Notices. Notice; request for comments

11,276 words·~51 min read·/register/2006/04/10/06-3368

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

BILLING CODE 4910-22-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [Docket No. FHWA-2006-23638] Highway Performance Monitoring System—Reassessment AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FHWA is initiating a reassessment of the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), which is a national highway transportation system database maintained and used by the FHWA. This notice requests public comment on issues to be reviewed as part of the reassessment.

The FHWA working papers developed during the conduct of this reassessment will be placed in the docket for review and comment. DATES: This docket will remain open until the reassessment is complete. The anticipated completion date is September 30, 2007. However, in order for comments to be considered in the early stages of the reassessment, comments should be submitted on or before June 9, 2006. ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or submit electronically at *http://dms.dot.gov/submit,* or fax comments to

(202)493-2251. All comments should include the docket number that appears in the heading of this document. All comments received will be available for examination and copying at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comments (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Winter, Highway System Performance Division, Office of Highway Information,

(202)366-0175, *David.Winter@fhwa.dot.gov;* or Janet Myers, Office of the Chief Counsel,

(202)366-2019, *Janet.Myers@fhwa.dot.gov;* Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System

(DMS)at: *http://dms.dot.gov/submit.* The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. An electronic copy of this notice may be downloaded from the Office of the **Federal Register's** home page at *http://www.archives.gov* and the Government Printing Office's Web site at *http://www.access.gpo.gov.* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in a **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (70 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Background The HPMS was developed in 1978 as a national highway transportation system database. The HPMS replaced numerous annual State data reports and biennial special studies conducted by each State for the FHWA. The FHWA used data from those reports and biennial special studies, and subsequently from HPMS, in reports to Congress pursuant to title 23, U.S.C., section 307 (current statutory provisions relating to the FHWA's biennial Conditions and Performance Reports are contained in 23, U.S.C., section 502(h)). The data gathered in HPMS also are used for a variety of FHWA functions, including apportionment of Federal-aid Highway Funds to individual States and assessment of changes in highway system performance. A major purpose of the HPMS always has been to provide data that reflect the extent, condition, performance, use, and operating characteristics of the Nation's highways. In order to meet this primary objective, the HPMS has gone through an evolutionary process that has recognized the changing needs for accurate and timely data. For the most part, changes to the HPMS over its nearly 30-year life reflect adjustments that respond to legislative and other changes in the the Federal-aid highway program. The HPMS was originally implemented as a national sample-based monitoring system. The sample data was supplemented with area-wide mileage, travel, and other data as a means to provide control total information and for other analytical purposes. In 1980, the HPMS was merged with the Mileage Facilities Reporting System (MFRS), which was a basic inventory system that included facility mileage, travel, and accident statistics. After the HPMS and MFRS systems were merged, a single system evolved to include the universe data attributes of the MFRS and the sample and area-wide data attributes of the original HPMS. In 1988, the HPMS was enhanced with the addition of detailed pavement data, including International Roughness Index

(IRI)measurements of pavement roughness. The HPMS was revised again in 1993 to address changes in the FHWA analysis and simulation models, including the shift to a geographic information system

(GIS)environment; the effects of the 1990 Census; the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914); the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399); and the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)requirements concerning vehicle miles of travel

(VMT)tracking data in air quality non-attainment areas (See Section 187, VMT Forecasting and Tracking Guidance, 57 FR 9549 (March 19, 1992)). The 1993 revision of the HPMS added nearly a dozen universal data items to be collected for the National Highway System

(NHS)and other principal arterial highways. The amount of sample traffic data for urbanized air quality non-attainment areas was increased, as were the percent truck data requirements. Several pavement data items were deleted in their entirety, as were sample data items for rural minor collectors. In 1999, the FHWA reassessed the HPMS. The final report from that reassessment is available online at *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hpms/hpmspubs.htm.* As a result of the 1999 reassessment, the FHWA made substantial changes to the number and detail of the data items in HPMS. The FHWA eliminated 15 data items and changed 21 others, thereby eliminating 90 reported detail lines and adding one new item. Most notably, to eliminate duplication with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System

(FARS)database, the reporting of fatal and injury crash data provided by the States on a summary basis by functional system was discontinued. Through the 1999 reassessment, the HPMS was positioned to maximize the use of new technologies for collecting and reporting data. In its current configuration, the HPMS includes limited data on all public roads, more detailed data for a sample of the arterial and collector functional road systems, and area-wide summary information for urbanized, small urban, and rural areas. Reassessment Purpose The purpose of the reassessment is to review the HPMS in light of contemporary issues and anticipated future needs. The reassessment will determine what changes, if any, are necessary at this time. The recent reauthorization of the Federal-aid highway program, as contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144), provides an appropriate opportunity and framework for the FHWA to undertake a reassessment of the HPMS. Other reasons to reexamine the HPMS are further advancements in technology, requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

(GPRA)(Pub. L. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285), changes to State data requirements, increased use of performance measures, and changes in the various uses of HPMS data by government, academia, and the private sector. Reassessment Plan The FHWA will undertake an open approach to complete the reassessment. Major emphasis will be directed towards determining the data needs of FHWA's partners, stakeholders, and customers, the various uses of the existing HPMS, and the ability of data providers to support these data needs. The parameters of the reassessment will include critical issues related to the future form and direction of the HPMS. Issues on which the FHWA will solicit comment will include, but not be limited to, the following:

(a)The purpose, scope and objectives of the existing HPMS;

(b)Uses of HPMS data;

(c)Better integration of the HPMS and the existing State and local data processes; and

(d)More effective collection of HPMS data. The FHWA invites comments on these, or other appropriate issues for consideration in the reassessment. As a part of the reassessment, the FHWA will conduct a series of workshops, geographically coordinated throughout the country, at which interested parties will have the opportunity to provide input and explore potential alternatives for a future HPMS. The FHWA will post specific workshop dates and locations online at *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hpms/index.htm.* Soon after the workshops take place, the FHWA will place the workshop minutes and other supporting documents in the docket noted above for review and comment. To achieve the maximum opportunity for participation in this reassessment of the HPMS by those customers, stakeholders, partners, and other interests that are impacted by the HPMS, significant effort will be made to facilitate public outreach and involvement. In addition to the workshops described above, mechanisms that are being provided for this effort include, but are not limited to, the following elements:

(a)Participation of the general public and interest groups through a review and comment process on working documents, as well as interim and final products, submitted pursuant to this notice and docket;

(b)Participation of the general public and interest groups through attendance at national/regional meeting(s);

(c)Participation of the transportation community at large through the Transportation Research Board (TRB), which is a division of the National Research Council of the National Academies and is responsible for promoting innovation and progress in transportation through research;

(d)Participation of States through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which is a nonprofit nonpartisan association representing highway and transportation departments in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico;

(e)Participation of the metropolitan planning organizations

(MPOs)through the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO);

(f)Participation of organizations which represent non-government users of the HPMS data; and,

(g)Participation of technical experts from the following entities: States; FHWA; other Federal agencies such as Research & Innovative Technology Administration

(RITA)and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); AASHTO staff; AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP); Metropolitan Planning Organizations; and academia. These technical experts will have the opportunity to attend meetings in order to identify present and future data needs for HPMS users and to provide input on balancing needs with resource requirements. The meetings are designed to gather facts, information and individual advice or recommendations. Comments on the elements of the outreach program for the reassessment are invited. The FHWA will prepare recommendations for the HPMS, taking into consideration comments made directly through the docket, raised at the various workshops, and collected through other outreach efforts. The FHWA expects to complete its recommendations by February 28, 2007, and publish them in the **Federal Register** for public review and comment. The FHWA is initiating this reassessment with the intention of maximizing public input and providing as much flexibility as possible in meeting future HPMS data needs. However, there are a number of principal objectives that will guide the outcome of the reassessment effort. First, the future HPMS will need to support any changes to the FHWA's stewardship and oversight responsibilities that result from SAFETEA-LU. In addition, the future HPMS will need to continue to support various Congressional requirements, including the Conditions and Performance Reports and those imposed by the GPRA. Finally, the outcome of the reassessment process must recognize the national interest in the NHS and the need to continue to assess highway conditions and performance at the national level. Authority: 23 U.S.C. 502; 23 CFR 1.5. Issued on: April 3, 2006. J. Richard Capka, Acting Federal Highway Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-5139 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2006-24624] Agency Information Collection Activities; Request for Comment; Renewal of an Existing Information Collection: Annual and Quarterly Reports of Class I Motor Carriers of Passengers (Formerly OMB 2139-0003) AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: This notice announces that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)its request to renew a currently-approved information collection for Class I Motor Carriers of Passengers, Form MP-1, Annual and Quarterly Reports. This information collection is necessary to ensure that motor carriers comply with financial and operating statistics requirements at 49 CFR part 1420. This notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2006. ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Docket No. FMCSA-2006-24624. You may mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telefax comments to 202/493-2251; or submit electronically at *http://dms.dot.gov.* You may examine and copy all comments received at the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you desire your comment to be acknowledged, you must include a self-addressed stamped envelope or postcard or, if you submit your comments electronically, you may print the acknowledgment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Toni Proctor, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Office of Research and Analysis, Washington, DC 20590, phone

(202)366-2998, FAX

(202)366-3518, e-mail *Toni.Proctor@fmcsa.dot.gov,* Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For-hire Class I motor carriers of passengers (including interstate and intrastate) 1 are required to file Motor Carrier Quarterly and Annual Reports (Form MP-1) that provide financial and operating data (see 49 U.S.C. 14123). The agency uses this information to assess the health of the industry and identify industry changes that may affect national transportation policy. The data also show company financial stability and traffic patterns. Motor carriers of passengers required to comply with the regulations are classified on the basis of their annual gross carrier operating revenues. Under the F&OS program the FMCSA collects balance sheet and income statement data along with information on tonnage, mileage, employees, transportation equipment, and other related data. 1 For purposes of the Financial & Operating Statistics (F&OS) program, passenger carriers are classified into the following two groups:

(1)Class I carriers are those having average annual gross transportation operating revenues (including interstate and intrastate) of $5 million or more from passenger motor carrier operations after applying the revenue deflator formula in the Note of section 1420.3;

(2)Class II passenger carriers are those having average annual gross transportation operating revenues (including interstate and intrastate) of less than $5 million from passenger motor carrier operations after applying the revenue deflator formula as shown in Note A of section 1420.3. Only Class I carriers of passengers are required to file Annual and Quarterly Report Form MP-1, but Class II passenger carriers must notify the agency when there is a change in their classification or their revenues exceed the Class II limit. The data and information collected is made publicly available as prescribed in 49 CFR part 1420. The regulations were formerly administered by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. 11145, 49 U.S.C. 11343(d)(1) and the Bus Regulatory Act of 1982 and later transferred to the U.S. Department of Transportation on January 1, 1996, by the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) (Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat.803 (Dec. 29, 1995)), now codified at 49 U.S.C. 14123. The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) transferred the authority to administer the F&OS program to the former Bureau of Transportation Statistics on September 30, 1998 (63 FR 52192). Pursuant to this authority, the BTS, now part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), became the responsible DOT modal administration for implementing the F&OS program and requirements at 49 CFR part 1420. On September 29, 2004, the Secretary transferred the responsibility for the F&OS program from BTS, to FMCSA (69 FR 51009). FMCSA plans to publish a final rule in the future to transfer and re-designate the F&OS program reporting requirements at part 1420, title 49 of the CFR, from BTS (now RITA) to FMCSA. *Type of Information Collection Request:* Renewal of an existing information collection. *Title of Information Collection:* Annual and Quarterly Report of Class I Motor Carriers. of Passengers (formerly OMB 2139-0004). *OMB Control Number:* 2126-0031. *Respondents:* Class I Motor Carriers of Passengers. *Frequency:* Quarterly and annually. *Estimated Annual Number of Respondents:* 26. *Estimated Annual Number of Responses:* 130. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* 1.5 hours per response. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 195 hours [130 responses × 1.5 hours per response = 195 hours]. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:

(1)Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FMCSA's performance;

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;

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

(4)ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection. Issued on: April 4, 2006. Warren E. Hoemann, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-5209 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2005-20930 (PDA-31(F))] District of Columbia Requirements for Highway Routing of Certain Hazardous Materials AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), United States Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of administrative determination of preemption. *Applicant:* American Trucking Associations, Inc. *Local Laws Affected:* Terrorism Prevention in Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 2005; Terrorism Prevention in Hazardous Materials Transportation Congressional Review Emergency Act of 2006. *Applicable Federal Requirements:* Federal hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., and FMCSA regulations at 49 CFR part 397. SUMMARY: Federal hazardous material transportation law preempts the highway routing requirements in the Terrorism Prevention in Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 2005 [D.C. Act 16-266, Jan. 26, 2006] and the Terrorism Prevention in Hazardous Materials Transportation Congressional Review Emergency Act of 2006 [D.C. Act 16-325, Mar. 23, 2006]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian Yonish, Office of Chief Counsel (Tel. No. 202-366-0834); Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Application for a Preemption Determination This proceeding is based on the March 14, 2005, application (“Application”) of the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (“ATA”) for an administrative determination that Federal hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., and FMCSA regulations at 49 CFR part 397 preempt highway routing requirements under the Terrorism Prevention in Hazardous Materials Transportation Emergency Act of 2005 [D.C. Act 16-43, Feb. 15, 2005] (“Emergency DC Act”). Since the time that ATA filed its Application, the Emergency DC Act has expired. However, the Council of the District of Columbia (“D.C. Council”) has since introduced and enacted a series of acts with substantively identical language. The Terrorism Prevention in Hazardous Materials Transportation Congressional Review Emergency Act of 2006 [D.C. Act 16-325, Mar. 23, 2006] will expire June 21, 2006. The Terrorism Prevention in Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 2005 [D.C. Act 16-266, Jan. 26, 2006] was transmitted to the United States Congress on February 6, 2006, for review. 1 Because the relevant portions of the successive acts are substantively identical, these acts will hereinafter collectively be referred to as the “DC Act.” 1 Except for emergency acts and certain enumerated types of legislation, all acts passed by the D.C. Council must be transmitted to the U.S. Congress for a specified review period. The review period for acts that do not relate to the criminal code is 30 days in which Congress is in session. After this review period, the act takes effect unless Congress enacts a joint resolution disapproving the act. D.C. Code § 1-206.02. The DC Act applies to the transportation of certain hazardous materials within 2.2 miles of the United States Capitol Building. The DC Act refers to this zone as the “Capitol Exclusion Zone.” In the Application, ATA challenges the following two sections of the DC Act:

(1)Section 4 of the DC Act, titled “Prohibition on shipments of hazardous materials.” Section 4 makes it illegal, except in cases of emergency, to transport in the Capitol Exclusion Zone without a permit any of the materials in the list below. Section 4 also makes it illegal in the Capitol Exclusion Zone, without a permit, to operate a vehicle which is capable of containing, and has exterior placarding or other markings indicating it contains, any of the listed materials:

(a)Explosives of Class 1, Division 1.1, or Class 1, Division 1.2, as designated in 49 CFR 173.2, in a quantity greater than 500 kilograms;

(b)Flammable gasses of Class 2, Division 2.1, as designated in 49 CFR 173.2, in a quantity greater than 10,000 liters;

(c)Poisonous gasses of Class 2, Division 2.3, as designated in 49 CFR 173.2, in a quantity greater than 500 liters, and belonging to Hazard Zones A or B, as defined in 49 CFR 173.116; and

(d)Poisonous materials, other than gasses, of Class 6, Division 6.1, in a quantity greater than 1,000 kilograms, and belonging to Hazard Zones A or B, as defined in 49 CFR 173.133. Section 3 of the DC Act defines an “emergency” as an unanticipated, temporary situation that threatens the immediate safety of individuals or property, as determined by the District of Columbia Department of Transportation.

(2)Section 5 of the DC Act, titled “Permits.” Section 5 of the DC Act enables the District of Columbia Department of Transportation to issue a permit authorizing transportation of the materials listed in Section 4 if there is no “practical alternative route”—defined in Section 3 of the DC Act as a route which lies entirely outside the Capitol Exclusion Zone and whose use would not make shipment of the hazardous materials cost-prohibitive. The DC Act provides that the permit may require the adoption of safety measures, including time-of-day restrictions. Section 5 authorizes the District of Columbia Department of Transportation to collect fees for the permits, but any permit fees are not to exceed the cost of implementing and enforcing the DC Act. In its Application, ATA states the DC Act was enacted without regard to the procedures set forth in the Federal hazardous materials routing regulations found in 49 CFR part 397, subpart C. Specifically, ATA asserts the District of Columbia failed to provide the requisite notice and comment period as required by 49 CFR 397.71(b)(2) and failed to hold a public hearing. ATA further states the District of Columbia failed to consult with officials of neighboring jurisdictions as required by 49 CFR 397.71(b)(3). Additionally, ATA asserts the District of Columbia did not engage in the risk analysis required by 49 CFR 397.71(b)(4). Lastly, ATA states the D.C. Council's testimony and findings include no discussion or analysis of population density or special populations in the area outside the Capitol Exclusion Zone, characteristics of the alternative highways to be used, an analysis of the number of shipments that would be impacted by the DC Act, an analysis of the impact upon emergency response capabilities, consideration of comments and concerns of affected persons, impact upon commerce, delays in transportation, or traffic conditions, including motor vehicle accident experience. ATA points out FMCSA's routing regulations relating to non-radioactive hazardous materials require analysis of these factors prior to enacting a routing restriction. See 49 CFR 397.71(b)(9). Notice of ATA's filing of its Application was published in the **Federal Register** on April 20, 2005, and interested parties were invited to submit comments. 70 FR 20630. Comments were submitted by Yellow Roadway Corporation (“Yellow Roadway”), the National Propane Gas Association (“NPGA”), and the National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. (“NTTC”). The District of Columbia submitted a reply. ATA then filed rebuttal comments. On December 21, 2005, FMCSA published a **Federal Register** notice announcing a delay in issuing a determination on ATA's Application in order to allow time for fact-finding and an appropriate consideration of the issues. 70 FR 75858. II. Federal Preemption Title 49 U.S.C. 5125 includes several preemption provisions. Relevant to this proceeding is section 5125(c)(1), which allows a State or Indian tribe to establish, maintain, or enforce a highway routing designation over which hazardous material may or may not be transported by motor vehicles, or a limitation or requirement related to highway routing, only if the designation, limitation, or requirement complies with 49 U.S.C. 5112(b). The District of Columbia is considered a “State” for purposes of hazardous materials transportation law. 49 U.S.C. 5102(11). Section 5112(b) requires the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary), in consultation with the States, to prescribe by regulation standards for the States and Indian tribes to follow when designating specific highway routes for transportation of hazardous materials. The Secretary has delegated to FMCSA authority and responsibility for highway routing of hazardous materials. See 49 CFR 1.73(d)(2). The standards required by 49 U.S.C. 5112(b) for establishing highway routing requirements for non-radioactive hazardous materials are set forth in 49 CFR part 397, subpart C, and apply to any designations established or modified on or after November 14, 1994. 49 CFR 397.69(a). A State or Indian tribe must follow FMCSA standards when establishing highway routing requirements for hazardous materials. The preemption provisions in 49 U.S.C. 5125 carry out Congress's view that a single body of uniform Federal regulations promotes safety in the transportation of hazardous materials. In section 2 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (HMTUSA) [Pub. L. 101-615, November 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3244], Congress underscored the need for uniform regulations relating to transportation of hazardous materials:

(3)many States and localities have enacted laws and regulations which vary from Federal laws and regulations pertaining to the transportation of hazardous materials, thereby creating the potential for unreasonable hazards in other jurisdictions and confounding shippers and carriers which attempt to comply with multiple and conflicting registration, permitting, routing, notification, and other regulatory requirements;

(4)because of the potential risks to life, property, and the environment posed by unintentional releases of hazardous materials, consistency in laws and regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials is necessary and desirable;

(5)in order to achieve greater uniformity and to promote the public health, welfare, and safety at all levels, Federal standards for regulating the transportation of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce are necessary and desirable.” The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, when reporting in 1990 on the bill to amend the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

(HMTA)[Pub. L. 93-633 section 112(a), 88 Stat. 2161 (1975)], stated “The original intent of HMTA was to authorize [DOT] with the regulatory and enforcement authority to protect the public against the risks imposed by all forms of hazardous materials transportation, and to preclude a multiplicity of State and local regulations and the potential for varying as well as conflicting regulations.” S. Rep. No. 101-449 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4595, 4596. A Federal Court of Appeals has indicated uniformity was the “linchpin” in the design of the HMTA, including the 1990 amendments expanding the original preemption provisions. 2 2 *Colorado Pub. Util. Comm'n* v. *Harmon,* 951 F.2d 1571, 1575 (10th Cir. 1991). In 1994, Congress revised, codified and enacted the HMTA “without substantive change,” at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51. [Pub. L. 103-272, 108 Stat. 745]. III. Preemption Determinations Title 49 U.S.C. 5125(d) provides for issuance of binding preemption determinations by the Secretary. The Secretary has delegated to FMCSA authority to make determinations of preemption concerning highway routing of hazardous materials. See 49 CFR 1.73(d)(2). Any directly affected person may apply for a determination whether a requirement of a State, political subdivision or Indian tribe is preempted. 49 CFR 397.205(a). FMCSA's preemption determinations are governed by procedures under 49 CFR part 397, subpart E, and 49 U.S.C. 5125. After the preemption determination is issued, aggrieved persons have 20 days to file a petition for reconsideration. See 49 CFR 397.211(c) and 397.223. Any party to the proceeding may seek judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or in the Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the person resides or has its principal place of business. 49 U.S.C. 5127(a). In making preemption determinations under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d), FMCSA is guided by the principles and policies set forth in Executive Order 13132, titled “Federalism.” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999). Section 4(a) of Executive Order 13132 directs agencies to construe a Federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision, there is other clear evidence that Congress intended preemption of State law, or the exercise of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute. Section 5125 includes express preemption provisions, which FMCSA has implemented through its regulations. IV. Discussion A. Summary of DC Act The DC Act makes it illegal, except in cases of emergency, to transport in the Capitol Exclusion Zone without a permit certain quantities of hazardous materials specified in Section 4 of the DC Act. The specific quantities of the banned materials are listed in Section I of this preemption determination. Section 4 of the DC Act also makes it illegal in the Capitol Exclusion Zone, without a permit, to operate a vehicle which is capable of containing, and has exterior placarding or other markings indicating it contains, the specified quantities of the listed materials. Section 3 of the DC Act defines an “emergency” as an unanticipated, temporary situation that threatens the immediate safety of individuals or property, as determined by the District of Columbia Department of Transportation. Section 5 of the DC Act enables the District of Columbia Department of Transportation to issue a permit authorizing transport of the otherwise prohibited materials listed in Section 4 if there is no “practical alternative route”—defined in Section 3 of the DC Act as a route which lies entirely outside the Capitol Exclusion Zone and whose use would not make shipment of the hazardous materials cost-prohibitive. Section 5 provides that the permit may require the adoption of safety measures, including time-of-day restrictions. Section 5 authorizes the District of Columbia Department of Transportation to collect fees for the permits. Any permit fees are not to exceed the cost of implementing and enforcing the DC Act. B. Summary of Regulatory Requirements Because the District of Columbia established routing restrictions in the DC Act, the District of Columbia must comply with FMCSA's standards in 49 CFR part 397, subpart C. 49 CFR 397.69(a). These standards, issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5112(b), specify that there must be: —A finding by the State that the highway routing designation “enhances public safety in the areas subject to its jurisdiction and in other areas which are directly affected by such highway routing designation.” 49 CFR 397.71(b)(1). —Notice to the public of the proposed routing designation, a 30-day period for the public to submit comments, and consideration of whether to hold a public hearing (with advance notice to the public). 49 CFR 397.71(b)(2). —Notice to and consultation with “officials of affected political subdivisions, States and Indian tribes, and any other affected parties,” and completion of the routing designation process within 18 months of the notice to the public or notice to other affected jurisdictions. 49 CFR 397.71(b)(3), (6). —Assurance of “through highway routing * * * between adjacent areas.” 49 CFR 397.71(b)(4). —No unreasonable burden on commerce. 49 CFR 397.71(b)(5). — Agreement with the proposed routing by all affected States within 60 days of notice, or alternatively, approval by the Administrator pursuant to dispute resolution procedures under 49 CFR 397.75. 49 CFR 397.71(b)(5). —Reasonable access for vehicles to reach terminals, pickup and delivery points, loading and unloading locations, and facilities for food, fuel, repairs, rest, and safe havens. 49 CFR 397.71(b)(7). —Consideration of specific factors, including population density, emergency response capabilities, continuity of routes, alternative routes, effects on commerce, potential delays in transportation, and congestion and accident history. 49 CFR 397.71(b)(9). In addition, the State must

(1)ensure that its political subdivisions comply with FMCSA's standards and procedures (49 CFR 397.71(b)(8));

(2)make information on highway routing designations available to the public “in the form of maps, lists, road signs or some combination thereof” (49 CFR 397.73(a)); and

(3)report highway routing designations to FMCSA within 60 days after establishment (49 CFR 397.73(b)). C. Application of Regulatory Requirements to the DC Act ATA states in its Application that the District of Columbia did not comply with the public notice and comment period required by 49 CFR 397.71(b)(2). ATA further alleges the District of Columbia did not consult with affected neighboring jurisdictions as required by 49 CFR 397.71(b)(3) and did not receive the agreement of the State of Maryland or the Commonwealth of Virginia as required by 49 CFR 397.71(b)(5). Additionally, ATA states the District of Columbia did not engage in the risk analysis required by 49 CFR 397.71(b)(4). ATA further maintains that the D.C. Council's findings and the testimony of the D.C. Council members during the session in which the DC Act was enacted contain no discussion or analysis of the factors required by 49 CFR 397.71(b)(9), such as population density, characteristics of alternative highways to be used, analysis of the number of shipments impacted by the DC Act, consideration of comments and concerns of affected persons, impact upon commerce, delays in transportation, and traffic conditions, including motor vehicle accident experience. In its comments, Yellow Roadway expresses concern that if the DC Act goes unchallenged, other cities and local governments might implement similar measures that would adversely impact the safe and efficient transportation of hazardous material. Yellow Roadway points out the additional miles associated with rerouting increases exposure, driving time and would not ensure an increase in safety or security in the routes chosen. Moreover, Yellow Roadway states a requirement to adhere to different rules and routing requirements in different communities would be confusing, extremely costly, and administratively burdensome and would adversely impact the safe and secure transportation of hazardous materials. NTTC asserts the DC Act attempts to shift risk from the District of Columbia to other jurisdictions. NTTC further states that Federal law allows the District of Columbia to seek a legal means of addressing a routing scheme. NPGA notes that the Federal regulations were developed to address situations where localities shift hazardous materials traffic from one jurisdiction to another. NPGA further states there must be an opportunity for full participation by the motor carriers and the neighboring affected communities when a locality seeks to establish a routing restriction. NPGA also filed a separate application for preemption with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) in which it asked PHMSA to find that Federal hazardous materials law preempts the DC Act in its entirety. Because the issues raised by NPGA in its application concern the DC Act and because the issues overlap with the issues raised by ATA in its Application, NPGA's application is being considered in the context of the ATA Application and is in essence treated as a comment filed in the instant proceeding. NPGA states in its application that the DC Act contravenes the concept of national hazardous materials regulatory uniformity. NPGA expresses concerns that the actions of individual jurisdictions, with thoughts of only their own constituents and not a broader regional or national view, will fragment the unified system into balkanized pockets of differing rules and restrictions. In its comments replying to ATA's Application, the District of Columbia states that it promulgated emergency rules implementing the DC Act, and those rules expressly exempt application of the DC Act to non-railroad carriers until certain conditions are met. In light of the exemption contained in the regulations, the District of Columbia argues the issues raised by ATA's Application are not yet ripe. Specifically, the District of Columbia states that the emergency rules implementing the DC Act exclude carriers who own motor vehicles from the routing requirements until thirty days after

(a)a court or agency rules the DC Act is not preempted by Federal hazardous materials law;

(b)the Director of the District of Columbia Department of Transportation certifies that the list of criteria set forth in 49 CFR 397.71 have been met; or

(c)FMCSA issues a waiver of preemption pursuant to 49 CFR 397.213 and 49 CFR 397.219. Consequently, the District of Columbia requests FMCSA to deny ATA's Application. In the alternative, the District of Columbia asks FMCSA to stay a decision on ATA's Application until the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issues an opinion in *CSX Transportation, Inc.* v. *Williams* (“CSX”) 3 relating to preemption, or until one of the three conditions listed in the District of Columbia's rules is satisfied. 3 *CSX Transportation, Inc.* v. *Williams* , No. 05cv00338 (D.D.C. filed Feb. 16, 2005) (involving a complaint filed by a railroad company seeking a declaration that the DC Act is invalid). The District of Columbia's response to NPGA's application is similar to its response to ATA's Application. Specifically, the District of Columbia states that because the emergency rules implementing the DC Act expressly exempt application of the DC Act to non-railroad carriers until certain conditions are met, the issues raised in NPGA's application are not yet ripe. The District of Columbia states that its rules provide that the routing requirements will not apply to motor carriers until thirty days after one of three conditions have been met, as summarized above in the District of Columbia's response to ATA's Application. The District of Columbia requests FMCSA to deny NPGA's application, or in the alternative, to stay a decision on the application until the United States District Court for the District of Columbia resolves the claims regarding preemption in the CSX proceeding, or until one of the three conditions is satisfied. ATA filed rebuttal comments responding to the District of Columbia's comments. ATA states that the District of Columbia did not demonstrate in its rebuttal comments that it complied with Federal hazardous materials routing requirements, but instead the District of Columbia opposed ATA's Application on the grounds that the District of Columbia has temporarily delayed the implementation of its routing restrictions with respect to motor carriers. ATA notes that its Application for a preemption determination challenges the DC Act, and not the implementing regulations. ATA states that the routing restriction set forth in the DC Act is self-implementing and that the subsequently issued regulations do not cure the procedural defects in enacting the DC Act. In its reply, the District of Columbia does not dispute the assertions made by ATA. Significantly, the District of Columbia does not assert that it followed the Federal hazardous materials requirements as set forth in 49 U.S.C. 5112 and 49 CFR part 397. See Morrisville, PA Requirements for Transportation of “Dangerous Waste,” 66 FR 37260, 37264 (July 17, 2001) (finding that Borough of Morrisville did not comply with FMCSA's standards in 49 CFR part 397 after Borough failed to dispute commenters' assertions that the Borough adopted a routing limitation without notice and opportunity to comment). Instead, the District of Columbia argues the issue of preemption is not yet ripe because the regulations implementing the DC Act exempt application of the DC Act to non-railroad carriers until certain conditions are met. The District of Columbia failed to submit any evidence demonstrating compliance with the Federal regulatory requirements in establishing the routing designation in the DC Act. To additionally develop the factual record in this proceeding, on November 22, 2005, FMCSA sent letters to the Maryland State Highway Administration and the Virginia Department of Transportation asking whether the District of Columbia provided them written notice of the District of Columbia's proposal to prohibit the transportation of certain hazardous materials in the Capitol Exclusion Zone, as is required by 49 CFR 397.71(b)(3). Specifically, at least 60 days prior to establishing a routing designation, the District of Columbia was required by regulation to “provide notice, in writing, of the proposed routing designation to officials responsible for highway routing in all other affected States or Indian tribes.” 49 CFR 397.71(b)(3)(i). Moreover, any such routing designation shall be established, maintained, or enforced only if the routing designation is “agreed to by the affected State or Indian tribe within 60 days of receipt of the notice” or the routing designation is approved by the FMCSA Administrator pursuant to dispute resolution procedures. 49 CFR 397.71(b)(5)(ii). On December 7, 2005, the Maryland State Highway Administration responded to FMCSA's letter, explaining that it was unable to locate any documentation indicating that the District of Columbia sent any such notice to the State of Maryland and likewise was unable to locate documentation indicating that the State of Maryland sent any reply to the District of Columbia regarding the routing designations contained in the DC Act. On January 12, 2006, the Virginia Department of Transportation responded that it similarly was unaware of any notification from the District of Columbia regarding the routing restrictions at issue in this proceeding. Consequently, FMCSA finds that the District of Columbia did not comply with the requirement in 49 CFR 397.71(b)(3) to provide notice to and consult with officials of affected States. Further, there is no evidence in the record indicating the District of Columbia complied with any of the requirements contained in 49 CFR part 397, subpart C, and the District of Columbia has offered none. The District of Columbia failed to comply with the statutory requirements in 49 U.S.C. 5112 and FMCSA's standards in 49 CFR part 397 when it enacted the DC Act. The District of Columbia argues the issue of preemption is not yet ripe because the regulations implementing the DC Act do not apply to motor carriers until certain conditions are met. As discussed below, the issues presented by ATA in its Application are ripe. As an initial matter, however, it should be noted that the ripeness doctrine derives from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which places limitations on federal judicial powers that are inapplicable to administrative agencies. 4 Courts have held that an administrative agency is not subject to Article III and related prudential limitations, and accordingly may issue declaratory orders “in mere anticipation of a controversy or simply to resolve an uncertainty.” 5 Thus, while an administrative agency may, where appropriate, exercise its discretion and decline to address a matter before it on ripeness grounds, it is not compelled to do so under the Constitution. 4 *Metropolitan Council of N.A.A.C.P. Branches* v. *F.C.C.* , 46 F.3d 1154, 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing *Chavez* v. *Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs* , 961 F.2d 1409, 1414 (9th Cir.1992)). 5 *Pfizer Inc.* v. *Shalala* , 182 F.3d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing Metropolitan Council of NAACP Branches, 46 F.3d at 1161). The District of Columbia argues the issues raised by ATA's Application are not yet ripe because the regulations implementing the DC Act do not apply to motor carriers until certain conditions are met. However, the District of Columbia's promulgation of regulations excluding motor vehicle traffic from the routing restrictions until specified criteria are met does not salvage the District of Columbia's failure to comply with Federal standards when it established in the DC Act a highway routing designation over which certain hazardous materials may not be transported. 49 CFR 397.71. As noted by ATA in its rebuttal comments, its Application challenges the DC Act itself and not the implementing regulations. ATA correctly points out in its rebuttal comments that the District of Columbia's subsequently issued regulations do not cure the procedural defects in enacting the DC Act. Federal hazardous material law on preemption is triggered when a highway routing designation over which hazardous material may or may not be transported is established, maintained, or enforced. 49 U.S.C. 5125(c). Similarly, FMCSA's regulations require compliance with the highway routing standards in 49 CFR 397.71 when a state establishes or modifies a highway routing designation and maintains or enforces such designation. 49 CFR 397.69. The District of Columbia has established 6 a highway routing designation through the enactment of the DC Act and has maintained 7 that highway routing designation by keeping the DC Act current. As such, the District of Columbia was required to comply with the statutory requirements in 49 U.S.C. 5112 and FMCSA's standards in 49 CFR part 397 with regard to each enactment. A highway routing designation made by the District of Columbia that does not comply with the requirements of part 397 is preempted. 49 CFR 397.69(b). The District of Columbia has attempted to unilaterally exempt itself from this obligation by adopting rules that would avoid FMCSA's regulatory requirements until the rule is literally applied to carriers. That is too late and not the intent of FMCSA's regulations. Consequently, FMCSA rejects the District of Columbia's ripeness argument. 6 Merriam Webster's dictionary defines “establish” as “to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement.” Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 397 (10th ed. 1997). 7 “Maintain” is defined as “to keep in an existing state.” Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 702 (10th ed. 1997). Accordingly, the entire DC Act as it applies to motor carriers is preempted by 49 U.S.C. 5125(c)(1) because the District of Columbia failed to comply with FMCSA's standards for establishing highway routing designations issued pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5112(b) and 49 CFR part 397, subpart C. V. Ruling Federal hazardous material transportation law preempts all provisions of the DC Act as it applies to motor carriers. VI. Petition for Reconsideration/Judicial Review In accordance with 49 CFR 397.223(a), any person aggrieved by this decision may file a petition for reconsideration within 20 days of publication of this decision in the **Federal Register** . Any party to this proceeding may seek judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or in the Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the person resides or has its principal place of business. 49 U.S.C. 5127(a). This decision will become the final decision of FMCSA 20 days after publication in the **Federal Register** if no petition for reconsideration is filed within that time. The filing of a petition for reconsideration is not a prerequisite to seeking judicial review of this decision under 49 U.S.C. 5125(f). If a petition for reconsideration of this determination is filed within 20 days of publication in the **Federal Register** , the action by FMCSA on the petition for reconsideration will be the final decision. 49 CFR 397.223(d). Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2006. Warren E. Hoemann, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-5137 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2006-24005] Hours of Service of Drivers: Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME); Application for Exemption AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments. SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received an application for exemption from a requirement in its hours-of-service

(HOS)rules from the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME). IME requests that a member of a driving team who is transporting hazardous materials requiring constant attendance in accordance with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and who is using the sleeper berth be allowed to exit the sleeper berth for brief specified periods without being considered “on duty.” FMCSA requests public comment on IME's application for exemption. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket No. FMCSA-2006-24005] using any of the following methods: • *Web Site: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit* . 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 20590-0001. • *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 for this notice. 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 for further information. *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. The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want to be notified that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments online. *Privacy Act:* Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other entity). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477). This statement is also available at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Division Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations Division (MC-PSD), Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, phone

(202)366-4009, e-mail *MCPSD@fmcsa.dot.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105-178, June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 107) amended 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from the motor carrier safety regulations. On August 20, 2004, FMCSA published a final rule (69 FR 51589) on section 4007. Under the regulations, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the **Federal Register** (49 CFR 381.315(a)). FMCSA must provide the public with an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted, and it must provide an opportunity for public comment on the request. FMCSA reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). FMCSA's decision must be published in the **Federal Register** (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If FMCSA denies the request, it must state the reason for doing so. If FMCSA grants the exemption, the notice must specify the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is being granted. The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up to 2 years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)). Request for Exemption IME seeks by exemption to modify the HOS standard for determining whether a driver operating a property-carrying CMV in interstate commerce is on duty. The HOS rules require, among other provisions, a minimum of 10 hours of rest before the driver of a property-carrying CMV can begin a new duty period. A driver may obtain this rest in four ways:

(1)By going off duty and remaining off duty for a single uninterrupted period of 10 or more hours,

(2)by obtaining 10 or more consecutive hours of sleeper-berth time,

(3)by obtaining a combination of consecutive periods of off-duty and sleeper-berth time totaling 10 or more hours, or

(4)by obtaining the equivalent of at least 10 consecutive hours off duty. The *equivalent* can only be obtained by a combination of two separate periods of rest:

(1)A period of at least 8 but less than 10 consecutive hours in a sleeper berth and

(2)a separate period of at least 2 but less than 10 consecutive hours in a sleeper berth or off duty or a combination of sleeper-berth and off-duty time. These rules for the drivers of property-carrying CMVs (and their motor carrier employers) are prescribed by 49 CFR 395.1(g)(1). Each of these four methods for obtaining sufficient rest to begin a new duty period is premised in whole or in part upon periods of rest (whether in the sleeper berth or off duty or a combination of the two) that are uninterrupted by on-duty time. The hours within a qualifying period cannot be interrupted by a period of time on duty or driving. The hours in the period must be consecutive in order to comply with the rule. If broken for a period of time, the calculation of consecutive hours ends at that point in time. If off-duty or sleeper-berth status is resumed, the calculation of a new period of rest begins at that point. IME is applying for this exemption on behalf of drivers who are engaged in team operations, who are using the sleeper-berth provisions of 49 CFR 395.1(g)(1), and who are transporting hazardous materials requiring constant attendance in accordance with 49 CFR 397.5. The usual mode of operation of the team is that the drivers alternate between driving and resting in the sleeper berth of the tractor. Occasionally, circumstances may require the resting driver to perform on-duty tasks for a short period of time. Among these interruptions are roadside vehicle inspections, security checks, and attendance to the CMV while the on-duty driver leaves the immediate area. Specifically, IME seeks “* * * exemption from 49 CFR 395.1(g) to allow the off-duty team driver to provide attendance or to participate in security checks or safety inspections for brief periods of 30 minutes or less without triggering a change of duty status and the loss of accumulated sleeper berth time.” (IME's Application for Exemption, dated November 8, 2005, page 3, paragraph 2). A copy of IME's application for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice. Request for Comments In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public comment on IME's application for exemption from 49 CFR 395.1(g). FMCSA will consider all comments received by close of business on May 10, 2006. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. FMCSA will file comments received after the comment closing date in the public docket and will consider them to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file in the public docket relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public docket for new material. Issued on: April 3, 2006. Warren E. Hoemann, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-5140 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket Number 2006 24375] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel ASHLEY. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2006-24375 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD 2006 24375. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/* . All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ASHLEY is: *Intended Use:* “Charter Boat.” *Geographic Region:* Within 75 miles of New England and New York coastline. Dated: April 3, 2006. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5143 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket Number 2006 24373] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel BEAUDACIOUS. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2006-24373 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD 2006 24373. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit* . All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel BEAUDACIOUS is: *Intended Use:* “I intend to carry passengers only and occasionally do a little sportfishing that won't be sold commercially. Mostly intend to take people out for sailing excursions.” *Geographic Region:* Inland and coastal waters in the following states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, DC, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine. Dated: April 3, 2006. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5144 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket Number 2006 24372] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel REEL FUN. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2006-24372 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD 2006 24372. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/.* All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel REEL FUN is: *Intended Use:* “Guided sportfishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, and transportation (water taxi).” *Geographic Region:* Kodiak Archaepelago. Dated: April 3, 2006. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5141 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket Number 2006—24374] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel YACHT LADY. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2006-24374 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 10, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2006-24374. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/.* All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel YACHT LADY is: *Intended Use:* “Luxury private and short term Charters.” *Geographic Region:* Alaska to Mexico. Dated: April 3, 2006. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-5145 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials; Notice of Meeting The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials will be held on April 27-28, 2006, at the Mission Inn, 3649 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside, California. On April 27, 2006, the meeting will begin at 8 a.m. and conclude at 3:45 p.m. On April 28, 2006, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and conclude at 4 p.m. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of national cemeteries, soldiers' lots and plots, the selection of new national cemetery sites, the erection of appropriate memorials, and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits. On April 27, 2006, the Committee will receive updates on various National Cemetery Administration

(NCA)issues, to include the impact of veteran demographics on NCA planning and the status of cemetery construction projects. On April 28, 2006, the Committee will tour Riverside National Cemetery and then reconvene at the Mission Inn for a business session in the afternoon, which will include discussions of Committee recommendations and future meeting sites. Time will not be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting should contact Mr. Michael Nacincik, Designated Federal Officer, at

(202)273-5221. The Committee will accept written comments. Comments may be transmitted electronically to the Committee at *mike.nacincik@mail.va.gov* or mailed to the National Cemetery Administration, (41C2), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. In the public's communications with the Committee, the writers must identify themselves and state the organizations, associations, or persons they represent. Dated: March 31, 2006. E. Philip Riggin, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 06-3368 Filed 4-7-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

statutes-at-large