Notices. Proposed Collection; comment request

9,153 words·~42 min read·/register/2006/03/23/06-2838

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

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53496; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-62] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Amending Exchange Delisting Rules To Conform to Recent Amendments to Commission Rules Regarding Removal From Listing and Withdrawal From Registration March 16, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)&thnsp; 1 , and Rule 19b-4 2 thereunder, notice is hereby given that on October 25, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.

(“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx. On January 4, 2006, Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 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, Phlx amended its rule text and the purpose section of the Exchange's Form 19b-4 to clarify the effective date of the proposed rule change and revised Phlx Rule 809 to state that an issuer proposing to withdraw a security from listing on the Exchange must provide a copy of Form 25 to the Exchange upon filing with the Commission.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rules 809 (Issuer Request for Removal and Delisting of Securities), 810 (Suspension and Delisting Policies Based on Exchange Findings), and 811 (Delisting Policies and Procedures) in view of the recent adoption by the Commission of amendments to its rules 4 that would streamline the procedure for removing from listing, and withdrawing from registration, securities under Section 12(b) of the Act. 5 The text of the proposed rule change is below.

Proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in [brackets]. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52029 (July 14, 2005), 70 FR 42456 (July 22, 2005) (the “Delisting Release”). Changes to Commission rules under the Act pursuant to the Delisting Release will not be operative until April 24, 2006. 5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). Rule 809 Issuer Request for Removal and Delisting of Securities *The following will be the operative text of Rule 809 effective as of April 24, 2006:* An issuer proposing to withdraw a security from listing on the Exchange shall submit the following:

A certified copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the issuer authorizing withdrawal from listing and registration and a statement setting forth in detail the reasons for the proposed withdrawal and the facts in support thereof. The issuer may be required to submit the proposed withdrawal to the security holders for their vote at a meeting for which proxies are solicited provided the stock is not also listed on another Exchange having similar requirements. *An issuer proposing to withdraw a security from listing on the Exchange shall do so by electronically submitting to the Securities and Exchange Commission Form 25 via the EDGAR system in compliance with all of the requirements of Rule 12d2-2(c) under the Exchange Act, and shall simultaneously provide a copy of such Form 25 to the Exchange.* Rule 810 Suspension and Delisting Policies Based on Exchange Findings *The following will be the operative text of Rule 810 effective as of April 24, 2006:*

(a)through (c)— *No Change.* *Commentary:* *.01 An application by the Exchange to strike a security from listing and/or registration will be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission electronically on Form 25 via the EDGAR system, and a copy of the application on Form 25 will be promptly delivered to the issuer.* Rule 811 Delisting Policies and Procedures *The following will be the operative text of Rule 811 effective as of April 24, 2006:*

(a)through (f)— *No Change.*

(g)At the conclusion of the hearing the Committee will present its findings to the Board of Governors so that a final determination can be made. Such decision shall be final. If the Committee or the Board determines that the security of the issuer should be removed from listing, an application shall be submitted by the Exchange to the Securities and Exchange Commission ( *“Commission”* ) to strike the security from listing and registration and a copy of such application shall be furnished to the issuer in accordance with Section 12 of the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder. If the decision is that the security should not be removed from listing, the issuer will receive a notice to that effect from the Exchange. *An application by the Exchange to strike a security from listing and/or registration will be submitted to the Commission electronically on Form 25 via the EDGAR system, and a copy of the application on Form 25 will be promptly delivered to the issuer.* The action *s* required to be taken by the Exchange *and issuers* to strike a security from listing and/ *or* registration [for routine reason, such as redemption, maturity and retirement, is] *are* set forth in Rule 12d2-2[(a)] *and Rule 19d-1* promulgated under the Exchange Act. The relevant portions of [the] Section 12 of the Exchange Act and Rules promulgated thereunder pertaining to the suspension, removal or withdrawal *of registration/and or listing* of securities [for all other reasons], *and the timing thereof* are summarized below:

(1)[SEC authorization for w] *W* ithdrawal *of registration and/* or striking *for certain corporate events* from listing of Exchange listed security—Section 12(d) of the Exchange Act *and Rule 12d2-d(a) thereunder;*

(2)suspension of trading by Exchange—Rule 12d2-1 under the Exchange Act;

(3)application of Exchange to strike security from listing and *or/* registration *and notice provisions* —Rule 12d2-2 *(a) and (b)* [(c) and (e)] under the Exchange Act;[ or]

(4)application of issuer to withdraw from listing and registration *and notice provisions* —Rule 12d2-2([d) and (e] *c* ) under the Exchange Act[.]; *(5) timing and effectiveness of application by issuer or Exchange to strike a security from listing and/or registration—Rule 12d2-2(d) under the Exchange Act; or* *(6) exemption of certain standardized options and futures products from Section 12(d) of the Act—Rule 12d2-2(e).* In appropriate circumstances, when the Exchange is considering delisting because a company no longer meets the requirements for continued listing, a company may[, with the consent of the Exchange,] file a delisting application *electronically on Form 25 via the EDGAR system, and shall no fewer than ten days prior to filing Form 25 provide written notice to the Exchange,* provided that it states in its application that it [is no longer eligible for continued listing on the Exchange] *has complied with the rules of the Exchange and the requirements of Rule 12d2-2(c) under the Exchange Act governing the voluntary withdrawal of the class of securities from listing and registration on the Exchange.* 6 6 Phlx intends to amend its rule text to clarify that an issuer that is below the continued listing policies and standards of the Exchange and seeks to voluntarily apply to withdraw a class of securities from listing must disclose that it is no longer eligible for continued listing in its statement of material facts relating to the reason for withdrawal from listing, its public press release, and its Web site notice. Telephone conversation between Jurij Trypupenko, Director, Phlx, and Ronesha A. Butler, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on March 15, 2006. *Pursuant to this rule, the Exchange will provide public notice of its final determination to remove a security from listing and/or registration by issuing a press release and posting a notice on its web site. Such notice will be disseminated no fewer than ten days before the delisting becomes effective pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of Rule 12d2-2 under the Exchange Act, and will remain posted on the web site until the delisting is effective.* 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 The purpose of the proposed rule change is to conform the Exchange's Rules 809, 810, and 811 to the Commission's recent actions regarding streamlining the procedures for removing from listing, and withdrawing from registration, securities under Section 12(d) of the Act. On July 14, 2005, the Commission published the Delisting Release making changes to the Commission's rules governing removal from listing and registration and instituting electronic submission of Form 25. 7 In the Delisting Release, the Commission, among other things, adopted amendments to Rules 12d2-2 and 19d-1 under the Act and Form 25 thereunder, 8 to indicate that national securities exchanges and issuers that seek to delist and/or deregister securities under Section 12(d) of the Act will do so by electronically filing Form 25 via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (“EDGAR”) system. 9 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52029 (July 14, 2005), 70 FR 42456 (July 22, 2005). 8 17 CFR 240.12d2-2, 17 CFR 240.19d-1, and 17 CFR Part 249.25. The Exchange likewise adopted amendments to Rule 101 of Regulation S-T, 17 CFR 232.101. 9 To permit the EDGAR system to differentiate between a Form 25 filed by exchanges and by issuers, the Commission established that a Form 25 filed by exchanges would have the EDGAR submission type of 25-NSE and a Form 25 filed by issuers would have the EDGAR submission type of 25. Phlx Rule 811 (Delisting Policies and Procedures) currently establishes a procedure for the Exchange to delist a company that is below the Exchange's continued listing criteria (and not able to otherwise qualify under an initial listing standard), which includes an opportunity for a company to come into compliance, provision of notice of the Exchange staff's decision to delist, and opportunity for a company to appeal the decision to a committee designated by the Exchange's board of directors; and indicates that the Exchange will follow Section 12(d) of the Act and Commission Rule 12d2-2. The Exchange proposes changes to Phlx Rule 811 to conform it to the Delisting Release. The proposed changes to Phlx Rule 811 include language modifications that: indicate that applications by the Exchange to strike a security from listing and/or registration will be submitted on Form 25 via EDGAR, and a copy will be promptly delivered to the issuer; add a reference to Commission Rule 19d-1 under the Act in terms of the Exchange and issuers following the procedures established in Commission Rule 19d-1 along with Commission Rule 12d2-2 under the Act; expand and modify references to Commission Rule 12d2-2 so that they are commensurate with the Delisting Release; and provide for public notice of the Exchange's final determination to remove a security from listing and/or registration by issuing a press release and posting a notice on its web site for the requisite period of time. The proposed changes to Phlx Rule 811 also relate to the exemption of certain standardized options and futures products from Section 12(d) of the Act. Phlx Rule 810 (Suspension and Delisting Policies Based on Exchange Findings) currently provides that if an issuer cannot demonstrate proper listing compliance it will be subject to delisting procedures pursuant to Phlx Rule 811; and that if the entire outstanding amount of a class, issue or series is retired through payment at maturity or through redemption, reclassification or otherwise, the Exchange may give notice to the SEC on Form 25. The Exchange proposes a change to clarify that Form 25 will be electronically filed via EDGAR, in compliance with the Delisting Release. Phlx Rule 809 (Issuer Request for Removal and Delisting of Securities) currently provides that if an issuer desires to withdraw a security from listing it must, among other things, provide a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the issuer authorizing withdrawal from listing and registration and a statement setting forth in detail the reasons for the proposed withdrawal and the facts in support thereof. The Exchange proposes to clarify that for such requests an issuer shall use Form 25 electronically filed via Edgar in compliance with all of the requirements of Commission Rule 12d2-2(c) under the Act for such requests, in compliance with the Delisting Release. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes conform its rules to the Delisting Release and streamline the process for delisting and/or deregistration. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 11 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended, 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 Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which Phlx consents, the Commission will:

(A)By order approve such rule change, or

(B)Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. 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-Phlx-2005-62 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-62. 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 Phlx. 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-2005-62 and should be submitted on or before April 13, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 12 12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-4183 Filed 3-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as Amended by Pub. L. 104-13; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority. ACTION: Proposed Collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C Chapter 35, as amended). The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public comments on this proposed collection as provided by 5 CFR Section 1320.8(d)(1). Requests for information, including copies of the information collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be directed to the Agency Clearance Officer: Alice D. Witt, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street (EB 5B), Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801;

(423)751-6832. Comments should be sent to the Agency Clearance Officer no later than May 22, 2006. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Type of Request:* Regular Submission. *Title of Information Collection:* TVA Accounts Payable Customer Satisfaction Survey. *Frequency of Use:* On occasion. *Small Business or Organizations Affected:* Yes. *Estimated Number of Annual Responses:* 2,000. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 200. *Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Response:* 10 minutes. *Need For and Use of Information:* This information collection will be distributed by e-mail to TVA's suppliers that receive remittance information by e-mail. The information collected will be used to evaluate current performance of the Accounts Payable Department

(APD)which will identify areas for improvement and enable APD to provide better service to suppliers and facilitate commerce between TVA and its suppliers. Jacklyn J. Stephenson, Senior Manager, Enterprise Operations Information Services. [FR Doc. E6-4178 Filed 3-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Intention To Grant Exclusive License in Government-Owned Invention AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The FAA hereby gives notice of its intention to grant an exclusive license in the invention titled “Automated System for Assisting Employees to Comply with Filing Requirements”, Application Number 11/174,642, to HRWorx LLC, a small business located in Herndon, VA. HRWorks is participating in a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the William J. Hughes Technical Center to further develop and commercialize the Government-owned invention. (Authority: 35 U.S.C. 209, 15 U.S.C. 3710a, 37 CFR part 401) DATES: Comments in response to this notice may be submitted on or before April 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments about this Notice may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Office of the Center Counsel, ACT-7, Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey 08405, or by e-mail to *james.drew@faa.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Drew, Senior Attorney, ACT-7, Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey 08405, telephone

(609)485-7093 or by e-mail to *james.drew@faa.gov.* Issued in Atlantic City, New Jersey, on March 17, 2006. James J. Drew, Senior Attorney, Intellectual Property. [FR Doc. E6-4209 Filed 3-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability; Solicitation of Proposals for Funding through the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program. SUMMARY: This solicitation is for proposals for fiscal year 2006 funding through the new Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands program, administered by the Federal Transit Administration in partnership with the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. The purpose of the program is to enhance the protection of national parks and Federal lands, and increase the enjoyment of those visiting them. The program funds capital and planning expenses for alternative transportation systems in parks and public lands. Federal land management agencies and State, tribal and local governments acting with the consent of a Federal land management agency are eligible to apply. DATES: Complete proposals must be received by the designated Federal land management agency contact listed in this notice by the close of business May 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Project proposals must be submitted to the designated contact person at the headquarters office of the Federal land management agency that manages the park or public land involved. If the project involves more than one Federal land management agency, a project proposal template must be submitted to all agencies involved. The required project proposal template is available at *http://www.fta.dot.gov* . E-mail submission is preferred. Mail and fax submission will also be accepted. • National Park Service: Kevin Percival, *Kevin_Percival@nps.gov,* tel: 303-969-2429, fax: 303-987-6675, mail: 12795 W. Alameda Parkway, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, CO 80225-0287. • Fish and Wildlife Service: Nathan Caldwell, *nathan_caldwell@fws.gov,* tel: 703-358-2376, fax: 703-358-2517, mail: 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 634; Arlington, VA 22203. • Forest Service: Ellen LaFayette, *elafayette@fs.fed.us,* tel: 703-605-4509, fax: 703-605-1542, mail: 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1101. • Bureau of Land Management: Linda Force, *Linda_Force@blm.gov,* tel: 202-557-3567, fax: 202-452-5046, mail: 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact David Vozzolo, Deputy Associate Administrator for Planning and Environment, 202-366-4033, e-mail: *atppl@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. General Program Information II. Guidelines for Preparing and Submitting Proposals III. Proposal Review, Selection, and Notification IV. Additional Program Information I. General Program Information A. Authority Section 3021 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU) establishes a new program called the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands program (49 U.S.C. 5320). SAFETEA-LU authorizes $98 million in funding for the program for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. For fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $21,780,000 for this program. No one project may receive more than 25 percent of funds. B. Background Congestion in and around parks and public lands causes traffic delays and noise and air pollution that substantially detract from the visitor's experience and the protection of natural resources. In August 2001, the Department of Transportation and the Department of the Interior published a comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in national parks and related Federal lands. The study identified significant alternative transportation needs at sites managed by the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, a supplement to this report identified Forest Service sites that would benefit from such services. Section 3021 of SAFETEA-LU (49 U.S.C. § 5320) addresses these needs by establishing a new program to fund alternative transportation projects in national parks and public lands. The goals of the program are to ensure access to all, including persons with disabilities; improve conservation and park and public land opportunities in urban areas through partnering with State and local governments; improve park and public land transportation infrastructure; enhance the environment and prevent or mitigate adverse impacts on natural resources; reduce congestion and pollution; improve visitor mobility and accessibility and the visitor experience; improve Federal land management agency resource management; and conserve natural, historical, and cultural resources. C. Eligible Applicants Eligible applicants are:

(1)The following Federal land management agencies: The National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land management, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation; and

(2)State, tribal and local governments with jurisdiction over land in the vicinity of an eligible area acting with the consent of a Federal land management agency, alone or in partnership with a Federal land management agency or other governmental or non-governmental participant. D. Eligible Expenses SAFETEA-LU defines alternative transportation as “transportation by bus, rail, or any other publicly or privately owned conveyance that provides to the public general or special service on a regular basis, including sightseeing service. Such term also includes a non-motorized transportation system (including the provision of facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, and non-motorized watercraft).” A qualified project is a planning or capital project in or in the vicinity of a Federally-owned or managed park, refuge, or recreational area that is open to the general public and meets the goals of the program. Project evaluation will be based on the considerations listed in the law and explained in part F of this notice. The following types of projects are eligible:

(1)Planning Projects: Activities to comply with metropolitan and statewide planning provisions. (49 U.S.C. 5320(b)(5)(A) referencing 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304, and 5305). Activities include planning studies for an alternative transportation system including evaluation of no-build and all other reasonable alternatives, traffic studies, visitor utilization studies, transportation analysis, feasibility studies, and environmental studies.

(2)Capital projects for “acquiring, constructing, supervising, or inspecting equipment or a facility for use in public transportation, expenses incidental to the acquisition or construction (including designing, engineering, location surveying, mapping, and acquiring rights-of-way), payments for the capital portions of rail trackage rights agreements, transit-related intelligent transportation systems, relocation assistance, acquiring replacement housing sites, and acquiring, constructing, relocating, and rehabilitating replacement housing;” (49 U.S.C. 5320(b)(5)(A) referencing 49 U.S.C. 5302(a)(1)(A).)

(3)Fixed Guideway and Bus Projects:

(i)New fixed guideway capital projects including the acquisition of real property, the initial acquisition of rolling stock for the systems, the acquisition of rights-of-way, and relocation, for fixed guideway corridor development for projects in the advanced stages of alternatives analysis or preliminary engineering;

(ii)Capital projects to modernize existing fixed guideway systems;

(iii)Capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities, including programs of bus and bus-related projects for assistance to subrecipients that are public agencies, private companies engaged in public transportation, or private non-profit organizations; and

(iv)The development of corridors to support new fixed guideway capital projects, including protecting rights-of-way through acquisition, construction of dedicated bus and high occupancy vehicle lanes and park and ride lots, and other nonvehicular capital improvements that the Secretary may decide would result in increased public transportation usage in the corridor. (49 U.S.C. 5320(b)(5)(A) referencing 49 U.S.C. 5309(b).)

(4)Purchase of rolling stock that incorporates clean fuel technology or the replacement of buses of a type in use on August 10, 2005, with clean fuel vehicles;

(5)The deployment of alternative transportation vehicles that introduce innovative technologies or methods;

(6)The capital costs of coordinating Federal land management agency public transportation systems with other public transportation systems;

(7)Non-motorized transportation systems (including the provision of facilities for pedestrians, bicycles and non-motorized watercraft); and

(8)Any other alternative transportation project that: • Enhances the environment; • Prevents or mitigates an adverse impact on a natural resource; • Improves Federal land management agency resource management; • Improves visitor mobility and accessibility and the visitor experience; • Reduces congestion and pollution (including noise pollution and visual pollution); or • Conserves a natural, historical, or cultural resource (excluding rehabilitation or restoration of a non-transportation facility). E. Planning and Coordination Requirements

(1)Planning Requirements Section 5320(e) specifies that if the participant is a Federal land management agency, the project must be consistent with the metropolitan and statewide planning and public participation requirements found in 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304, and 5307(d). If the qualified participant is a State or local government, or more than one State or local governmental authority in more than one State, the qualified participant must comply with the metropolitan and statewide planning provisions and public participation requirements. FTA cannot award funds to an implementation project if it is not in the metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program

(TIP)or State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). If an implementation project is not in the TIP or STIP at the time of submitting a proposal, it can still be selected, but will not receive funds until it is incorporated into the TIP or STIP. In addition, implementation projects not in the TIP or STIP at the time of submitting a proposal should demonstrate intent to be included, such as through a copy of correspondence with the metropolitan or state planning organization. Projects must also be consistent with Federal land management agency plans.

(2)Coordination With Federal Land Management Agency If the applicant is a State, tribal, or local government authority, the applicant must have the consent of the Federal land management agency or agencies to be affected. A letter from the unit(s) of the Federal land management agency or agencies affected expressing support for the project should be submitted with the project proposal. F. Proposal Evaluation Criteria Consistent with the considerations identified in Section 5320(g)(2), proposed projects will be evaluated based on the following criteria: • Demonstration of need ○ Documentation of problem in plans and other reports ○ Severity of problem • Protection of natural and cultural resources ○ Protection or improvement of cultural, historical, scenic, and natural resources ○ Environmental benefits—reduction of pollution (including air pollution, noise pollution, and visual pollution) • Operational efficiency and financial sustainability ○ Evaluation of costs and benefits of all reasonable alternatives ○ Financial planning (including for capital, operations, maintenance, and equipment replacement expenses; and revenues, including user fees) ○ Cost effectiveness ○ Innovative financing or joint development strategies ○ Deferred maintenance issues • Public benefits ○ Enhancing visitor experience ○ Mobility issues (reduces congestion, improves intermodal connectivity, improves public access, including access for persons with disabilities) ○ Safety ○ Partnership with public and private entities, and benefits to gateway communities. Additional consideration will be given to projects based upon geographic diversity, balance between urban and rural projects, and balance in size of projects. Finally, projects that demonstrate innovative funding mechanisms or partnerships will be given extra consideration. The application template contains specific questions related to each of these areas to guide the applicant in justifying the project. II. Guidelines for Preparing and Submitting Proposals Project proposal templates for the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands program are available at *http://www.fta.dot.gov.* Click on the navigational tab for Grant Programs on the right hand side, then click on the Grant Programs link, and then click on the link for the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands Program. To receive a proposal template by e-mail, please send an e-mail to *tina.hodges@dot.gov.* There are separate proposal templates for planning and capital projects. A synopsis of this announcement will also be posted in the FIND module of the government-wide electronic grants Web site at *http://www.grants.gov.* Project proposals must be submitted to the designated contact person at the headquarters office of the Federal land management agency that manages the park or public land involved. This list can be found in the Addresses section of this notice. If the project involves more than one Federal land management agency, a proposal template must be submitted to all agencies involved. The project proposal must be ten or fewer pages in length at ten point font or larger. If a proposal is greater than ten pages, only the first ten pages will be considered during the evaluation process. Submission by e-mail is preferred. Mail and fax submissions will also be accepted. If applicants would like to apply for funds appropriated for future fiscal years, applicants must reapply each year. III. Proposal Review, Selection and Notification Proposals will first be reviewed and screened by the headquarters office of the relevant Federal land management agency (or agencies if the project involves more than one). Following this initial review, proposals will be evaluated by an interagency team which includes representatives from FTA, each of the Federal land management agencies, and the Department of the Interior. After evaluating the projects based on the criteria in the law and further explained in part F of this notice, the team will provide a recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior, after consultation with and in cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall determine the final selection and amount of funding for each project. The Department of the Interior plans to announce the projects selected by summer 2006. The Department of the Interior will notify each Federal land management agency of projects awarded for sites under the agency's jurisdiction. FTA will publish the list of all selected projects and funding levels in the **Federal Register** , as well as in its annual report to Congress on the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands program submitted as part of its Annual Report on New Starts in early February 2007. Criteria and application procedures may be reassessed for subsequent years. IV. Additional Program Information A. Funds Administration and Oversight Once proposals have been reviewed and projects have been chosen based on selection criteria, the cognizant federal agency (or agencies), will award funds to the proposing entity to implement the project. These funds will be administered according to federal requirements as well as the appropriate policies, guidelines and rules of the pertinent agencies. For projects directly administered by a Federal land management agency, these funds will be administered by interagency agreement between the FTA and the respective agency. For programs administered by a State, tribal, or local governmental authority, these funds will be administered through a grant administered by FTA. With regard to interagency agreement and grant requirements, 49 U.S.C. 5320(i) authorizes the Secretary to apply the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Grant) and 5333(a) (Prevailing Wages Requirement) “to the extent the Secretary deems appropriate.” FTA is in the process of developing the interagency agreement and grant requirements for this program and will make these available for public notice and comment in the **Federal Register** prior to award of program funds. Additionally, each recipient (federal land management agency, and State, tribal, and local governments) of federal funds must comply with requisite federal guidelines governing the management of federal funds and specific program requirements. Program Oversight, as defined by FTA, will ensure that projects meet the basic statutory, administrative, and regulatory requirements as stipulated by the conditions for accepting Federal funds. B. Performance Measures Participants may be asked to compile data for use in measuring program performance. C. Technical Assistance, Planning, and Research The Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public lands program allows the Department of Transportation to spend not more than ten percent of program funds to carry out planning, research, and technical assistance activities. FTA will oversee the funds allocated to technical assistance to assist program participants in planning, implementing, and evaluating alternative transportation projects. In addition, FTA will be responsible for the provision of planning guidance and dissemination of research findings. Issued in Washington, DC, this 17th day of March, 2006. Sandra K. Bushue, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-4208 Filed 3-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration [Docket No. FTA-2006-24063] Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; Western States Guidance for Public Transportation Providers AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of policy implementation and request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice provides the opportunity for public comment on specific issues regarding the Federal Transit Administration's

(FTA)implementation of Department of Transportation

(DOT)guidance for participants of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

(DBE)program. This guidance is applicable to recipients of Federal financial assistance from the Federal Transit Administration

(FTA)located in the states under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Hawaii). DATES: *Effective Date:* Comments must be received on or before April 24, 2006. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Written Comments: Submit written comments to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may submit comments identified by the docket number (FTA-06-24063) by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • Web Site: *http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • Fax: 1-202-493-2478. • Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; 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. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name (Federal Transit Administration) and Docket number (FTA-2006-24063) for this notice. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information provided. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scheryl Portee, Attorney Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel,

(202)366-4011 (telephone) and

(202)366-3809 (fax). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The General Counsel of the Department of Transportation recently reviewed and approved guidance concerning the effects of the *Western States Paving Co.* v. *United States & Washington State Department of Transportation,* 407 F. 3d 983 (9th Cir. 2005), court decision on participants in the Department's disadvantaged business enterprise

(DBE)program. The guidance applies to recipients of Federal funds authorized under chapter 53 of Title 49 of the United States Code that are located within the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, like other Federal courts that have reviewed the Department of Transportation's DBE program, held that 49 CFR Part 26 and the authorizing statute for the DBE program in TEA-21 are constitutional. The court upheld congressional determination that there is a compelling need for the DBE program and the DOT rules at Part 26 are narrowly tailored to meet that need. However, the 9th Circuit held that the DBE Program administered by the Washington State Department of Transportation was not narrowly tailored because the evidence of discrimination supporting the use of race-conscious measures in the program was inadequate. Since the *Western States* decision and DOT's guidance on the effects of that decision will impact FTA grantees in the 9th Circuit, we are issuing this **Federal Register** notice. Specifically, this notice provides information on the procedures that FTA will employ as a review process for fiscal year 2006 DBE goal submissions (due on August 1, 2005) to FTA in regard to: Race-neutral submissions, the evidence-gathering process to determine evidence of discrimination or its effects in grantees' market, and action plans for disparity/availability studies or other appropriate evidence gathering process, is undertaken. FTA will apply the following guidance to recipients of Federal funds: The DOT Guidance *The following is the text of the DOT Western States guidance:* The General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has reviewed this document and approved it as consistent with the language and intent of 49 CFR Part 26. Question: To Whom Do These Questions and Answers Apply? Answer These questions and answers apply only to recipients of Federal financial assistance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)located in the states comprising the 9th Federal Judicial Circuit. These states are California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Hawaii. These questions and answers do *not* apply to recipients in other states. These questions and answers apply *only* to the disadvantaged business enterprise programs

(DBE)of recipients of Federal financial assistance governed by 49 CFR Part 26. Question: What Did the Court Say in Western States? Answer Like other Federal courts that have reviewed the Department of Transportation's DBE program, the 9th Circuit panel held that 49 CFR Part 26 and the authorizing statute for the DBE program in TEA-21 were constitutional. The court affirmed that Congress had determined that there was a compelling need for the DBE program and the Part 26 was narrowly tailored. The court agreed that Washington State did not need to establish a compelling need for its DBE program, independent of the determinations that Congress made on a national basis. However, the court said that race conscious elements of a national program, to be narrowly tailored as applied, must be limited to those parts of the country where its race-based measures are demonstrably needed. Whether race-based measures are needed depends on the presence or absence of discrimination or its effects in a state's transportation contracting industry. In addition, even when discrimination is present in a state, a program is narrowly tailored only if its application is limited to those specific groups that have actually suffered discrimination or its effects. • The court concluded that Washington State DOT's DBE program was not narrowly tailored because the evidence of discrimination supporting its application was inadequate. The court mentioned several ways in which the state's evidence was insufficient: + Washington State DOT had not conducted statistical studies to establish the existence of discrimination in the highway contracting industry that were completed or valid. + Washington State DOT's calculation of the capacity of DBEs to do work was flawed because it failed to take into account the effects of past race-conscious programs on current DBE participation. + The disparity between DBE participation on contracts with and without affirmative action components did not provide any evidence of discrimination. + A small disparity between the proportion of DBE firms in the state and the percentage of funds awarded to DBEs in race-neutral contracts (2.7% in the case of Washington State DOT) was entitled to little weight as evidence of discrimination, because it did not account for other factors that may affect the relative capacity of DBEs to undertake contracting work. + This small statistical disparity is not enough, standing alone, to demonstrate the existence of discrimination. To demonstrate discrimination, a larger disparity would be needed. + Washington State DOT did not present any anecdotal evidence of discrimination. + The affidavits required by 49 CFR 26.67(a), in which DBEs certify that they are socially and economically disadvantaged, are not evidence of the presence of discrimination. Consequently, the court found that the Washington State DOT DBE program was unconstitutional as applied. The court cited the 8th Circuit's decision in Sherbrooke Turf v. Minnesota Department of Transportation. In that case, the court said, Minnesota and Nebraska had hired outside consulting firms to conduct statistical analyses of the availability and capacity of DBEs in their local markets, which the 8th Circuit had relied on in holding that the two states' DBE programs were constitutional as applied. Question: What Action Should Recipients Take With Respect to Submitting Their Overall Goals for FY 2006? Answer Recipients should examine the evidence they have on hand of discrimination and its effects. Does this evidence appear to address successfully the problems the 9th Circuit's decision articulated concerning the Washington State DOT DBE program? If the recipient currently has sufficient evidence of discrimination or its effects, the recipient should go ahead and submit race- and gender-conscious goals where appropriate, as provided in Part 26. (This submission would include the normal race conscious/race-neutral “split” in overall goals.) If the evidence of discrimination and its effects pertains to some, but not all, of the groups that Part 26 presumes to be socially and economically disadvantaged, then these race- and gender-conscious goals should apply only to the group or groups for which the evidence is adequate. If necessary, the Department may entertain program waivers of Part 26's prohibition of group-specific goals in this situation. If the recipient does not currently have sufficient evidence of discrimination or its effects, then the recipient would submit an all-race neutral overall goal for FY 2006. The recipient's submission would include a statement concerning the absence of adequate evidence of discrimination and its effects. A race-neutral submission of this kind should include a description of plans to conduct a study or other appropriate evidence-gathering process to determine the existence of discrimination or its effects in the recipient's market. An action plan describing the study and time lines for its completion should also be included. The Department's operating administrations are willing, in response to recipients' requests, to extend the time for submitting FY 2006 goals for a time sufficient to allow recipients to evaluate the adequacy of their current evidence of discrimination or its effects. Operating administrations will review recipients' annual goal submissions to determine whether recipients have provided evidence of discrimination or its effects. Question: Should Recipients Who Will Be Submitting All Race-Neutral Overall Goals for FY 2006 Because They Do Not Have Sufficient Evidence of Discrimination or Its Effects Make Any Changes to Contracts Issued During FY 2005 or Earlier? Answer No. Even where FY 2005 contracts used race-conscious contract goals, we do not believe it is appropriate to attempt to revise or reform those contracts. Question: If Recipients Will Be Operating an All-Race Neutral DBE Program in FY 2006 or Subsequent Years, What Should Such a Program Include? With few exceptions, generally there is no difference in how the DBE program regulations apply to a race- and gender-neutral program (hereafter race-neutral) as compared to a race- and gender-conscious program (hereafter race-conscious). In a wholly race-neutral program ( *e.g.* , the annual overall DBE goal has been approved with no portion of it projected to be attained by using race- and gender-conscious means) the recipient does not set contract goals on any of its U.S. DOT-assisted contracts for which DBE subcontracting possibilities exist. Recipients having an all race-neutral program are not required to establish contract goals to meet any portion of their overall goal. Recipients should take affirmative steps to use as many of the race-neutral means of achieving DBE participation identified at 49 CFR 26.51(b) as possible to meet the overall goal and to demonstrate that you are administering your program in good faith. The Department expects that recipients using all race-neutral programs will use methods such as unbundling of contracts, technical assistance, capital and bonding assistance, business development programs, etc., rather than waiting passively for DBEs to participate. The good faith efforts requirements in 49 CFR 26.53 that apply when DBE contract goals are set have no required application to recipients implementing a race-neutral program. However, recipients must continue to collect the data required to be reported in the Uniform Report of DBE Awards or Commitments and Payments Form (see § 26.11) and to monitor compliance with the commercially useful function requirements. The prompt payment and retainage requirements of 49 CFR 26.29 are race-neutral mechanisms designed to benefit all subcontractors, DBEs and non-DBEs alike. Recipients using all race-neutral programs must continue to implement them. The requirement that DBEs must perform a commercially useful function to receive credit toward the overall goal applies to race neutral programs just as it does to programs that use race-conscious means to meet program objectives. It is helpful for recipients to maintain an effective monitoring and enforcement program to track DBE participation obtained through race neutral means that the recipient claims credit (see 49 CFR 26.37(b)). Question: What Must Recipients Do That Have Already Submitted Their FY 2006 Goals to Modal Administrations for Approval? Answer If the appropriate modal administration determines that the FY 2006 DBE goal submission does not contain the kind of information or documentation suggested by this guidance that would comport with the law established by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the recipient will be directed to revise and resubmit its DBE goal submission consistent with this guidance. Question: Will the Process Used by the Modal Administrations to Review and Approve Goal Submissions Made by Recipients in the Ninth Circuit Change? For FHWA recipients in the 9th Circuit, FY 2006 DBE goal submissions will require concurrence by the FHWA Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Chief Counsel in Washington, DC before approval by the appropriate FHWA division office. FTA's process will remain the same. [Note—Please see request for comment below]. For FAA recipients in the 9th Circuit, FY 2006 DBE goal submissions with a race-conscious component will require concurrence by the FAA Headquarters Office of Civil Rights and a legal sufficiency review by the Office of Chief Counsel in Washington, DC before being approved by the appropriate FAA Regional Office of Civil Rights and Office of Chief Counsel. Those with an all race-neutral overall goal will be approved by the Regional Office of Civil Rights. Question: If A Recipient Lacks Sufficient Evidence of Discrimination or Its Effects, What Should It Do To Remedy the Lack of Information? Answer A recipient in this situation should immediately begin to conduct a rigorous and valid study to determine whether there is evidence of discrimination or its effects. The Department expects recipients who submit an all-race neutral goal for FY 2006 because they lack sufficient evidence of discrimination to ensure that this evidence-gathering effort is completed expeditiously. Studies to determine the presence of discrimination or its effects are often referred to as “disparity” or “availability” studies, though there can also be rigorous and scientifically valid studies which may have different names. Whatever label is applied to a study, however, the key point is that it be designed to determine, in a fair and valid way, whether evidence of the kind the 9th Circuit decision determined was essential to a DBE program including race-conscious elements exists. Question: What Should Recipients' Studies Include? Answer Based on the 9th Circuit decision, recipients should consider the following points as they design their studies: The study should ascertain the evidence for discrimination and its effects separately for each of the groups presumed by Part 26 to be disadvantaged. The study should include an assessment of any anecdotal and complaint evidence of discrimination. Recipients may consider the kinds of evidence that are used in “Step 2” of the Part 26 goal-setting process, such as evidence of barriers in obtaining bonding and financing, disparities in business formation and earnings. With respect to statistical evidence, the study should rigorously determine the effects of factors other than discrimination that may account for statistical disparities between DBE availability and participation. This is likely to require a multivariate/regression analysis. The study should quantify the magnitude of any differences between DBE availability and participation, or DBE participation in race-neutral and race-conscious contracts. Recipients should exercise caution in drawing conclusions about the presence of discrimination and its effects based on small differences. In calculating availability of DBEs, the study should not rely on numbers that may have been inflated by race-conscious programs that may not have been narrowly tailored. Recipients should consider, as they plan their studies, evidence-gathering efforts that Federal courts have approved in the past. These include the studies by Minnesota and Nebraska cited in Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Transportation, 345 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 124 S. Ct. 2158

(2004)and the Illinois evidence cited in Northern Contracting, Inc. v. State of Illinois, *et al.* 2005 WL 2230195, N.D.Ill., September 08, 2005 (No. 00 C 4515) Question: Can There Be Statewide or Regional Studies, as Opposed to a Separate Study for Each Individual Recipient? Answer If feasible, studies may be undertaken on a regional or statewide basis to reduce the costs that would be involved if each recipient conducted its own separate study. We would expect that each State DOT would conduct a statewide study. Such a study should be conducted in cooperation with transit and airport recipients in the state, so that the study would apply to recipients in all three modes. Larger transit and/or airport recipients may want to conduct their own study, since the demographics of large urban areas may differ from that of the state as a whole. Question: Will Federal Funds Help To Defray the Costs of Recipients' Studies? Answer Yes. FHWA, FTA, and FAA have all stated that the costs of conducting disparity studies are reimbursable from Federal program funds, subject to the availability of those funds. Recipients should contact their operating administration for more detailed information. FTA Requests for Comment FTA requests comment on two matters concerning the implementation of the DOT General Counsel's DBE Guidance on the Western States court decision: 1. For 9th circuit recipients only, with respect to FY 2006 overall DBE goals, recipients should submit DBE goals to their FTA Regional Office for review by the Regional Civil Rights Officer. As determined by the Regional Civil Rights Officer, recipients with race-neutral goals may be required to certify that they will conduct or participate in a disparity or availability study or other appropriate evidence gathering process and the time frame for completion of the study or process. 2. As mentioned in the DOT Guidance, disparity studies using FY 2006 funding allocations will be an authorized expense for reimbursement, subject to the availability of funds. We seek comment on whether disparity studies should receive grantee funding priority, and on whether any additional funding should be made available for this purpose. Issued on: March 20, 2006. Sandra K. Bushue, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-4226 Filed 3-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance 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 review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collections and their expected burden. The **Federal Register** document with a 60-day comment period was published on November 29, 2005 [70 FR 71601]. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 24, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlita Ballard at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, (NVS-131), 202-366-5222, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5320, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration *Title:* 49 CFR part 544; Insurer Reporting Requirement. *OMB Control Number:* 2127-0547. *Type of Request:* Request for public comment on a previously approved collection of information. *Abstract:* NHTSA must ensure that passenger motor vehicle insurance companies and rental/leasing companies comply with 49 CFR part 544, Insurer Reporting Requirement. Part 544 requires that the insurance/rental and leasing companies provide information on comprehensive insurance premiums, theft and recoveries and actions taken to address motor vehicle theft. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 64,610 hours (56,700 man-hours for 28 insurance companies and 7,910 man-hours for 14 rental and leasing companies). *Estimated Annual Cost:* $2,325,960. ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer. *Comments are invited on:* Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Issued in Washington, DC on: March 20, 2006. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 06-2838 Filed 3-22-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 14

Traces to 14 documents

U.S. Code