on all of the tolling and pricing programs and their respective program tenets. DATES: Of the non-grant programs described herein, only two have deadlines stipulated in the legislation. The Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program has a deadline for applications of August 10, 2015, and the Express Lanes Demonstration Program has a window of fiscal years 2005 to 2009. For the other programs discussed herein, there are no annual or recurring submittal deadlines for States or other qualifying public agencies to request authority to toll their federally funded public highway facilities. However, States are advised that some programs discussed herein have a finite number of available slots permitted by legislation, meaning that participation in these programs will not be allowed once all slots are allotted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the programs discussed herein, please contact Mr. Wayne Berman, Tolling and Pricing Team, FHWA Office of Operations,
(202)366-4069, or via e-mail at *wayne.berman@fhwa.dot.gov.* For legal questions, interpretations and counsel, please contact Mr. Michael Harkins, Attorney Advisor, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel,
(202)366-4928, or via email at *michael.harkins@fhwa.dot.gov.* Office hours for the FHWA are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System
(DMS)at: *http://dms.dot.gov/submit.* The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the Federal Register's home page at: *http://www.archives.gov/* and the Government Printing Office's database at: *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.* 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 a **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (70 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Background In the recently passed SAFETEA-LU legislation (Pub. L. 109-59, August 10, 2005) Congress enabled three new exceptions, and modified one existing exception, to Title 23 of the United States Code, Section 301, which otherwise generally prohibits the imposition of tolls on facilities that use Federal funds. These actions now provide States and other qualifying transportation agencies or compacts of States more opportunities to enact tolls as a means of financing various operating, construction, or reconstruction projects, or of addressing debt reduction. Along with the three new programs and the one modification, there already exist other specific exceptions to federal authority to enact tolls. This notice and the VPP program notice elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** intend to explain the sum of all opportunities for States and other qualifying transportation agencies requesting permission to toll their respective facilities. The FHWA Office of Operations has been designated to coordinate both notices and serves as the office point of contact for both notices. In addition to describing each of the non-grant tolling and pricing opportunities available in SAFETEA-LU, this notice also describes the two-step process necessary to submit an application. Briefly, the first step is to submit an Expression of Interest to the Tolling and Pricing Team (fully described later in this notice). The Expression of Interest is a document that will enable FHWA to assist the applicant in identifying the range of options and will help direct the application to the most appropriate program office. The Tolling and Pricing Team will not approve projects, but will serve as a clearinghouse for all applications, with intent to properly and fairly facilitate the completeness of the application. The second step is for the applicant to respond to FHWA's comments on the Expression of Interest, and then formally apply to the selected program office that offers the desired tolling or pricing authority. This approach will help direct public authorities to the most appropriate program among the many options available. This approach will also help the FHWA to coordinate and manage the limited number of participation slots that are available for the different tolling and pricing programs. Tolling and pricing strategies ( *e.g.* , strategies that set the price of a toll to rise and fall or impose parking charges to reduce congestion) are increasingly emerging as necessary and useful tools to finance projects, manage congestion, improve air quality, and facilitate the creation of public-private partnerships. The term “tolling” refers to any imposition of a fee for the use of a facility. Classic examples of this term would be fixed fees that motorists pay (usually per number of axles or vehicle weight) to cross a bridge or tunnel, or enter or exit an express toll facility at a particular location. While tolling involves the collection of a fee from motorists for their use of a highway facility, the term “toll pricing” specifically refers to strategies that vary the price of the toll by time of day or traffic volume level in a way to manage congestion or use of that facility. Probably the most well known application of toll pricing is “High Occupancy Toll”
(HOT)lanes that offer single-occupant vehicles the ability to use High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV)lanes that they would otherwise be restricted from using. By paying a fee to use the HOV lane (thereby justifying the renamed “HOT lane” designation) the motorist benefits by gaining a degree of trip-time reliability over the adjacent congested general-purpose lanes, while the general-purpose lanes benefit from the reduction of vehicles that have transferred into the HOT lane. All tolling and pricing of Federal-aid highway system facilities requires legal authority from the Federal government, but some pricing strategies unrelated to tolling, such as parking charges or pay-per-mile car insurance, do not. As such, the latter do not apply to this notice and are not discussed herein. Although 23 U.S.C. 301 generally prohibits the imposition of tolls on facilities that have been constructed with Federal funds, SAFETEA-LU includes the aforementioned three new exceptions, and one modified exception. Along with some prior authority granted in various sections of the United States Code, this notice is intended to identify and describe the various options. The SAFETEA-LU legislation offers States, compacts of States, and in one case, “public or private entities designated by States” (hereafter, collectively referred to as “public authorities”) three new opportunities and one modified opportunity to toll motor vehicles to finance Interstate construction and/or reconstruction, promote efficiency in the use of highways, reduce traffic congestion and/or improve air quality. First, section 1121, amended 23 U.S.C. 166 to permit the conversion of HOV lanes into HOT lanes. Next, sections 1604(b), the Express Lanes Demonstration program, and 1604(c), the Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot program, are new programs providing tolling authority opportunities. The Express Lanes Demonstration program permits tolling authority for up to fifteen demonstration projects for existing HOV facilities or where toll capacity is added, and the Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot program authorizes up to three toll pilot facilities on the Interstate system for the purpose of constructing new Interstate highways. Finally, section 1604(a), the VPP program, modifies and extends an existing program that was first enacted as the “Congestion Pricing Pilot” program by Section 1012(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and amended by 1216(a) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Because of its unique standing as the only grant program discussed herein, and because there exists annual deadlines for solicitation, review, and award, the VPP program has its own notice published elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** . However, the request to submit an initial Expression of Interest is the same as the one described herein for the remaining programs. In addition to the SAFETEA-LU provisions, there are other pre-existing provisions that permit the tolling of federally funded highway facilities. First, and most notably, 23 U.S.C. 129 permits the imposition of tolls on free non-Interstate highways, bridges, and tunnels and on free Interstate bridges and tunnels in accordance with Title 23 U.S.C. 129(a)(1). Also, the Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program, section 1216(b) of TEA-21, permits the collection of tolls on three Interstate facilities for the purpose of reconstruction and rehabilitation. Purpose of This Notice The purpose of this notice is to explain the legislative programs that grant permission to public authorities to enact tolls, to invite Expressions of Interest to participate in these programs, and to introduce a website that will serve as a clearinghouse of information on the programs, the process, and the questions that might arise. Concurrent with this notice is the companion notice published elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** pertaining to the VPP program, which is the only grant program that is available. The primary audience for this notice is expected to be State departments of transportation and associated public authorities ( *e.g.* , metropolitan planning organizations, public/private transportation entities, etc.) that will seek permission from the Federal government, through FHWA, to enact tolls. The Web site resource offers general descriptions of all the programs, points of contact, a way to submit questions electronically, and instructions on how to submit an Expression of Interest via the Internet. This Web page is located on the FHWA Office of Operations website at the Tolling and Pricing Opportunities page at *http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/index.htm.* Program Coordination and Assistance—The Tolling and Pricing Team The Federal Highway Administration, Office of Operations is responsible for coordinating all tolling and pricing programs that now exist under the Federal-aid Highway Program. The many programs described in this notice can be potentially confusing because of their number and range of specific purposes. In an effort to minimize this potential confusion, the Office of Operations has formed a working group known as the “Tolling and Pricing Team.” The key role for the Tolling and Pricing Team is to assist public authorities by directing them to the most appropriate program (or programs) among the many options available. Members of the Tolling and Pricing Team represent the FHWA Offices of Operations, Policy and Governmental Affairs, and Infrastructure—the primary offices responsible for administering each of the tolling and pricing programs—and other oversight offices within the U.S. Department of Transportation, including, but not limited to the Office of the Secretary and the FHWA Offices of the Administrator and Office of Chief Counsel. Members participate on the Tolling and Pricing Team because of their direct program responsibilities or because they are interested stakeholders for tolling and pricing programs within the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Tolling and Pricing Team has six purposes: 1. Coordinate all tolling and pricing activity within FHWA to facilitate the implementation and advancement of tolling and pricing projects and standards in the United States; 2. Receive and review all Expressions of Interest submitted to the FHWA from a public authority; 3. Direct the public authority or partnerships designated by the State to the tolling and pricing program (or programs) that can enable them to accomplish the goals set forth in the “Expression of Interest”; 4. Assist the Office of Operations in the promulgation of a final rule including requirements, standards, or performance specifications for the interoperability of automated toll collection systems as directed by SAFETEA-LU Section 1604(b)(6); 5. Support each of the FHWA Program Offices, that have responsibility for a tolling and pricing program, in advancing formal proposals to gain approval to toll or price motor vehicles and facilitating coordination with the appropriate FHWA Division Office; and 6. Establish program performance goals; monitor achievements, and prepare an annual report to Congress on the status and progress of all tolling and pricing programs, including describing program successes in meeting congestion reduction and other performance goals. The Tolling and Pricing Team reviews all “Expression of Interest” for the various tolling opportunities contained in current law but does not have responsibility to approve or disapprove specific projects. That responsibility will remain with each of the respective FHWA program offices responsible for administering a specific tolling and pricing program. By requesting and reviewing all Expressions of Interest, the Tolling and Pricing Team can effectively guide an applicant to the most appropriate program. The “Expression of Interest” A public authority that wants to request tolling or pricing authority, or funding, is asked to submit an Expression of Interest to the Tolling and Pricing Team in care of the FHWA Office of Operations in Washington, DC. An Expression of Interest template can be downloaded via the Internet by going to the Tolling and Pricing Opportunities webpage within the FHWA Office of Operations Web site at *http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/index.htm.* Use of the template is optional. The Expression of Interest may be attached as an e-mail to *TollingandPricingTeam@fhwa.dot.gov* , or a hardcopy can be mailed to Mr. Wayne Berman, FHWA Office of Operations, Room 3404, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington DC 20590. Concurrently, the Expression of Interest should be copied to the respective State FHWA Division Office. The Expression of Interest is a document—in letter, memo, or report format—that provides the rationale for funding or tolling authority and information about the intended project. A complete Expression of Interest, based upon the information items listed below, will enable the Tolling and Pricing Team to provide the best assistance and identify the range of options possible to meet intended goals and timeframes. The information items requested for a complete Expression of Interest are as follows:
(a)A description of the agency or requesting authority or authorities that is/are requesting this tolling authority where applicable;
(b)The name, title, email, and phone number of the person who will act as the point of contact on behalf of the requesting authority or authorities;
(c)A statement concerning the action being sought:
(i)Funding and/or tolling authority via the Value Pricing Pilot program to support either pre-project study activities or implementation activities as permitted; or
(ii)Only authority to toll either existing or planned facilities;
(d)A description of the subject facility or facilities proposed to be tolled;
(e)Whether the subject facility is an Interstate or non-Interstate facility;
(f)Whether construction is involved and, if so, whether this is new construction, expansion, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or other;
(g)Whether an HOV lane or lanes currently exist on the facility;
(h)A timetable to enact tolling (or modify tolling) on the subject facility;
(i)Any expressions or declarations of support from public officials or the public. If no public meetings or expressions of support are available, please indicate if there are project plans for ensuring adequate public involvement and support prior to implementation;
(j)A plan for implementing tolls on the facility, where applicable. Where known, the range of anticipated tolls and the strategies to vary toll rates ( *i.e.* , the formulae for variable pricing);
(k)The reasons for implementing tolls, such as financing construction, reducing congestion, or improving air quality;
(l)A description of the public agency or agencies that will be responsible for operating, maintaining, and enforcing the tolling program; and
(m)A description of how, if at all, any private entities are involved either in the up-front costs to enact tolling, or the cost sharing or debt retirement associated with revenues. Program Participation—Overview of the Process Submitting an Expression of Interest initiates a review process by the Tolling and Pricing Team that leads to a recommendation as to which tolling or pricing program (or programs) will be appropriate and available to meet the goals of the public authority. In some cases, if more than one tolling program is available, the Tolling and Pricing Team will work with the public authority to help select the one program that is most appropriate and is most likely to lead to project approval. If, in some cases, the public authority prefers a tolling program other than the one recommended, the Tolling and Pricing Team will defer to this request; however, the Tolling and Pricing Team will also provide advice as to the pros and cons of the decision. Once there is agreement between the public authority and the Tolling and Pricing Team as to the most appropriate program, the applicant will be referred to the specific FHWA program office responsible for administering that tolling and pricing initiative. The FHWA program office will then provide the public authority with the necessary information on how to formally apply for authority to toll motor vehicles. Once a formal application is submitted, the appropriate FHWA program office will review the application and determine whether or not to approve the proposed project. The public authority will then be notified as to the determination. If approved, a formal tolling agreement and/or cooperative agreement will be prepared between the FHWA and the public authority. The toll agreement must be executed with the FHWA and address the use of revenues that are collected from the operation of the toll facility. While program elements may vary, the restrictions generally require the revenues to be used first for debt service, reasonable return on the investment for private parties, and the operations and maintenance of the facility. In addition, if the facility is being adequately maintained, any revenues in excess of these uses may be used for other title 23 U.S.C. eligible purposes. The FHWA, the State Department of Transportation, and the relevant toll authority or local governmental entity, if any, will execute the toll agreement. Summary of the Two-Step Review Process The entire review process, resulting in the execution of a toll agreement and/or a cooperative agreement, can be summarized in two steps as follows: Step #1: Submit an Expression of Interest to the Tolling and Pricing Team. The Tolling and Pricing Team will review the Expression of Interest, advise the applicant which program or programs are eligible, and will also provide counsel as to which program is most appropriate to pursue. The State or public authority making application will be directed to contact the selected program office, wherein, the program office will then inform the public authority as to the procedures required for submitting a formal application for tolling authority and/or value pricing funding. Step #2: Submit a formal application for tolling and pricing authority or value pricing funding to the FHWA program office for formal review, ultimately leading to a decision on approval. The public authority will then be notified of the decision. If the project is approved, a formal tolling agreement will then be prepared. Tolling and Pricing Opportunities Available Under the Federal-Aid Highway Program (Title 23, U.S.C.) HOV Facilities—Section 1121 Section 1121 of SAFETEA-LU removed section 102(a) of Title 23 of the United States Code (23 U.S.C.) and replaced it with a new section 166 that clarifies the operation requirements of HOV facilities and provides more exceptions to their minimum vehicle occupancy requirements. Other non-tolling related issues are addressed in this section ( *e.g.* , low emission and energy efficient vehicles) that are irrelevant to the purpose of this notice. Specific to tolling and the creation of HOT lanes, the new legislation allows States to charge tolls to vehicles that do not meet the established occupancy requirements to use an HOV lane, provided the agency meets certain criteria to enroll participants, collect fees electronically, manage demand by varying tolls, and enforce against violations. Tolls under this section may be charged on both Interstate and non-Interstate facilities. There is no limit on the number of projects or the number of States that can participate. For more information, refer to the document “Federal-aid Highway Program Guidance on High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV)Lanes” which can be accessed from the HOV Facilities program section of the Tolling and Pricing Web site at *http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/index.htm* . Express Lanes Demonstration Program—Section 1604(b) This program permits tolling on selected demonstration projects to manage high levels of congestion, reduce emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance air quality area, or finance additional Interstate lanes for the purpose of reducing congestion. Fifteen projects are authorized nationwide from 2005 through 2009 to allow “States, authorities, or public or private entities designated by States” to collect a toll from motor vehicles at an eligible toll facility for any highway, bridge, or tunnel, including on the Interstate system. The State must vary the price of tolls according to the time of day or level of traffic, as appropriate, to manage congestion or improve air quality. Unique to this program is the term “demonstration project.” For purposes of tracking the fifteen slots allowed in section 1604(b), each agreement executed between an authority and the FHWA will constitute one “demonstration project.” Either one facility, or, at the FHWA's discretion, a group of interrelated facilities in a region (so long as they are all operated under the auspices of the same oversight agency or agencies) may constitute one demonstration project, provided that all candidate facilities meet program criteria at the time of the agreement. Facilities located elsewhere in the State would require new and separate agreements. Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot Program-Section 1604(c) This new program authorizes up to three facilities on the Interstate System to toll for the purpose of financing the construction of new Interstate highways. A State or an interstate “compact of States” may submit a single candidate project under this program. Each applicant or applicants must demonstrate that financing the construction of the facility with the collection of tolls is the most efficient and economical way to advance the project. The State must agree not to enter into a noncompete agreement with a private party under which the State is prevented from improving or expanding the capacity of public roads in the vicinity of the toll facility to address conditions resulting from traffic diverted to nearby roads from the toll facility. There is no special funding authorized for this program. By law, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on a facility for which tolls are being collected under this program. All applications submitted under this program must be received by FHWA before August 10, 2015. This date is specifically cited for this program in section 1604(c)(8) of SAFETEA-LU. 23 U.S.C. 129 Under 23 U.S.C. 129, Federal participation is allowed in the following five types of toll activities. • Initial construction (except on the Interstate System) of toll highways, bridges, and tunnels, including the approaches to these facilities; • Reconstructing, resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitation work on any existing toll facility; • Reconstruction or replacement of free bridges or tunnels and conversion to toll facilities; • Reconstruction of a free Federal-aid highway (except on the Interstate System) and conversion to a toll facility; and • Preliminary studies to determine the feasibility of the above toll construction activities. If Federal-aid funds are used for construction of or improvements to a toll facility or the approach to a toll facility or if a State plans to reconstruct and convert a free highway, bridge or tunnel previously constructed with Federal-aid funds to a toll facility, a toll agreement under section 129(a)(3) must be executed. There is no limit to the number of agreements that may be executed. Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program SAFETEA-LU continued the authority initially provided in section 1216(b) of TEA-21, by allowing up to three existing Interstate facilities (highway, bridge, or tunnel) to be tolled to fund needed reconstruction or rehabilitation on Interstate highway corridors that could not otherwise be adequately maintained or functionally improved without the collection of tolls. Each of the three facilities must be in a different State. There is no special funding authorized for this program. By law, Interstate maintenance funds may not be used on a facility for which tolls are being collected under this program. Currently, only one open slot remains. Value Pricing Pilot Program—Section 1604(a) As previously noted, a separate notice announcing this program's solicitation is published elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** due to the fact that this program is unique in offering grant funds, and the requirements for timely solicitation, review, and award of grants. The existence of this program is mentioned herein solely as a means to complete the perspective of all tolling opportunity programs. Frequently Asked Questions 1. *Why can't a State (or “public authority”) simply apply directly to one specific program?* Technically, there is nothing to restrict an agency from doing this; however, since there are so many programs, some with limited participation slots, FHWA prefers to screen each project application. This is to ensure that
(a)The agency is aware of the full range of available options;
(b)the FHWA can effectively manage the very limited number of participation slots authorized for each program; and
(c)other program offices are made aware that an application has been made, as each program will have a representative on the Tolling and Pricing Team. 2. *Who will make up the Tolling and Pricing Team?* The Office of Operations is the lead office and will undertake responsibility to gather and distribute the Expressions of Interest for preliminary evaluation and to maintain the aforementioned website. The Tolling and Pricing Team has representation from all of the relevant program offices that have tolling and pricing oversight responsibilities, including the FHWA Offices of Operations, Policy and Governmental Affairs, and Infrastructure. In addition, other stakeholder offices within FHWA and the U.S. Department of Transportation are represented, including the FHWA Offices of Public Affairs and Chief Counsel, and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. 3. *How often will the Tolling and Pricing Team meet?* The group will meet as often as necessary in person, but mostly will communicate via email contact and access to a File Transfer Protocol
(FTP)Web site, which will serve to post the Expressions of Interest for private review by the team almost immediately upon submittal. The Office of Operations will act promptly to engage the Tolling and Pricing Team to review a project proposal discuss project eligibility under different programs, and recommend the project for further consideration under the most appropriate program. 4. *If I have any questions, whom should I contact?* Any general questions concerning the tolling and pricing programs should be directed to Mr. Wayne Berman, Transportation Specialist, in the Office of Operations at 202-366-4069. His e-mail address is *wayne.berman@fhwa.dot.gov* . Alternatively, there is an e-mail “mailbox” on the tolling and pricing Web site (address below). At the time of this notice, the direct points of contact are: a. Web site: *http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/index.htm.* b. Tolling and Pricing Team—Wayne Berman, HOP.
(202)366-4069; *wayne.berman@fhwa.dot.gov* . c. Value Pricing (SAFETEA-LU 1604(a))—Patrick DeCorla-Souza.
(202)366-4076; *patrick.decorla-souza@fhwa.dot.gov* . d. HOV to HOT lane (1121)—Jessie Yung.
(202)366-4672; *jessie.yung@fhwa.dot.gov* . e. Express Lanes Demonstration (SAFETEA-LU 1604(b))—Wayne Berman (contact info above). f. Interstate System Construction (SAFETEA-LU 1604(c))—Greg Wolf.
(202)366-4655; *greg.wolf@fhwa.dot.gov* . g. Interstate Reconstruction and Rehabilitation (TEA-21 1216(b))—Greg Wolf (contact info above). h. 23 U.S.C. Section 129 Agreements—Greg Wolf (contact info above). Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; sec. 1216(a), Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107; Pub. L. 109-59; 117 Stat. 1144 49 CFR 1.48. Issued on: December 28, 2005. J. Richard Capka, Acting Federal Highway Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-13 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-05-22706] Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensed Driver Information AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)annually analyzes and publishes motor vehicle registration and licensed driver information obtained from the States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This notice seeks public input from users on the quality, timeliness, comprehensiveness, and other characteristics of these data. Based on this input and other information, the FHWA will determine whether it is necessary to change the motor vehicle registration and licensed driver information collected. The FHWA is considering various options for these data programs including investigating alternative sources of data from the public or private sector, developing enhanced software to capture and process the data more efficiently, and maintaining the status quo. DATES: Comments should be received on or before March 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments for the docket number that appears in the heading of this document to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or submit electronically at *http://dms.dot.gov/submit* or fax comments to
(202)493-2251. Alternatively, comments may be submitted to the Federal rulemaking portal at *http://www.regulations.gov* . All comments must include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor union). Anyone 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: Mr. Tom Howard, 202-366-2833, Office of Highway Policy Information, HPPI-10, or Mr. Milton Hsieh, Office of Chief Counsel, HCC-40, 202-366-1397. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Electronic Access and Filing:* You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System
(DMS)at: *http://dms.dot.gov/submit* . Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section. Alternatively, Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Docket Facility by using the universal resource locator
(URL)*http://dms.dot.gov* . It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at *http://www.archives.gov* and from the Government Printing Office's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara* . *Background:* The FHWA collects and publishes motor vehicle registration and licensed driver information obtained from the States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. This information is collected from State departments of transportation pursuant to 23 CFR 420.105 and is published in *Highway Statistics* . 1 1 *Highway Statistics* is an annual report containing analyzed data on motor fuel, motor vehicles, driver licensing, highway user taxation, State and local highway finance, highway mileage, and other selected data. This report has been published each year since 1945. It is available at the following URL: *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/* . The information in *Highway Statistics* is used in the development of highway legislation at the Federal level. The information is also used in preparing legislatively required reports to Congress, in keeping State governments informed, and, in general, as an aid to highway planning, programming, budgeting, forecasting, and fiscal management. This information is also used extensively in the evaluation of Federal, State, and local highway programs. The FHWA has re-assessed DOT internal needs for these data and has preliminarily determined that the information in *Highway Statistics* meets the Federal need of providing a national perspective on highway program activities. This notice seeks public input from users on the quality, timeliness, comprehensiveness, and other characteristics of the motor vehicle registration and licensed driver data collected by the FHWA and published in *Highway Statistics* . Based on this input and other information, the FHWA will determine whether it is necessary to change the motor vehicle registration and licensed driver information collected. The motor vehicle registration data currently collected by the FHWA can be found in *Highway Statistics* tables MV-1, MV-2, MV-7, MV-9, MV-10 and MV-11. The licensed driver data currently collected by the FHWA can be found in *Highway Statistics* tables DL-1C, DL-20 and DL-22. *Motor vehicle registration:* The motor vehicle registration data collection practices vary among the States. States register specific vehicle types on a calendar year or fiscal year basis. States may use some form of a “staggered” system to register motor vehicles to permit a distribution of the renewal workload throughout all months. In addition, most States allow pre-registration or permit “grace periods” to better distribute the annual registration workload. States report motor vehicle registrations by major vehicle classes: automobiles, buses, trucks, and motorcycles. The truck category includes light trucks to the extent they can be identified and separated from automobiles. Data on trucks, buses, trailers, and semitrailers are given in tables MV-9, MV-10, and MV-11, respectively. Although the detail of motor-vehicle data has improved in recent years, it is not yet possible to obtain from all States separate data on single-unit trucks and combinations. Some States provide data for light trucks and truck tractors, but for many States the FHWA estimates this information using other data sources, such as the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census. 2 The table MV-9 light truck category includes pickups, vans (full-size and mini), utility-type vehicles, as well as other vehicles (panel trucks and delivery vans generally of 10,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight). Registrations of publicly owned motor vehicles are reported in table MV-7. 2 This report is available at the following URL: *http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/tiusview.html* . Registration practices for commercial vehicles also differ greatly among the States. Some States register a tractor-semitrailer combination as a single unit; others register the tractor and the semitrailer separately. Regardless of how they were registered, only the power units have been included in the truck count in table MV-1. Some States register buses with trucks or automobiles; many States do not report light utility trailers separately from commercial trailers or semitrailers; and some States do not require registration of car or light utility trailers. *Drivers' License:* Each State, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico administers its own driver licensing system. Since 1954 all States have required drivers to be licensed, and since 1959 all States have required examination prior to licensing. Tests of knowledge of State driving laws and practices, vision, and driving proficiency are now required for new licensees. The State distribution of total U.S. licensed drivers, by sex and age group, is shown in table DL-1C. The distribution of total U.S. licensed drivers, by sex and age group, is shown in table DL-20. DL-22 displays the number of drivers by sex and age groups for each State. For the States that do not provide the driver license data broken out to the top age bracket of 85 and over, we have redistributed the last age bracket provided by each State according to the Census population data for those particular age brackets in that particular State. *Conclusion:* This notice seeks public input from users on the quality, timeliness, comprehensiveness, and other characteristics of these data. Based on this input and other information, the FHWA will determine whether it is necessary to change the motor vehicle registration and licensed driver information collected, and the steps needed to ensure the quality of the information. Specifically, the FHWA is interested in comments from users of motor vehicle registration and licensed driver information on data uses, data quality, data timeliness, data availability, and how well data meets user needs. Currently, the FHWA is considering various options for these data programs including investigating alternative sources of data from the public or private sector, developing enhanced software to capture and process the data more efficiently, and maintaining the status quo. Issued on: December 28, 2005. J. Richard Capka, Acting Federal Highway Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-11 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); Value Pricing Pilot Program Participation AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; solicitation for participation. SUMMARY: This notice invites State and local governments and other public authorities to apply to participate in the Value Pricing Pilot
(VPP)program and presents guidelines for program applications. This notice describes the statutory basis for the VPP program and updates a notice published in the **Federal Register** on May 7, 2001 (66 FR 23077), by providing revised procedures, process timelines, and guidance for program participation. A companion notice referring to non-grant programs, entitled “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); Opportunities for States and Other Qualifying Agencies to Gain Authority to Toll Facilities Constructed Using Federal Funds” is published elsewhere in today's edition of the **Federal Register** . Both of these notices are intended to cover all of the opportunities for States and other qualifying transportation agencies to obtain approval to toll their respective facilities and to secure funding to implement tolling and pricing. DATES: Formal grant applications must be submitted no later than March 31, 2006, for FY 2006 funds, October 1, 2006, for FY 2007 funds, and each subsequent October 1 for funding through and including FY 2009. To be assured of the maximum amount of constructive assistance from FHWA in preparing a formal application, Expressions of Interest must be submitted two months prior, i.e., by January 31, 2006, for FY 2006 funds, August 1, 2006, for FY 2007 funds, and each subsequent August 1 covering the funding period. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Wayne Berman, Office of Operations,
(202)366-4069, or via email at *mailto:wayne.berman@fhwa.dot.gov,* FHWA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. For specific information about the Value Pricing Pilot Program, please contact Mr. Patrick DeCorla-Souza, Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs, Highway Pricing and System Analysis Team Leader,
(202)366-4076, or via e-mail at *patrick.decorla-souza@fhwa.dot.gov.* For legal questions, interpretations and counsel, please contact Mr. Michael Harkins, Attorney Advisor, FHWA Office of the Chief Counsel,
(202)366-4928, or via e-mail at *michael.harkins@fhwa.dot.gov.* Office hours for the FHWA are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.s.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the **Federal Register** 's home page at: *http://www.archives.gov* and the Government Printing Office's database at: *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.* Background Section 1012(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240; 105 Stat. 1914), as amended by section 1216(a) of the Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178; 112 Stat. 107), and section 1604(a) of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59; 119 Stat. 1144), authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) to create a Value Pricing Pilot Program. Value pricing encompasses a variety of strategies to manage congestion on highways, including tolling of highway facilities, as well as other strategies that do not involve tolls, such as mileage-based charges for insurance, taxes, leasing fees, and car sharing. The value pricing concept of assessing relatively higher prices for travel during peak periods is the same as that used in many other sectors of the economy to respond to peak-use demands. For example, airlines, hotels, and theaters often charge more for peak than non-peak times. The FHWA is seeking applications for the FY 2006 VPP program. According to statute, the FHWA may enter into cooperative agreements with up to fifteen State or local governments or other public authorities (hereafter, States) to establish, maintain, and monitor value pricing pilot programs, each including an unlimited number of projects. The FHWA invites interested States to apply to participate in the VPP program for FY 2006. There are already fourteen State-led programs currently in the VPP program: California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. Therefore, only one new State is eligible to participate. Any value pricing project included under these programs may involve the use of tolls on the Interstate system. This is an exception to the general provisions prohibiting tolls on the Interstate system as contained in 23 U.S.C. 129 and 301. A maximum of $12 million is authorized for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009 to be made available to carry out the VPP program requirements. A set-aside of $3 million per fiscal years 2006 through 2009 is authorized only for value pricing pilot projects that do not involve highway tolls. The Federal share payable under the program is 80 percent of the cost of the project. Funds allocated by the Secretary to a State or other public entity under this section shall remain available for obligation by the State for a period of three years after the last day of the fiscal year for which funds are authorized. If, on September 30 of any year, the amount of funds made available for the VPP program, but not allocated, exceeds $8 million, the excess amount will be apportioned to all States as Surface Transportation Program funds. Funds available for the VPP program can be used to support pre-implementation study activities as well as to pay for implementation costs of value pricing projects. Section 1012(b)(6) of ISTEA provides that a State may permit toll-paying vehicles with fewer than two occupants to operate in high occupancy vehicle
(HOV)lanes if the vehicles are part of a local value pricing pilot program under this section. SAFETEA-LU Section 1121, “HOV Facilities,” among other things, also allows for the conversion of HOV lanes to high occupancy toll
(HOT)lanes. Given that the VPP program has only one more slot available for a new program partner to participate, Section 1121 authority should be used, instead of VPP program authority, for HOV-to-HOT lane conversions if an application comes from a State that is not already in the VPP program. Potential financial effects of value pricing projects on low-income drivers shall be considered and, where such effects are expected to be significant, possible mitigation measures should be identified, such as providing new or expanded transit service as an integral part of the value pricing project, toll discounts or credits for low-income motorists who do not have viable transit options, or fare or toll credits earned by motorists on regular lanes which can be used to pay for tolls on priced lanes. Mitigation measures can be included as part of the value pricing project implementation costs. The Secretary is required to report to Congress every two years on the effects of all value pricing pilot programs. Annual evaluation data and reports shall be provided to the FHWA for use in reports to Congress. The VPP program is a continuation of the Congestion Pricing Pilot Program authorized by section 1012(b) of the ISTEA and amended by section 1216(a) of TEA-21. To obtain up-to-date information on the status of current projects, please go to: *http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/index.htm* and go to “Resources” and click on “Value Pricing Pilot Program Knowledge Exchange”. In addition to the VPP program, SAFETEA-LU offers States broader authority to use tolling on a pilot or demonstration basis to finance Interstate construction and reconstruction, promote efficiency in the use of highways, and support congestion reduction by providing expanded flexibility under the following programs: HOV facilities; Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot; Interstate System Construction Toll Pilot; and Express Lanes Demonstration Program. For more information on those programs, please refer to the companion notice in today's **Federal Register** entitled “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); Opportunities for State and Other Qualifying Agencies to Gain Authority to Toll Facilities Constructed Using Federal Funds.” What Is Value Pricing? “Value pricing,” “congestion pricing,” “peak-period pricing,” “variable pricing,” and “variable tolling” are all terms used to refer to direct non-constant charges for road use, possibly varying by location, time of day, severity of congestion, vehicle occupancy, or type of facility. By shifting some trips to off-peak periods, to mass transit or other higher-occupancy vehicles, or to routes away from congested facilities, or by encouraging consolidation of trips, value pricing charges are intended to promote economic efficiency both generally and within the commercial freight sector. They also achieve congestion reduction, improved air quality, energy conservation, and transit productivity goals. A “value pricing project” means any implementation of value pricing concepts or techniques discussed in the “Potential Project Types” section of this notice and included under a State or local “value pricing pilot program,” where such a program includes one or more value pricing projects serving a single geographic area, such as a metropolitan area or State. By definition, an entity with one or more approved value pricing projects must have a value pricing program. While the distinction between “project” and “program” may appear to be merely a technical one, it is significant in that, as described in the “Background” section of this notice, the number of total VPP programs is statutorily limited to fifteen, while there is no limit to the number of VPP projects allowed under each VPP program. “Cooperative agreement” means the agreement signed between the FHWA and a State to implement local value pricing pilot programs (See 49 CFR Part 18). “Toll agreement” means the agreement signed between the FHWA and a State to grant the authority to collect tolls. Program Objective The overall objective of the VPP program is to support efforts by State and local governments or other public authorities to establish local value pricing pilot programs, to provide for the monitoring and evaluation of value pricing projects included in such programs, and to report on these effects. The VPP program's primary focus is on value pricing with road tolls, with a secondary focus on other market-based approaches for congestion relief that do not involve road tolls, such as parking pricing or pay-as-you-drive insurance. All projects should incorporate significant pricing mechanisms intended to reduce the level of congestion. Potential Project Types The FHWA is seeking applications to use value pricing projects to reduce congestion, improve system performance, and promote mobility. Value pricing charges are expected to accomplish this purpose by encouraging the use of alternative times, modes, routes, or trip patterns. As such, value pricing charges need to be targeted at vehicles causing congestion, and prices must be set at levels significant enough to encourage drivers to use alternative times, routes, modes, or trip patterns during congested periods. Conversely, proposed projects that contemplate value pricing charges that are not significant enough to influence demand, such as minor increases in fees during peak-periods, or moderate toll increases instituted primarily for financing purposes, will be given low priority. Similarly, value pricing concepts that have become mainstream and have been adopted as common practice, such as HOV-to-HOT lane conversions, will not be funded. To increase the likelihood of generating information on a variety of useful value pricing strategies, proposed projects having as many of the following characteristics as possible will receive priority for Federal support. Projects of interest include: 1. Applications of value pricing which are comprehensive and include pricing of currently free facilities, such as area wide pricing, pricing of multiple facilities or corridors, and/or combinations of road pricing and parking pricing. The size or extent of road pricing programs, ranging from single facilities, to sections of, or complete corridors, to comprehensive area- or region-wide applications, are of interest, along with their relative effect on reducing congestion, altering travel behavior, and encouraging the use of other transportation modes. Region-wide pricing applications that use technologies that provide drivers with real-time congestion and pricing information on alternative routes are especially encouraged. 2. Pricing at key traffic bottlenecks, of multiple facilities in a single travel corridor, or on single highway facilities, including bridges and tunnels. Applications to shift from a fixed to a variable toll schedule on existing toll facilities are encouraged (i.e., combinations of peak-period surcharges and off-peak discounts). Pricing of queue jumps is also eligible. A queue jump is defined as a facility that can be used by certain types of traffic to bypass points on the transportation network where congestion is particularly severe and occurs in a predictable pattern (colloquially called “bottlenecks”). Queue jumps can be as elaborate as an elevated facility or as simple as an at-grade lane addition. 3. Innovative parking pricing strategies, including time-of-day pricing and charges reflective of congestion conditions, provided the level and coverage of proposed parking charges is sufficient to reduce congestion. Parking pricing strategies that are integrated with other pricing strategies are encouraged. Parking pricing strategies should be designed to influence trip-making behavior, and might include surcharges for entering or exiting a parking facility during or near peak periods, or a range of parking cash-out policies, where cash is offered to employees in lieu of subsidized parking, parking operators reimburse monthly patrons for unused parking days, or renters or purchasers in multi-family housing developments are provided direct financial saving for not availing of car parking spaces. Pricing of a single parking facility, coverage of a few employee spaces, or pricing of parking spaces in a small area, for example, are unlikely to receive priority, unless they incorporate a truly unique element which might facilitate broader applications of value pricing across local areas or States. 4. Pay-as-you-drive pricing, including car insurance premiums set on a per-mile basis and innovative car ownership, leasing, and usage arrangements that reduce fixed costs and increase variable usage costs. 5. Projects that are likely to add to the base of knowledge about the various design, implementation, effectiveness, operational, and acceptability dimensions of value pricing. The FHWA is seeking information related to the impacts of value pricing on the following: Travel behavior (e.g., trip lengths, mode use, time-of-travel, trip destinations, and trip generation by private and commercial trip makers); traffic conditions (e.g., speeds and levels of service); implementation issues (e.g., technology, innovative pricing techniques, public acceptance, administration, operation, enforcement, and legal and institutional issues); revenues, their uses and financial plans; different types of users and businesses; and low-income motorists, including possible mitigation measures and their effectiveness. These diverse information needs mean that the FHWA may fund different types of value pricing applications in different local contexts to maximize the potential of the pilot program. 6. Projects that do not have adverse effects on alternative routes or modes, or on low-income or other transportation-disadvantaged groups are encouraged under the VPP program. If such effects are anticipated, proposed pricing programs should incorporate measures to mitigate any major adverse impacts, including enhancement of transportation alternatives for peak period travelers, services such as “life-line” toll rates aimed at low income travelers, and credit-based tolling programs such as toll credits earned by motorists in regular lanes which can be used to pay tolls on priced lanes. 7. Pricing projects that lead to substantial congestion reduction and supplant or supplement existing tax-based approaches for generating surface transportation revenues. 8. Pricing projects that result in free-flow peak period roadway conditions, and where motorists earn or are provided with limited monetary credit for their discretionary use, thereby allowing them a limited amount of free or discounted rush hour roadway access or transit trips before having to pay full fees. While the FHWA is seeking applications that incorporate some or all of these project characteristics, these guidelines are intended only to illustrate selection priorities, not to limit potential program participants from proposing new and innovative pricing approaches for incorporation in the program. Pre-Implementation Studies The VPP program funds may also be used to assist State and local governments in carrying out pre-implementation study activities designed to lead to implementation of a value pricing project. The intent of the pre-implementation study phase is to support efforts to identify and evaluate value pricing project alternatives, and to prepare the necessary groundwork for possible future implementation. Purely academic studies of value pricing (not designed to lead to possible project implementation), or broad, area wide planning studies which incorporate value pricing only as one option, will not be funded under this program. Broad planning studies can be funded with regular Federal-aid highway or transit planning funds. Applications for pre-implementation studies will be selected based on the likelihood that they will lead to implementation of pilot tests of value pricing conforming to the objectives described in the previous section. In cases where the FHWA has made funds available to a State for pre-implementation studies, but the State decides not to implement the project and has no other value pricing projects, the FHWA may proceed to remove that State from the program and replace it with another State in the pilot program. Since section 1012(b)(1) of ISTEA limits participation in the pilot program to only fifteen slots (specifically, “States, local governments or public authorities,” colloquially termed States), the fifteen participating States must intend to implement value pricing projects and proceed accordingly. Project Costs Eligible for Grant Funding The FHWA will provide up to the statutorily allowable 80 percent share of the estimated costs of an approved project. Funds available for the VPP program can be used to support pre-implementation study activities and also to pay for implementation costs of value-pricing projects. Costs eligible for reimbursement include costs of planning for, setting up, managing, operating, monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on local value pricing pilot projects. Costs cannot be reimbursed for longer than three years. The three-year funding limitation will begin on the date of the first disbursement of Federal funds for project activities. Examples of specific costs eligible for reimbursement include the following: 1. Pre-Implementation Study Costs—Allowable pre-implementation study costs include: Planning, public participation, consensus building, marketing, impact assessment, modeling, financial planning, technology assessments and specifications, and other pre-implementation work that relates to the establishment of the value pricing project including meeting Federal or State environmental or other planning requirements. 2. Implementation Costs—Allowable costs include those for setting up, managing, operating, evaluating, and reporting on a value pricing project, including: a. Necessary salaries and expenses, or other administrative and operational costs, such as installation of equipment for operation of a pilot project ( *e.g.* , Electronic Toll Collection (ETC)) technology, video equipment for traffic monitoring, and other instrumentation), enforcement costs, costs of monitoring and evaluating project operations, and costs of continuing public relations activities during the period of implementation. b. Costs of providing transportation alternatives, such as new or expanded transit or ridesharing services provided as an integral part of the value pricing project. Funds are not available to replace existing sources of support for these services. Project implementation costs can be supported until such time that sufficient revenues are being generated by the project to fund such activities without Federal support, but in any case for no longer than three years. Each implementation project included in a local value pricing pilot program will be considered separately for this purpose. Funds may not be used to pay for activities conducted prior to approval for VPP program participation. Also, funds made available through the VPP program may not be used to construct new highway lanes or bridges, even if those facilities are to be priced, but toll ramps or minor pavement additions needed to facilitate toll collection or enforcement are eligible. Complementary actions, such as lane construction or the implementation of traffic control systems or transit projects can be funded through other highway and transit programs eligible under SAFETEA-LU and from new revenues raised as a result of a pilot. Those interested in participating in the VPP program are encouraged to explore opportunities for combining funds from these other programs with VPP program funds. Nevertheless, Federal funds may not be used to match VPP program funds unless permitted under specific statutory authority. Eligible Uses of Revenues Sections 1012(b)(2) and
(3)of ISTEA provide that revenues generated by any value pricing pilot project must be used for the project's operating costs and for projects that are eligible for assistance under Title 23, United States Code. Also, since section 1012(b)(2) requires the Secretary to fund a pilot project until such time that sufficient revenues are being generated to fund its operating costs, any revenues generated by a pilot project must be applied first to pay for pilot project operating costs. Any project revenues in excess of pilot project operating costs may be used for any projects eligible under Title 23, U.S. Code. A project's operating (or implementation) costs include any costs necessary for a project's implementation; mitigation measures to deal with adverse financial effects on low-income drivers; the proper maintenance of the facility; any construction (including reconstruction, rehabilitation, restoration, or resurfacing) of the facility; any debt service incurred in implementing the project; and a reasonable return on investment by any private entity financing the project. Uses of revenue are encouraged which will support the goals of the VPP program, particularly uses designed to provide benefits to those traveling in the corridor where the project is being implemented. Furthermore, for toll projects, the FHWA and the public authority (including the State transportation department) having jurisdiction over a facility shall enter into a toll agreement concerning the use of toll revenue to be generated under a value pricing project. The toll agreement will merely provide for the public authority's commitment to use the revenues in accordance with the applicable statutory requirements of the VPP program and to annually audit its use of toll revenues for compliance with such requirements. The execution of a toll agreement is consistent with the requirements of other toll programs, such as contained in 23 U.S.C. 129, and will facilitate adequate oversight of a State's compliance with revenue use requirements of the VPP program. The FHWA Division Administrator, in coordination with the Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs and Office of Chief Counsel, will execute value pricing toll agreements. Who Is Eligible To Apply? Qualified applicants include local, regional and State government agencies, as well as public tolling authorities. The VPP program term “States” and the Tolling and Pricing Team term “public authorities” may be used interchangeably for purposes of identifying that a responsible entity will enter into process of applying to the VPP program or another tolling program. Although project agreements must be with public authorities, a local VPP program partnership may also include private tolling authorities and non-profit organizations. Program Coordination and Assistance—The Tolling and Pricing Team The Federal Highway Administration, Office of Operations is responsible for coordinating all tolling and pricing programs that now exist under the Federal-aid Highway Program. In order to reduce confusion among interested applicants, given both the number and differing structures of the various tolling and pricing programs, the Office of Operations has formed a working group known as the “Tolling and Pricing Team.” The key role for the Tolling and Pricing Team is to assist public authorities by directing them to the most appropriate program (or programs), including to the VPP program, among the many options available. Members of the Tolling and Pricing Team represent the FHWA Offices of Operations, Policy and Governmental Affairs, and Infrastructure—the primary offices responsible for administering each of the tolling and pricing programs—and other oversight offices within the U.S. DOT and the FHWA, including, but not limited to the Office of the Secretary, and the FHWA Office of the Administrator and Office of Chief Counsel. Members participate on the Tolling and Pricing Team because of their direct program responsibilities or because they are interested stakeholders in tolling and pricing programs within the U.S. DOT. The Tolling and Pricing Team has six purposes: 1. Coordinate all tolling and pricing activity within FHWA to facilitate the implementation and advancement of tolling and pricing projects and standards in the United States; 2. Receive and review all Expressions of Interest submitted to the FHWA from public authorities; 3. Direct the public authority or partnerships designated by the State to the tolling and pricing program (or programs) that can enable them to accomplish the goals set forth in the “Expression of Interest” section of this notice; 4. Assist the Office of Operations in the promulgation of a final rule including requirements, standards, or performance specifications for the interoperability of automated toll collection systems as directed by SAFETEA-LU Section 1604(b)(6); 5. Support each of the FHWA program offices that have responsibility for a tolling and pricing program, in advancing formal proposals to gain approval to toll or price motor vehicles and facilitating coordination with the appropriate FHWA Division Office; and 6. Establish program performance goals; monitor achievements, and prepare an annual report to Congress on the status and progress of all tolling and pricing programs, including describing program successes in meeting congestion reduction and other performance goals. The Tolling and Pricing Team reviews all Expressions of Interest for the various tolling opportunities contained in current law but does not have responsibility to approve or disapprove specific projects. That responsibility will remain with each of the respective FHWA program offices responsible for administering a specific tolling or pricing program. By requesting and reviewing all Expressions of Interest, the Tolling and Pricing Team can effectively guide an applicant to the most appropriate program. The “Expression of Interest” A public authority that wants to request tolling or pricing authority, or funding, is asked to submit an Expression of Interest to the Tolling and Pricing Team in care of the FHWA Office of Operations in Washington, DC. An Expression of Interest template can be downloaded via the Internet by going to the Tolling and Pricing Opportunities webpage within the FHWA Office of Operations Web site at *http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/index.htm.* Use of the template is optional. The Expression of Interest may be attached as an e-mail to *TollingandPricingTeam@fhwa.dot.gov,* or a hardcopy can be mailed to Mr. Wayne Berman, FHWA Office of Operations, Room 3404, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Concurrently, the Expression of Interest should be copied to the respective State FHWA Division Office. The Expression of Interest is a document—in letter, memo, or report format—that provides the rationale for funding or tolling authority and information about the intended project. A complete Expression of Interest, based upon the information items listed below, will enable the Tolling and Pricing Team to provide the best assistance and identify the range of options possible to meet intended goals and timeframes. The information items requested for a complete Expression of Interest are as follows:
(a)A description of the agency or requesting authority or authorities that is/are requesting this tolling authority where applicable;
(b)The name, title, email address, and phone number of the person who will act as the point of contact on behalf of the requesting authority or authorities;
(c)A statement concerning the action being sought:
(i)Funding and/or tolling authority via the Value Pricing Pilot program to support either pre-project study activities or implementation activities as permitted; or
(ii)Only authority to toll either existing or planned facilities;
(d)A description of the subject facility or facilities proposed to be tolled;
(e)Whether the subject facility is an Interstate or non-Interstate facility;
(f)Whether construction is involved and, if so, whether this is new construction, expansion, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or other;
(g)Whether an HOV lane or lanes currently exist on the facility;
(h)A timetable to enact tolling (or modify tolling) on the subject facility;
(i)Any expressions or declarations of support from public officials or the public, i.e., specifically, any public meetings that were held. If no public meetings or expressions of support are available, please indicate if there are project plans for ensuring adequate public involvement and support prior to implementation;
(j)A plan for implementing tolls on the facility, where applicable. Where known, the range of anticipated tolls and the strategies to vary toll rates (i.e., the formulae for variable pricing);
(k)The reasons for implementing tolls, such as financing construction, reducing congestion, or improving air quality;
(l)A description of the public agency or agencies that will be responsible for operating, maintaining, and enforcing the tolling program; and
(m)A description of how, if at all, any private entities are involved either in the up-front costs to enact tolling, or the cost sharing or debt retirement associated with revenues. Program Participation—Overview of the Process Submitting an Expression of Interest initiates a review process by the Tolling and Pricing Team that leads to a recommendation as to which tolling or pricing program (or programs) will be appropriate and available to meet the goals of the public authority. In some cases, if more than one tolling program is available, the Tolling and Pricing Team will work with the public authority to help select the one program that is most appropriate and is most likely to lead to project approval. If the public authority prefers applying to a tolling program other than the one recommended, the Tolling and Pricing Team will defer to this request; however, the Tolling and Pricing Team will also provide advice as to the pros and cons of the decision. Once there is agreement between the public authority and the Tolling and Pricing Team as to the most appropriate program, the applicant will be referred to the specific FHWA program office responsible for administering that tolling and pricing initiative. The FHWA program office will then provide the public authority with the necessary information on how to formally apply for authority to toll motor vehicles and, in the case of the VPP program, request funding. Once a formal application is submitted, the appropriate FHWA program office will review the application and determine whether or not to approve the proposed project. The public authority will then be notified as to the determination. If approved, a formal tolling agreement and/or cooperative agreement will be prepared between the FHWA and the public authority. The toll agreement must be executed with the FHWA and address the use of revenues that are collected from the operation of the toll facility. While program elements may vary, the restrictions generally require the revenues to be used first for debt service, reasonable return on the investment for private parties, and the operations and maintenance of the facility. In addition, if the facility is being adequately maintained, any revenues in excess of these uses may be used for other title 23 U.S.C. eligible purposes. The FHWA, the State Department of Transportation, and the relevant toll authority or local governmental entity, if any, will execute the toll agreement, and in the case of the VPP, also a “cooperative agreement” that defines the scope of work that will be funded. Summary of the Two-Step Review Process The entire review process, resulting in the execution of a toll agreement and/or a cooperative agreement, can be summarized in two steps as follows: *Step #1:* Submit an Expression of Interest to the Tolling and Pricing Team. The Tolling and Pricing Team will review the Expression of Interest, advise the applicant as to which program or programs are candidate to their project, and provide counsel as to which of those is most appropriate to pursue. The applicant will be directed to contact the selected program office, wherein, the program office will then inform the public authority as to the procedures required for submitting a formal application for tolling authority and/or value pricing funding. *Step #2:* Submit a formal application for tolling or pricing authority or value pricing funding to the FHWA program office for formal review, ultimately leading to a decision on approval. The public authority will then be notified of the decision. If the project is approved, a formal tolling agreement (and in the case of the VPP program, also a cooperative agreement) will then be prepared. The Value Pricing Pilot Program Application As stated under the DATES section in this notice, in order to be assured of the maximum amount of constructive assistance from FHWA in preparing a formal application, Expressions of Interest for tolling and pricing projects seeking VPP program funding must be submitted two months prior to the application deadline that applies to the fiscal year for which funds are being sought. Once the Tolling and Pricing Team provides feedback on the Expression of Interest submittal, and once the public authority has confirmed its course of action is to pursue VPP program approval, the formal application should be submitted directly through the State Department of Transportation to the appropriate FHWA Division Administrator, with a copy sent concurrently to Mr. Patrick DeCorla-Souza, FHWA's Highway Pricing and System Analysis Team Leader, c/o the Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or via e-mail at *mailto:patrick.decorla-souza@fhwa.dot.gov.* Formal VPP program applications (i.e., step #2) will be reviewed by a Federal Interagency Review Group, 1 which provides support to the FHWA in evaluating program applications (see the “VPP Program Application Review Process” section below). Ideally, the refined formal application will include: 1 The Federal Interagency Review Group was established to assist the FHWA in assessing the likelihood that proposed local value pricing programs will provide valid and useful tests of value pricing concepts. The Review Group is composed of representatives of the Tolling and Pricing Team, along with representatives of the Federal Transit Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Department of Energy. 1. A description of the congestion problem being addressed (current and projected); 2. A description of the proposed pricing program and its goals, including description of facilities included, and, for implementation projects, expected pricing schedules, technology to be used, enforcement programs, and operating details; 3. Preliminary estimates of the social and economic effects of the pricing program, including potential equity impacts, and a plan or methodology for further refining these estimates for all pricing project(s) included in the program; 4. The role of alternative transportation modes in the project, and anticipated enhancements proposed to be included in the pricing program; 5. A time line for the pre-implementation study and implementation phases of the project (applications indicating early implementation of pricing projects that will allow evaluation during the life of SAFETEA-LU will receive priority); 6. A description of tasks to be carried out as part of each phase of the project, and an estimate of costs associated with each; 7. Plans for monitoring and evaluating value pricing implementation projects, including plans for data collection and analysis, before and after assessment, and long term monitoring and documenting of project effects; 8. A detailed finance and revenue plan, including (for implementation projects) a budget for capital and operating costs; a description of all funding sources, planned expenditures, proposed uses of revenues, and a plan for projects to become financially self-sustaining (without Federal support) within three years of implementation. 9. Plans for involving key affected parties, coalition building, media relations, and related matters, including either demonstration of previous public involvement in the development of the proposed pricing program or plans to ensure adequate public involvement prior to implementation; 10. Plans for meeting all Federal, State and local legal and administrative requirements for project implementation, including relevant Federal-aid planning and environmental requirements. Priority will be given to applications where projects are included as a part of (or are consistent with) a broad program addressing congestion, mobility, air quality and energy conservation, where an area has congestion management systems
(CMS)for Transportation Management Areas (urbanized areas with over 200,000 population or those designated by the Secretary). 11. An explanation about how ETC project components will be compatible with other ETC systems in the region. If some of these items are not available or fully developed at the time the formal application is submitted, applications will still be considered for support if they meet some of the priority interests of the FHWA, and related project characteristics, as described earlier in the section entitled “Potential Project Types,” and if there is a strong indication that these items will be completed within a short time. VPP Program Application Review Process A. Requests for Funding After completion of an Expression of Interest, and upon subsequent receipt of the formal, refined application, the FHWA's Office of Policy and Governmental Affairs will engage the Federal Interagency Review Group and proceed with final evaluation. To ensure that all projects receive equal and fair consideration for the limited available funds, the FHWA requires formal grant applications to be submitted no later than March 31, 2006, for FY 2006 funds, October 1, 2006, for FY 2007 funds, and each subsequent October 1 for funding through and including FY 2009. To be assured of the maximum amount of constructive assistance from FHWA in preparing a formal application, Expressions of Interest must be submitted by January 31, 2006, for FY 2006 funds, August 1, 2006, for FY2007 funds, and each subsequent August 1 thereafter. This timeline will allow for a fair comparison among formal applications received and will also allow the FHWA to make timely recommendations to the Secretary with regard to allocation of available funds in accordance with the criteria discussed in this notice. Based on the recommendations of the Federal Interagency Review Group, the U.S. DOT will identify those VPP program applications that have the greatest potential for promoting the objectives of the VPP program, including demonstrating the effects of value pricing on congestion, driver behavior, traffic volume, ridesharing, transit ridership, air quality, and availability of funds for transportation programs. The Secretary will make selections of applications based on the recommendations of the Federal Interagency Review Group and criteria contained in this notice. B. Projects for Which No Funds Are Requested Although most projects under the VPP program involve requests for value pricing funds, some projects do not. In such cases, and especially where a State is not already part of the VPP program, the FHWA recommends that the public authority investigate the other opportunities to gain authority to toll that are listed in the companion notice in today's **Federal Register** , entitled “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); Opportunities for State and Other Qualifying Agencies to Gain Authority to Toll Facilities Constructed Using Federal Funds.” Cooperative Agreement The VPP program candidates approved for funding will be invited to enter into negotiations with the FHWA to develop a cooperative agreement under which the scope of work for the value pricing project will be defined. Federal statutes will govern the cooperative agreement. Regulations cited in the agreement, and 49 CFR part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, will also govern as they relate to the acceptance and use of Federal funds for this program. As a practical matter, each VPP program project should have a separate cooperative agreement. Although, in the past, the FHWA has allowed some States to have a master cooperative agreement that is subsequently amended for each approved project, in the future the FHWA will execute a separate agreement for each project. For value pricing projects that do not involve requests for Federal funds, a cooperative agreement must still be executed. The FHWA Division Administrator will sign the cooperative agreement on behalf of FHWA. Other Requirements Prior to the FHWA approval of pricing project implementation, value-pricing programs must be shown to be consistent with Federal metropolitan and statewide planning requirements (23 U.S.C. 135 (c)(1), (e)(2)(B), (f)(1)(B)(ii)(I) and (II), (f)(3)(A) and (B); 49 U.S.C. 5323(1)). Implementation projects involving tolls outside metropolitan areas must be included in the approved statewide transportation improvement program and be selected in accordance with the requirements set forth in section 1204(f)(3) of the TEA-21. Implementation projects involving tolls in metropolitan areas must be:
(a)Included in, or consistent with, the approved metropolitan transportation plan (if the area is in nonattainment for a transportation related pollutant, the metropolitan plan must be in conformance with the State air quality implementation plan);
(b)included in the approved metropolitan and statewide transportation improvement programs (if the metropolitan area is in a nonattainment area for a transportation related pollutant, the metropolitan transportation improvement program must be in conformance with the State air quality implementation plan);
(c)selected in accordance with the requirements in Section 1203(h)(5) or (i)(2) of TEA-21; and
(d)consistent with any existing congestion management system in Transportation Management areas, developed pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(3). Frequently Asked Questions 1. *Who will make up the Tolling and Pricing Team?* The Office of Operations is the lead office and will undertake responsibility to gather and distribute the Expressions of Interest for preliminary evaluation and to maintain the aforementioned website. The Tolling and Pricing Team has representation from all of the relevant program offices that have tolling and pricing oversight responsibilities, including the FHWA Offices of Operations, Policy and Governmental Affairs, and Infrastructure. In addition, other stakeholder offices within FHWA and the U.S. Department of Transportation are represented, including the FHWA Offices of Public Affairs and Chief Counsel, and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. 2. *How often will the Tolling and Pricing Team meet?* The group will meet as often as necessary in person, but mostly will communicate via e-mail contact and access to a File Transfer Protocol
(FTP)Web site, which will serve to post the Expressions of Interest for private review by the team almost immediately upon submittal. The Office of Operations will act promptly to engage the Tolling and Pricing Team to review a project proposal, discuss project eligibility under different programs, and recommend the project for further consideration under the most appropriate program. 3. *If I have any questions, whom should I contact?* Any general questions concerning the tolling and pricing programs should be directed to Mr. Wayne Berman, Transportation Specialist, in the Office of Operations at 202-366-4069. His e-mail address is *wayne.berman@fhwa.dot.gov.* Alternatively, there is an e-mail “mailbox” on the tolling and pricing Web site (address below). At the time of this notice, the direct points of contact are: a. Web site: *http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/index.htm* b. Tolling and Pricing Team—Wayne Berman, HOP.
(202)366-4069; *wayne.berman@fhwa.dot.gov.* c. Value Pricing (SAFETEA-LU 1604(a))—Patrick DeCorla-Souza.
(202)366-4076; *patrick.decorla-souza@fhwa.dot.gov.* d. HOV to HOT lane (1121)—Jessie Yung.
(202)366-4672; *jessie.yung@fhwa.dot.gov.* e. Express Lanes Demonstration (SAFETEA-LU 1604(b))—Wayne Berman (contact info above). f. Interstate System Construction (SAFETEA-LU 1604(c))—Greg Wolf.
(202)366-4655; *greg.wolf@fhwa.dot.gov.* g. Interstate Reconstruction and Rehabilitation (TEA-21 1216(b))—Greg Wolf (contact info above). h. 23 U.S.C. 129 Agreements—Greg Wolf (contact info above). Authority 23 U.S.C. 315; sec. 1216(a), Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107; Pub. L. 109-59; 117 Stat. 1144 49 CFR 1.48. Issued on: December 28, 2005. J. Richard Capka, Acting Federal Highway Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-12 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA-05-23447] Pipeline Safety: Reconsideration of Natural Gas Pipeline Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure for Class Locations AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of meeting; call for papers. SUMMARY: On March 21, 2006, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) will hold a public meeting to discuss raising the allowable operating pressure on certain natural gas transmission pipelines. Pipelines are the energy highways of the Nation that provide the most efficient means to transport vast volumes of natural gas on which we depend. Raising the maximum allowable operating pressures
(MAOP)for natural gas pipelines would allow more gas to flow through these pipelines. This notice is designed to announce a public meeting and to invite papers on relevant technical subjects. Over the past 20 years, there has been a drastic improvement in technology pertaining to materials, metallurgy, controls, operations, and maintenance of the pipeline network. Based on these and other advances, PHMSA believes that certain pipelines in certain locations could be safely and reliably operated above the operating pressure established in current Federal pipeline safety regulation. There are three categories of pipelines that could realize an immediate benefit from such an increase in the MAOP: the proposed Alaska Natural Gas Transmission System; new natural gas pipelines that are being certificated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and pipelines constructed since 1980 with line pipe of known metallurgical and mechanical properties. This meeting provides the pipeline industry, Federal and State regulators, and interested members of the public an opportunity to share their knowledge and experience about the impact of increasing the MAOP to increase pipeline efficiency. Individuals that would like to make presentations should notify the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by February 7, 2006, and submit papers at this meeting. ADDRESSES: The March 21, 2006, meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Reston Hotel, 1800 Presidents Street, Reston, VA 20190. The telephone number for reservations at the Hyatt Regency Reston Hotel is
(703)709-1234. The hotel will post the particular meeting room the day of the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joy Kadnar, Director, Engineering and Emergency Support at
(202)366-4595 or *joy.kadnar@dot.gov* about the subject matter in this notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction Pipeline operators continually explore ways to reduce the cost of new pipelines, or increase the efficiency of existing pipelines, without affecting reliability and safety. One way to achieve cost reductions is to use high-grade line pipe and employ new welding methods. Another method to increase cost-effectiveness and to make the pipeline more efficient is to operate pipelines at higher stress levels. International pipeline regulations generally limit design stresses to 72% specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). Under highly selective conditions, some pipelines in the United States and Canada operate at hoop stresses up to 80% SMYS. Notwithstanding, the current United States Code of Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations
(CFR)(49 CFR part 192) limits the stress to 72% SMYS for Class 1 locations, while Canada limits it to 80%. There are a lot of other countries considering operating at higher levels. Therefore, PHMSA believes it is appropriate to explore the reliability and integrity implications of operating pipelines at stress levels above 72% SMYS, but not to exceed 80% SMYS for Class 1 locations. The benefits of an increase in MAOP for natural gas pipelines are tremendous, mainly because of the increase in capacity and fuel efficiency. For new pipelines operated at a higher MAOP, operators might realize an initial cost savings, primarily in materials. A capacity increase in existing pipelines will have an auxiliary benefit by avoiding the construction of new pipelines or costly modifications that have the potential to damage the environment. Historical problems associated with seam failures are non-existent with new materials. Most new pipelines have been configured to accept inline inspection tools to monitor the pipeline's condition. Pipeline operators have improved their ability to manage internal corrosion. By allowing pipeline companies to safely increase the MAOP of existing pipelines that meet certain criteria, they could avoid new construction that can impact the environment. Research by the Pipeline Research Council International concluded that pipeline operations can be safe and reliable at stress levels of up to 80% SMYS if the pipeline has well-established metallurgical properties and can be managed to protect it against known threats, such as corrosion and mechanical damage. Additionally, independent studies demonstrate the benefits of risk and reliability-based principles that strengthen safety. Background The class location regulations require that pipelines routed through areas with higher local population density operate at lower pressures. This is intended to provide an extra safety margin in those areas. The gas transmission integrity management program addresses protections in high consequence areas. The cost-benefit analysis included in the final rule noted that a significant benefit to implementing integrity management is reduced cost to the pipeline industry for ensuring safety in populated areas along pipelines. Improved knowledge of pipeline integrity provides a technical basis for considering alternatives to regulation, for example whether to replace pipe or to reduce operating stresses in pipelines when population near them increases, (i.e., when the class location increases to either Class 2 from Class 1 or to Class 3 from Class 2). A class location change results from new construction near a pipeline segment and unless a waiver is granted triggers a requirement that the MAOP be confirmed or revised. On June 24, 2004, PHMSA issued criteria for granting class location waivers based on integrity management principles. The criteria provide information and guidance to pipeline operators concerning the specific pipe design and operating parameters within which PHMSA is likely to consider a class location waiver application to be consistent with pipeline safety. Class location waivers that are granted allow a pipeline operator to perform alternative risk control activities based on the principles and requirements of the integrity management program in lieu of pipe replacement or pressure reduction. These waivers allow operators to continue to operate pipelines at existing hoop stresses although the MAOP is no longer commensurate with the class location requirements. Specified Minimum Yield Strength In the early 1950s, the American Standards Association's
(ASA)pipeline committee developed ASA Standard B31.8 and the concept of basing design stress on a percentage of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). The committee determined that 72% SMYS was an acceptable design factor. Thereafter, PHMSA incorporated this standard by reference into its pipeline regulations. In the late 1980s, ASME International
(ASME)revisited the SMYS issue and determined that pipelines could operate safely at up to 80% SMYS. The committee then modified ASME B31.8 to include that provision. The United States Federal pipeline safety regulations allow a maximum operating pressure of 72% SMYS. The Canadian regulations allow a maximum operating pressure of 80% SMYS. Currently, there are pipelines in the United States that have been “grandfathered” to operate at an MAOP above 72% SMYS. PHMSA statistics show that these pipelines have an equivalent safety record when compared with pipelines that operate according to the design factors in the pipeline safety regulations. Further, the pipeline safety regulations already allow pipelines to continue to operate at the original design factor when the class location increases by one Class, providing certain criteria are met. For example, a pipeline in a Class 2 location is allowed to continue operating at 60% of SMYS when it changes to a Class 3. Preliminary Meeting Agenda The public meeting will examine policies and technical issues that are central to understanding and improving pipeline safety. While providing opportunities for improved efficiency, the meeting will highlight contributed papers and studies and will provide opportunities to discuss and exchange views. The agenda for this meeting will include discussion on: • Existing pipelines operating above 72% SMYS. • Evolution of the 72% SMYS ceiling. • Class Location. • Regulatory Requirements in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. • Engineering and Technical Considerations for 80% SMYS Operation. • Waiver requests submitted to PHMSA. See DOT Docket Numbers: PHMSA-05-23448, and PHMSA-05-23387. During the meeting, PHMSA would like participants to discuss their views on the MAOP and any experience they have had operating pipelines beyond 72% SMYS. PHMSA also would like participants to provide information on reliability and how moving beyond 72% SMYS would impact pipeline safety. Call for Papers We invite papers to address reasons why PHMSA should or should not provide relief from the class location requirements to pipelines that meet certain stringent operating criteria. PHMSA is interested in engineering and technical considerations. Papers may discuss the impact on public safety, the environment, the economy, and the State pipeline programs. All papers, whether presented at the public meeting or not, will be included in the public docket. PHMSA solicits papers on relevant policy and technical topics in the following areas: • The impact of operating pipelines at pressures greater than 72% SMYS. • The impact on pipeline threats at 80% SMYS operation. • The role of ongoing integrity assessment in managing the safety of pipelines designed to operate at pressures up to 80% SMYS. • The benefits of 80% SMYS operation on natural gas commodity movements and energy flows. • A qualitative assessment of the pipeline capacity increase across the grid that could result from such pressure uprating. • A comparison of failure histories, national and international, of pipelines operating up to 72% SMYS versus those operating above 72% SMYS. • Regulatory harmonization between the United States and Canada. • Role of initial hydrostatic testing for initial design integrity validation. • Review of pipe robustness and resistance to excavation damage. • Impact on fatigue life of pipelines operating up to 80% SMYS. • Fracture control design parameters for 80% SMYS operation. • Evaluation of integrity re-assessment intervals for 80% SMYS operation. • Optimization of conditioning, monitoring, and mitigation programs for 80% SMYS operation. • Review of existing compressor station equipment relative to 80% SMYS operation. • Review of operations and controls for 80% SMYS. • Emerging approaches for reliability analysis, integrity management, and risk analysis in high stress pipelines. • Line pipe characteristics and flaws that preclude pipelines from higher operating stresses. Authors must submit abstracts of their papers in 250 words or less to the docket by February 7, 2006. PHMSA will notify authors by February 14, 2006, whether their papers were accepted for presentation at the meeting. Each author of an accepted paper will have the choice of providing either a short paper (6-10 pages) or an extended abstract (3-5 pages) that will be due before the public meeting. You may submit papers or comments by mail or deliver them to the Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. The Dockets Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You also may submit papers or comments to the docket electronically by logging onto the following Internet Web address: *http://dms.dot.gov.* Click on “Help & Information” for instructions on how to file a document electronically. All papers or comments should reference docket number PHMSA-05-23447. Anyone who would like confirmation of mailed papers or comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. *Privacy Act Statement:* Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . *Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities:* For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Cheryl Whetsel at
(202)366-4431 by March 6, 2006. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60102 and 60133. Issued in Washington, DC, on December 30, 2005. Stacey L. Gerard, Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. 06-110 Filed 1-5-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 22
Traces to 22 documents
19 references not yet in our index
  • 10 CFR 50
  • 17 CFR 240.19
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 20 CFR 404.370-404
  • 20 CFR 404.601-404
  • 20 CFR 416.305-416
  • 20 CFR 404.1512-404
  • Pub. L. 106-170
  • Pub. L. 108-203
  • Pub. L. 109-59
  • Pub. L. 105-178
  • 112 Stat. 107
  • 117 Stat. 1144
  • 49 CFR 1.48
  • Pub. L. 102-240
  • 105 Stat. 1914
  • 119 Stat. 1144
  • 49 CFR 18
  • 49 CFR 192
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
C.F.R.§ 72.50
U.S.C.§ 2201
U.S.C.§ 78s
U.S.C.§ 78f
U.S.C.§ 78c
U.S.C.§ 552
C.F.R.§ 200.30-3
C.F.R.§ 404.1520
C.F.R.§ 404.460
Cite10 CFR 50
Cite17 CFR 240.19
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cites 41 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.