Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking

7,292 words·~33 min read·/register/2006/03/09/06-2202

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 578 [Docket No. NHTSA-06-24109; Notice 1] RIN 2127-AJ83 Civil Penalties AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document proposes to increase the maximum aggregate civil penalties for violations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended. This action would be taken pursuant to the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, which requires us to review and, as warranted, adjust penalties based on inflation at least every four years.

Additionally, this document proposes to codify statutory amendments to our penalty provisions and to make a technical correction to the text of the agency's penalty regulation. DATES: Comments on the proposal are due April 10, 2006. Proposed effective date: 30 days after date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • Web Site: *http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • Fax: 1-202-493-2251. • Mail:

Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number

(RIN)for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Request for Comments heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Kido, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, telephone

(202)366-5263, facsimile

(202)366-3820, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In order to preserve the remedial impact of civil penalties and to foster compliance with the law, the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461 Notes, Pub. L. No. 101-410), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-134) (referred to collectively as the “Adjustment Act” or, in context, the “Act”), requires us and other Federal agencies to adjust civil penalties for inflation. Under the Adjustment Act, following an initial adjustment that was capped by the Act, these agencies must make further adjustments, as warranted, to the amounts of penalties in statutes they administer at least once every four years. NHTSA's initial adjustment of civil penalties under the Adjustment Act was published on February 4, 1997. 62 FR 5167. At that time, we codified the penalties under statutes administered by NHTSA, as adjusted, in 49 CFR part 578, Civil Penalties. On July 14, 1999, we further adjusted certain penalties. 64 FR 37876. In 2000, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (“TREAD”) Act increased the maximum penalties under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended (sometimes referred to as the “Motor Vehicle Safety Act”). We codified those amendments in part 578 on November 14, 2000. 65 FR 68108. On August 7, 2001, we also adjusted certain penalty amounts pertaining to odometer requirements and disclosure and vehicle theft prevention. 66 FR 41149. On September 28, 2004, we adjusted the maximum penalty amounts for a related series of violations the agency's provisions governing vehicle safety, bumper standards, and consumer information. 69 FR 57864. Most recently, on September 8, 2005, the agency adjusted its penalty amounts for violations of its vehicle theft protection standards and those involving a related series of odometer fraud violations. 70 FR 53308. We have reviewed the civil penalty amounts in 49 CFR part 578 and propose in this notice to adjust certain penalties under the Adjustment Act. Those civil penalties that we are proposing to adjust address violations pertaining to single and related series of violations of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Method of Calculation—Proposed Adjustments Under the Adjustment Act, we determine the inflation adjustment for each applicable civil penalty by increasing the maximum civil penalty amount per violation by a cost-of-living adjustment, and then applying a rounding factor. Section 5(b) of the Adjustment Act defines the “cost-of-living” adjustment as: The percentage (if any) for each civil monetary penalty by which—

(1)The Consumer Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment exceeds

(2)The Consumer Price Index for the month of June of the calendar year in which the amount of such civil monetary penalty was last set or adjusted pursuant to law. Since the proposed adjustment is intended to be effective before December 31, 2006, the “Consumer Price Index [CPI] for the month of June of the calendar year preceding the adjustment” would be the CPI for June 2005. This figure, based on the Adjustment Act's requirement of using the CPI “for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor” is 582.6. 1 The penalty amounts that NHTSA proposes to adjust based on the Adjustment Act's requirements were last set in 2000 for each violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and adjusted in 2004 for a related series of violations of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The CPI figure for June 2000 is 516.5; the CPI figure for June 2004 is 568.2. Accordingly, the factors that we are using in calculating the proposed increases are 1.13 (582.6/516.5) for a single Motor Vehicle Safety Act violation and 1.02 (582.6/568.2) for a related series of Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Using these inflation factors, calculated increases under these adjustments are then subject to a specific rounding formula set forth in Section 5(a) of the Adjustment Act. 28 U.S.C. 2461, Notes. Under that formula: 1 Individuals interested in deriving the CPI figures used by the agency may visit the Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index Home Page at *http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm.* Scroll down to “Most Requested Statistics” and select the “All Urban Consumers (Current Series)” option, select the “U.S. ALL ITEMS 1967 = 100 — CUUR0000AA0” box, and click on the “Retrieve Data” button. Any increase shall be rounded to the nearest:

(1)Multiple of $10 in the case of penalties less than or equal to $100;

(2)Multiple of $100 in the case of penalties greater than $100 but less than or equal to $1,000;

(3)Multiple of $1,000 in the case of penalties greater than $1,000 but less than or equal to $10,000;

(4)Multiple of $5,000 in the case of penalties greater than $10,000 but less than or equal to $100,000;

(5)Multiple of $10,000 in the case of penalties greater than $100,000 but less than or equal to $200,000; and

(6)Multiple of $25,000 in the case of penalties greater than $200,000. Change to Maximum Penalties Under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (49 CFR 578.6(a)) The maximum civil penalty for a violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act or a regulation thereunder is $5,000, as specified in 49 CFR 578.6(a)(1). Complementing this, the maximum penalty for a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30166 or a regulation thereunder is $5,000 per violation per day. See 49 CFR 578.6(a)(2). The underlying statutory civil penalty provision is 49 U.S.C. 30165(a). Applying the appropriate inflation factor (1.13) to the Adjustment Act calculation raises the $5,000 figure to $5,650, an increase of $650. Under the rounding formula, any increase in a penalty's amount shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000 in the case of penalties greater than $1,000 but less than or equal to $10,000. In this case, the increase would be $1,000. Accordingly, we propose that Section 578.6(a)(1) and (a)(2) be amended to increase the maximum civil penalty from $5,000 to $6,000 for a single violation and for each violation per day, respectively. Similarly, we are proposing that the maximum civil penalty for a related series of violations covered in 49 CFR 578.6(a)(1) and

(2)be raised. Specifically, applying the appropriate inflation factor of 1.02 to the current amount of $16,050,000 raises this figure to $16,371,000, which yields an increase of $321,000. Applying the rounding rules, which instruct that increases be rounded to the closest $25,000, produces an increase of $325,000. Accordingly, we are proposing to increase the maximum amounts in 49 CFR 578.6(a)(1) and

(2)to $16,375,000. We are also proposing to redesignate the current section 578.6(a)(2) as (a)(3) to parallel changes to 49 U.S.C. 30165 made in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1942-43 (2005). The current section 578.6(a)(2) was based on 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(2). SAFETEA-LU redesignated that paragraph to 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(3). 119 Stat. at 1942. The new section 578.6(a)(2) is discussed immediately below. Proposed Codification of School Bus Safety Penalty for a Violation of 49 U.S.C. § 30112(a) (As Amended by SAFETEA-LU) In addition to the adjustments described above, the agency is proposing to codify penalty provisions added to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act by SAFETEA-LU. See 119 Stat. 1144, 1942-43. This is consistent with the agency's practice of codifying civil penalties available under statutes that it administers in part 578. More particularly, in SAFETEA-LU, Congress added a prohibition related to the acquisition of noncomplying 15-passenger vans for school use. 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(2) (as amended by SAFETEA-LU). 119 Stat. at 1942. Congress also added associated penalties (49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(2), as amended by SAFETEA-LU). See 119 Stat. at 1942-43. The proposed rule incorporates the SAFETEA-LU penalty provision in terms that parallel the existing 49 CFR 578.6 regulation. Based on the SAFETEA-LU penalty provision, proposed section 578.6(a)(2) provides that a single violation may result in a maximum penalty amount of $10,000, while a related series of violations may result in a maximum penalty amount of $15,000,000. These penalties, like others under statutes NHTSA administers, would be subject to periodic adjustments under the Adjustment Act. Technical Correction Finally, the agency is proposing to amend the language in Section 578.6(a) to achieve consistency with the current statutory text. Specifically, Section 578.6(a) makes reference to violations of 49 U.S.C. 30123(d), which addresses the treatment of regrooved tires. On June 9, 1998, this statutory provision was redesignated as subsection (a). See Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 467. Accordingly, we are proposing to make corresponding changes in the regulation to reflect this redesignation. Effective Date The amendments would be effective 30 days after publication of the final rule in the **Federal Register** . The adjusted penalties would apply to violations occurring on and after the effective date. Request for Comments How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments? Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the beginning of this document, under ADDRESSES. You may also submit your comments electronically to the docket following the steps outlined under ADDRESSES. How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received? If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the following to the Chief Counsel (NCC-110) at the address given at the beginning of this document under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :

(1)A complete copy of the submission;

(2)a redacted copy of the submission with the confidential information removed; and

(3)either a second complete copy or those portions of the submission containing the material for which confidential treatment is claimed and any additional information that you deem important to the Chief Counsel's consideration of your confidentiality claim. A request for confidential treatment that complies with 49 CFR part 512 must accompany the complete submission provided to the Chief Counsel. For further information, submitters who plan to request confidential treatment for any portion of their submissions are advised to review 49 CFR part 512, particularly those sections relating to document submission requirements. Failure to adhere to the requirements of part 512 may result in the release of confidential information to the public docket. In addition, you should submit two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given at the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES. Will the Agency Consider Late Comments? We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice under DATES. In accordance with our policies, to the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after the specified comment closing date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing the proposed rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action. How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People? You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given near the beginning of this document under ADDRESSES. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:

(1)Go to the Docket Management System

(DMS)Web page of the Department of Transportation ( *http://dms.dot.gov/* ).

(2)On that page, click on “search.”

(3)On the next page ( *http://dms.dot.gov/search/* ), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the heading of this document. Example: if the docket number were “NHTSA-2006-1234,” you would type “1234.”

(4)After typing the docket number, click on “search.”

(5)The next page contains docket summary information for the docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see. You may download the comments. The comments are imaged documents, in either TIFF or PDF format. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This action is limited to the proposed adoption of adjustments of civil penalties under statutes that the agency enforces, and has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. Regulatory Flexibility Act We have also considered the impacts of this notice under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that a final rule based on this proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following provides the factual basis for this certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The proposed amendments almost entirely potentially affect manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Small Business Administration's regulations define a small business in part as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” 13 CFR 121.105(a). SBA's size standards were previously organized according to Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) Codes. SIC Code 336211 “Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing” applied a small business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer. SBA now uses size standards based on the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”), Subsector 336—Transportation Equipment Manufacturing, which provides a small business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer for automobile manufacturing businesses. Other motor vehicle-related industries have lower size requirements that range between 500 and 750 employees. 2 2 For example, according to the new SBA coding system, businesses that manufacture truck trailers, travel trailers/campers, carburetors, pistons, piston rings, valves, vehicular lighting equipment, motor vehicle seating/interior trim, and motor vehicle stamping qualify as small businesses if they employ 500 or fewer employees. Similarly, businesses that manufacture gasoline engines, engine parts, electrical and electronic equipment (non-vehicle lighting), motor vehicle steering/suspension components (excluding springs), motor vehicle brake systems, transmissions/power train parts, motor vehicle air-conditioning, and all other motor vehicle parts qualify as small businesses if they employ 750 or fewer employees. See *http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable.pdf* for further details. Many small businesses are subject to the penalty provisions of 49 U.S.C. Chapters 301 (Motor Vehicle Safety Act) and therefore may be affected by the adjustments that this NPRM proposes to make. For example, based on comprehensive reporting pursuant to the early warning reporting

(EWR)rule under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 CFR part 579, of the more than 60 light vehicle manufacturers reporting, over half are small businesses. Also, there are other, relatively low production light vehicle manufacturers that are not subject to comprehensive EWR reporting. Furthermore, there are about 98 registered importers. Equipment manufacturers are also subject to penalties under 49 U.S.C. 30165. As noted throughout this preamble, this proposed rule would only increase the maximum penalty amounts that the agency could obtain for a single violation and a related series of violations of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The proposed rule does not set the amount of penalties for any particular violation or series of violations. Under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the penalty provision requires the agency to take into account the size of a business when determining the appropriate penalty in an individual case. See 49 U.S.C. 30165(b). The agency would also consider the size of a business under its civil penalty policy when determining the appropriate civil penalty amount. See 62 FR 37115 (July 10, 1997) (NHTSA's civil penalty policy under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (“SBREFA”)). The penalty adjustments that are being proposed would not affect our civil penalty policy under SBREFA. Since this regulation would not establish penalty amounts, this proposal will not have a significant economic impact on small businesses. Small organizations and governmental jurisdictions would not be significantly affected as the price of motor vehicles and equipment ought not change as the result of this proposed rule. As explained above, this action is limited to the proposed adoption of a statutory directive, and has been determined to be not “significant” under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure ”meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The reason is that this final rule applies to motor vehicle manufacturers, and not to the States or local governments. Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. Because this rule will not have a $100 million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared. National Environmental Policy Act We have also analyzed this rulemaking action under the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it has no significant impact on the human environment. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) This proposed rule does not have a retroactive or preemptive effect. Judicial review of a rule based on this proposal may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial review. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, we state that there are no requirements for information collection associated with this rulemaking action. Privacy Act Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 578 Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and Rubber Products, Tires, Penalties. In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 578 would be amended as set forth below. PART 578—CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES 1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 578 would continue to read as follows: Authority: Pub. L. No. 101-410, Pub. L. No. 104-134, Pub. L. No. 109-59, 49 U.S.C. 30165, 30170, 30505, 32308, 32309, 32507, 32709, 32710, 32912, and 33115; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. Section 578.6 would be amended by redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as (a)(3), adding a new paragraph (a)(2), and revising paragraph (a)(1) and the newly redesignated paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows: § 578.6 Civil penalties for violations of specified provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code.

(a)*Motor vehicle safety.*

(1)*In general.* A person who violates any of sections 30112, 30115, 30117 through 30122, 30123(a), 30125(c), 30127, or 30141 through 30147 of Title 49 of the United States Code or a regulation prescribed under any of those sections is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $6,000 for each violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and for each failure or refusal to allow or perform an act required by any of those sections. The maximum civil penalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations is $16,375,000.

(2)*School buses.*

(A)Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1), a person who

(i)violates section 30112(a)(1) of Title 49 United States Code by the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, or importation of a school bus or school bus equipment (as those terms are defined in 49 U.S.C. 30125(a)) or

(ii)violates section 30112(a)(2) of Title 49 United States Code, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and for each failure or refusal to allow or perform an act required by that section. The maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations is $15,000,000.

(3)*Section 30166.* A person who violates section 30166 of Title 49 of the United States Code or a regulation prescribed under that section is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty for failing or refusing to allow or perform an act required under that section or regulation. The maximum penalty under this paragraph is $6,000 per violation per day. The maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related series of daily violations is $16,375,000. Issued on: March 2, 2006. Stephen P. Wood, Acting Chief Counsel. [FR Doc. E6-3307 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 71 46 Thursday, March 9, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 7, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the 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 burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax

(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling

(202)720-8958. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. National Agricultural Statistics Service *Title:* Mink Survey. *OMB Control Number:* 0535-0212. *Summary of Collection:* The primary function of the National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS)is to prepare and issue current official State and national estimates of crop and livestock production. Statistics on mink production are published for the 15 major states that account for 95 percent of the U.S. production. There is no other source for this type of information. General authority for these data collection activities is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204. *Need and Use of the Information:* NASS collects information on mink pelts produced by color, number of females bred to produce kits the following year, number of mink farms, average marketing price, and the value of pelts produced. The data is disseminated by NASS in the Mink Report and is used by the U.S. government and other groups. *Description of Respondents:* Farms. *Number of Respondents:* 337. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting: Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 54. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-3318 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request March 7, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding

(a)whether the 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 burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;

(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Rural Housing Service *Title:* 7 CFR 1944-I, “Self-Help Technical Assistance Grants”. *OMB Control Number:* 0575-0043. *Summary of Collection:* This regulation prescribes policies and responsibilities, including the collection and use of information, necessary to administer the Section 523 Mutual and Self-Help housing

(MSH)program. The MSH program affords low-income families the opportunity for home ownership by providing funds to non-profit organizations for supervisory and technical assistance to the homebuilding families. Rural Housing Service

(RHS)will collect information from non-profit organizations that want to develop a Self-Help program in their area to increase the availability of affordable housing. The information is collected at the local, district and state levels. The information requested by RHS includes financial and organizational information about the non-profit organization. *Need and Use of the Information:* RHS needs this information to determine if the organization is capable of successfully carrying out the requirements of the Self-Help program. The information is collected on an as requested or needed basis. RHS has reviewed the program's need for the collection of information versus the burden placed on the public. *Description of Respondents:* State, Local or Tribal Government; Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 160. *Frequency of Responses:* Recordkeeping; Reporting: Monthly, Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 4,372. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-3319 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XT-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Renewal of Special-Use Permits for Recreational Residences on the Safford Ranger District, Coronado National Forest, Graham County, AZ AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: In accordance with the President's Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ)Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Coronado National Forest, announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)to evaluate a proposed action to renew individual special-use permits

(SUPs)for occupancy and use of 88 existing recreational residences on the Safford Ranger District. If a decision is made to renew, term permits would be issued for a 20-year period beginning on January 1, 2009. No change in the use of the residences would occur upon issuance of a new permit. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by April 10, 2006. Written and oral scoping comments will also be received at open-house public meetings scheduled to be held in Tucson, Arizona, on March 27, 2006, and Safford, Arizona, on March 28, 2006. The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)in the fall of 2006. At that time, EPA will publish a Notice of Availability

(NOA)of the Draft EIS in the **Federal Register** , which will begin a period of public review of the Draft EIS. The review period will comprise 45 days from the date of publication of the NOA in the **Federal Register** . The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed in the winter of 2006/2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments on this notice may be mailed to the Bill Lewis, Recreation and Special-Uses Program Manager, Coronado National Forest, 300 West Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona 85701. You may also submit written comments by facsimile to Mr. Lewis at

(520)388-8305. Comments may be submitted by electronic mail to *comments-southwestern-coronado@fs.fed.us* . Envelopes and the subject line of electronic mail messages or faxes should be labeled “Safford Recreational Residence EIS.” Public meetings will be held during the scoping period at the following locations, dates, and times: Tucson-Pima County Main Library, Basement Meeting Room, 101 North Stone Avenue, Tucson, Arizona, March 27, 2006 (6 p.m. to 8 p.m.), The Manor House, Arizona Room, 415 East U.S. Highway 70, Safford, Arizona, March 28, 2006 (4 p.m. to 7 p.m.). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the Special-Uses Program, please contact Mr. Bill Lewis, Recreation and Special-Uses Program Manager, Coronado National Forest, at the above address, and telephone

(520)388-8422. Questions on the Forest Service NEPA process or FOIA requirements may be directed to Ms. Andrea Wargo Campbell, Forest NEPA Coordinator, at the same address, and telephone

(520)388-8352. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The U.S. Forest Service has offered a recreational residence program on National Forest System lands since the 1920's. The program was initiated with the objective of encouraging city-dwellers to enjoy the recently established national forests by permitting them to construct vacation homes on specified plots. It expanded through the 1960's to encompass a total of 19,000 cabins nationwide before the program was discontinued. There are now about 15,000 Forest Service cabins nationwide, each of which is maintained under the terms and conditions of SUPs issued by the managing Forest. Though some cabins have been traded on the open market, many are still owned by the descendants of the individuals who built them. Eighty-eight

(88)recreational residences are located on the Safford Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest near Safford, Arizona: 14 at an area known as Columbine and 74 at Turkey Flat. The owners of these recreational residences hold Forest Service SUPs that allow each unit to be occupied under specific terms and conditions. Restrictions imposed on the use of recreational residences on National Forest System lands include, among other conditions, a prohibition on year-round residency and vacation rental, and constraints on proposed remodeling that would change the footprint or character of a residence. Special-use permits issued for recreational residences on the Safford Ranger District are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008. Forest Service Handbook

(FSH)2709.11, Chapter 41.23a(2), requires that special-uses program staff “initiate the analysis and action to issue a new permit 2 years prior to expiration of the current term permit”. The Handbook further states that, because “recreation residences have been in place for many years, and experience in administering this use has shown that continuing the use does not cause significant environmental impacts, issuance of a new permit can be made without further environmental documentation” [2709.11, Chapter 41.23a(1)]. However, “if the use has not been analyzed sufficiently as part of an EA or EIS completed within 5 years of permit expiration, (the program must) complete the appropriate environmental analysis and documentation” [2709.11, Chapter 41.23a(1)(b)]. Because NEPA documentation for the SUPs issued for recreational residences on the Safford District was completed more than five years prior to the upcoming permit expiration, the Forest Service has decided to prepare an EIS for the proposed permit renewal action. Proposed Action The Forest Service's proposed action is to renew SUPs issued for recreational residences on the Safford Ranger District upon their expiration on December 31, 2008. The renewal period would extend 20 years, from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2028. Permit holders would be required to abide by all terms and conditions expressed in their respective SUPs and in accordance with the annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan conveyed with each SUP. (Examples of an SUP and O&M Plan are available for public review on the Coronado National Forest Web site at *“http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado”* .) Prior to the renewal of an SUP, each recreational residence will be subject to inspection by Forest Service personnel to confirm that the permit holder is in compliance with the terms and conditions of his/her current permit [FSH 2709.11, 41.23a(3)]. Purpose of and Need for Action The purpose of and need for Forest Service action is based upon the anticipated expiration of the SUPs for recreational residences on the Safford Ranger District. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, the Forest Service is directed to consider special uses of National Forest System lands requested by the public, and to permit such uses when

(1)they are allowable under the FLMPA and

(2)they are implemented in accordance with goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines expressed in a Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Action is needed at this time because the permits on the Safford Ranger District are scheduled to expire. It is Forest Service policy to continue recreation residence use and to work in partnership with holders of these permits to maximize public recreational benefits [Forest Service Manual

(FSM)2347.1; LRMP, pp. 9, 41 and 59]. Preliminary Identification of Issues Based on a preliminary assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed action, the following issues were identified: 1. Insect infestation and fire have affected the population and habitat of the Mt. Graham red squirrel in the area of the Columbine recreational residences. 2. When a wildfire occurs, the appropriate response in the area of the recreational residences is suppression, which disrupts the natural fire cycle and the ability of the ecosystem to restore itself to natural historic fire-adapted conditions. Responsible Official Mr. William A. Schuckert, Safford District Ranger, Coronado National Forest, will be the Responsible Official for this EIS process. The address for the Safford Ranger District is 711 14th Avenue, Suite D, Safford, Arizona 85546. Nature of NEPA Decision To Be Made The Safford District Ranger's decision will recommend implementation of one of the following alternatives:

(1)The proposed action to renew the recreational residence SUPs for a 20-year period,

(2)an alternative to the proposed action, if any exist, or

(3)the no-action alternative. If the Ranger's decision is that no action should be taken, an SUP would be issued to each permit holder for a 10-year period, and during this period, each owner would be required to remove his/her residences from National Forest System lands at his/her expense. National Forest Management Act Consistency Determination A decision to issue new recreational residence permits, following expiration of the current permits, requires, in addition to a NEPA review, a determination of the consistency of the renewal action with the governing Land and Resource Management Plan for the Coronado National Forest (1986, as amended). According to policy, when a recreational residence use is consistent with the Land and Resource Management Plan, the use shall continue (FSM 2721.23e), and a new permit shall be issued to the current permit holder [FSM 2721.23e(1)], upon request. Consistency determinations are made by tract, not individual lots; therefore, on the Safford Ranger District, two consistency determinations will be made: one for residences at Columbine, the other for those at Turkey Flat. Comments Requested The Forest Service encourages citizens to express issues, concerns, and suggestions they may have about this proposed action. Comments should be directly related to the proposed action to best assist us in our environmental impacts analysis. Although comments are welcome at any time, they will be most useful to us if they are received by April 10, 2006. If you have any questions about this notice or the comment process, please contact Bill Lewis, Recreation and Special-Uses Program Manager, Coronado National Forest, at

(520)388-8422 prior to submitting your comments. Written comments may be sent by U.S. mail to Bill Lewis (RE: Safford Recreation Residences EIS), Coronado National Forest, 300 West Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona 85701 or by facsimile to Mr. Lewis at

(520)388-8305. Alternatively, comments may be submitted by electronic mail to the following address: *“comments-southwestern-coronado@fs.fed.us”.* Please include “Safford Recreation Residences EIS” in the subject line of all e-mails. Comments and personal information associated with them, such as names and addresses, will become part of the administrative project record for this NEPA review. As such, they may be made available to a third-party upon request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). If you do not wish your personal information to be subject to release under FOIA, you may chose not to include it with your comments. Alternatively you may request an exemption from FOIA with your comment submittal. Should you choose the latter, you will be informed by the Forest Service as to whether or not your request qualifies for an exemption. If it does not, you will be afforded the opportunity to resubmit your comments without personal information or to withhold them. Early Notice of the Importance of Public Participation in the NEPA Process Following the 30-day scoping period announced in this notice, the Forest Service will prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Upon completion, the DEIS will be made available for a 45-day public review and comment period that will begin on the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a notice of Availability of the DEIS in the **Federal Register** . The Forest Service believes that, at this early stage, it is important to provide the public with notice about several court rulings related to public participation in the NEPA environmental review process. First, reviewers of a DEIS must structure their participation in the NEPA review so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer's position and contentions [ *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)]. Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the DEIS stage but are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement

(FEIS)may be waived or dismissed by the courts [ *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris* , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wisc. 1980)]. Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those parties who are interested in this proposed action participate before the close of a public comment period so that substantive comments and objections are available to the Forest Service in a timely manner that will allow them to be meaningfully considered and subsequently addressed in the FEIS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns about the proposed action, comments on a DEIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific line numbers, pages, and/or chapters of the DEIS. Comments may address the adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in it. For comments of this nature, reviewers may choose to refer to CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1503.3. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record of this NEPA review and will be available or public inspection (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; FSF 1909.15, Section 21). *Authorization:* National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4346); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); U.S. Department of Agriculture NEPA Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1b). Dated: March 1, 2006. Jeanine A. Derby, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 06-2202 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

U.S. Code