Rules and Regulations. Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking

5,155 words·~23 min read·/register/2006/04/28/06-4008

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

BILLING CODE 4165-16-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 392 [Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4202] RIN 2126-AA18 Railroad Grade Crossing Safety; Withdrawal AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: FMCSA withdraws a July 30, 1998, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)that would have prohibited the driver of a commercial motor vehicle

(CMV)from driving onto a highway-railroad grade crossing without sufficient space to drive completely through the crossing without stopping. The NPRM was issued in response to section 112 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994. After careful analysis and review of the comments, FMCSA has concluded that the NPRM gave a misleading impression of the statutory mandate and the cost and complexity of complying with an implementing regulation. FMCSA is therefore withdrawing the 1998 NPRM in order to eliminate the confusion associated with this rulemaking. The agency, however, will issue a simpler and more clearly written new NPRM addressing the requirements of section 112. DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking published on July 30, 1998, at 63 FR 40691, is withdrawn as of April 28, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry W. Minor, Director, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations,

(202)366-4009, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (MC-PS), 400—7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; or *larry.minor@fmcsa.dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How can you get a copy of this publication? You can visit the following Web sites to get copies:

(1)U.S. DOT Dockets Management System

(DMS)using the URL *http://dms.dot.gov/search* , and type the last four digits

(4202)to access the docket;

(2)Today's **Federal Register** at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/* ; and

(3)FMCSA at *http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov.* Background On July 30, 1998, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, or the Agency) published an NPRM (63 FR 40691) to prohibit CMV operators from driving onto a railroad grade crossing without having sufficient space to drive completely through without stopping (and thus leaving a portion of the CMV across the tracks), as required by Section 112 of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, at 1676, August 26, 1994). On November 9, 1999, the then Department of Transportation's Office of Motor Carrier Safety (DOT OMCS) (and previously FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers) held a public meeting to discuss highway-rail grade crossing accidents. A transcript of the meeting was placed in the docket. As stated in the report by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (December 9, 1993), the goal of the provision in Senate Bill 1640, which later became Section 112, was to: “* * * improve safety at highway-railroad crossings in response to fatalities that have occurred from accidents involving commercial motor vehicle operators who failed to use proper caution while crossing* * * [T]he Committee believes that imposing a Federal statutory obligation on drivers of all commercial motor vehicles to consider whether they can cross safely and completely * * * will help to reduce the number of tragedies associated with grade-crossing accidents” [S. Rep. No. 103-217, at 11 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1763, 1773]. The NPRM noted that many factors could prevent a CMV operator from driving completely through a grade crossing without stopping, such as a stop sign or other traffic control device beyond the crossing in close proximity to the tracks, or the presence of other vehicles or obstacles in the roadway beyond the crossing. The agency also noted that crossings with 12.2 meters (40 feet), or less, between the tracks and a stop sign could not accommodate a tractor-trailer combination 18.3 meters (60 feet) long. The States were therefore asked to submit data on the number and locations of highway-railroad grade crossings that could not accommodate the longest CMVs legally permitted to operate in each State if the proposed rule were adopted. The NPRM also asked for information on alternative routes that truckers could use if a particular crossing were unavailable because of their compliance with the proposed rule. Motor carriers were asked to assess the impact of the proposed rule on their operations and advise FHWA of their conclusions. FHWA asked the States to respond within two months, and motor carriers and others within four months. Discussion of Comments Forty-five comments were received in response to the NPRM. The commenters included thirty-five

(35)State agencies, the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the National School Transportation Association (NSTA), the Greater Cleveland Transit Authority (Cleveland Transit), New Jersey Transit, Florida East Coast Railway Co. (Florida Railway), Guttman Oil Co., KLD Associates, Thompson Trucking, and Walter A. McDonald, a retired State transportation official. Most State agencies said it would be difficult to comply with the proposed data request; several requested extensions of time of a year or more to complete their inventory of grade crossings. Other State agencies said that compliance with the NPRM would be a major effort requiring Federal funding. With three exceptions, the respondents believed the proposed rule was impractical and virtually impossible to implement. NSTA, AAR, and Florida Railway supported the proposed rule and believed it would improve safety. AAR said it was a logical extension of many existing State laws that prohibit all vehicles from stopping on railroad tracks. As discussed below, four areas of contention have been identified. Objection to FHWA's Information Request Rather than expending the financial and human resources to inventory all crossings, three State agencies suggested addressing specific crossings on a location-by-location basis and considering factors such as crash history, rail traffic and travel speed, roadway traffic volume, road and railway alignment grade, and available storage distance. Kansas questioned the expenditure of its resources to collect the information request in the NPRM. North Carolina said it did not have the money, time, or personnel to comply with the request. Wyoming and New Jersey believed the request was too general and did not provide sufficient detail to answer the questions contained in the NPRM. Wyoming suggested that specific parameters be identified to ensure uniformity of the measurements and data collected in each State. Lack of Feasibility of the Proposed Rule Several States said the proposed rule would require major road and railroad improvements to facilitate compliance, because alternate routes are not always available. They also said implementing the rule would be a barrier to inter- and intrastate commerce because of its significant financial impact. Two State agencies and a motor carrier noted that the designs of some grade crossings do not permit clearance of the railroad tracks and that such crossings are often the only route to a specific location. One of the few motor carriers that responded to the NPRM suggested that all crossings have at least 90 to 100 feet of clear space between the tracks and any traffic control device, and that advanced signals be installed to alert train engineers of track blockage. Iowa reported that it has 2,113 grade crossings within 75 feet of a street of highway intersection, but it noted that most of the crossings are on railroad branch lines with infrequent service, low operating speeds, and good visibility; vehicle traffic at these crossings is also low. Iowa argued that Federal regulations are inappropriate in light of the accident history of many crossings and the fact that these histories change over time because of local developments. Wisconsin believed the proposed rule was workable for intersections and grade crossings controlled by traffic signals, but not for crossings near intersections that are controlled by stop or yield signs. Wisconsin suggested postponing the effectiveness of the rule until the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was changed to address the issue of traffic signals at such intersections/crossings. Nevada said all but one its grade crossings are in rural areas, and all but two are poor candidates for traffic signals. Nevada said signalization for the crossings was probably five to ten years in the future and that relocating the railways or closing the crossings was not feasible. Nevada said relocation of roadways is limited by geography and economic development and that truck advisory signs would be more appropriate for the affected crossings, thus limiting overall improvements to installation of signage. New Jersey said replacing stop signs with traffic signals would further impede traffic flow already interrupted by many signals, but agreed that it is feasible and desirable to interconnect traffic signals and adjust timing where signals already exist. Pennsylvania said it might be possible to locate a stop sign or traffic control device in some locations so that vehicles encounter it before entering the crossing. However, Pennsylvania noted that apart from these potential solutions, safety improvements become very expensive or politically difficult to enact. Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule Oklahoma and California argued that Federal funding was necessary to implement the rule. Connecticut believed manpower requirements for design and construction of crossing improvements, including the financial impacts, would likely exceed resources available to State and local agencies and private owners. The State estimated the cost of installing signals that would be activated by the approach of a train at approximately $280,000 (per crossing, presumably). Connecticut suggested instituting a Federal program with a funding source dedicated exclusively to the problem of limited storage distance at grade crossings. Burden and Costs of Compliance Far Exceed the Anticipated Benefits Kansas said it did not have adequate information to identify accidents related to insufficient storage space. The State said that its accident statistics for the previous eight years revealed 109 CMV-train accidents, or 13.6 per year, and that even if all of these accidents were caused by the problem of inadequate storage space, the proposed rule would be addressing a relatively minor problem. Indiana believed storage space was not a significant factor in its accident record. The State said that, in the past five years, only 6.4 percent of train-vehicle collisions (78 out of 1,213) involved truck-trailer combination vehicles, and, of those, only 38 accidents (3.1 percent of the total) were at a highway-railroad grade crossing near an intersection. Indiana said even if all 38 accidents were due to storage problems, which it called unlikely, they would still represent only a small part of the State's overall accident exposure. Pennsylvania said there were 692,138 accidents in the State from 1993 through 1997, but only 31 involved CMVs and trains and none of those accidents involved vehicles approaching a highway-railroad intersection where traffic was stopped at a traffic control device. Pennsylvania did not believe that the proposed rule would have a major impact on safety or that it would be appropriate to initiate a labor-intensive, field inventory effort to collect the information requested. Wisconsin said it averaged one fatal train-truck accident every five years, or about 3 percent of total train-vehicle fatal accidents. The Public Meeting The DOT OMCS held a public meeting on November 9, 1999, which generated extensive testimony and discussion regarding the issue of highway-rail grade crossing safety. A transcript of the meeting is in the docket for this rulemaking. The discussion focused on initiatives that could be taken to prevent train-vehicle collisions at grade crossings, but not on the feasibility or advisability of the proposed rule. The potential options discussed involved changes to the grade crossing environment, such as changes to traffic control devices near grade crossings; policy changes, such as developing programs that would allow CMVs to select routes to avoid grade crossings near traffic control devices; and educating CMV operators on actions to take if a CMV becomes incapacitated on a crossing. FMCSA Decision After reviewing the comments to the NPRM and the transcript of the public meeting, FMCSA has concluded that this rulemaking has created a great deal of misunderstanding and should be terminated. FHWA asked the States for information on the number and location of highway-railroad grade crossings with inadequate storage space—and on alternative crossings—as the first step in estimating the costs and benefits of the rule required by Section 112. In view of the expected complexity of that analysis, the Agency needed as much information as possible. Many State agencies, however, seem to have assumed that they were required to provide the information; that the final rule would then require them to reconstruct, rewire, reroute or otherwise correct every inadequate crossing; and that the Agency was indifferent to the costs of such an undertaking. In fact, the time, difficulty and cost involved in collecting reliable data on highway-railroad grade crossings became a primary focus of the comments. Section 112 requires a rule applicable to motor carriers, not to States. If the regulatory requirement prevented some motor carriers from using a particular crossing because the storage space is too short for their normal vehicles, several options are available (such as switching to shorter trucks or using alternate crossings) before any reconstruction efforts suggested by the State commenters need to be considered. And even then, significant civil engineering projects are likely to have a low priority. Consultations among government entities, truckers, and the shippers they serve might produce quick and simple solutions. Therefore, FMCSA terminates this rulemaking and will open a new one less burdened by previous misunderstandings. An NPRM to address the requirements of Section 112 will be published when additional analysis of grade crossing problems, which is now under way, has been completed. In view of the foregoing, this rulemaking proceeding is terminated. Issued on: April 24, 2006. Warren E. Hoemann, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-6424 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA 2006-24390] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. James E. Hofferberth asking the agency to take a variety of steps related to incorporating dummies representing three-year-old, six-year-old and ten-year-old children and 95th percentile adult males into the agency's frontal crash test programs. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *For Non-Legal Issues:* Ms. Catherine Carneal, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:

(202)366-1284, Facsimile:

(202)366-7002. *For Legal Issues:* Mr. Chris Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:

(202)366-2992, Facsimile:

(202)366-3820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Petition On September 9, 2005, Mr. James E. Hofferberth submitted a petition for rulemaking asking the agency to require additional safety measures related to protection of child and large adult male occupants. He stated that the likelihood and severity of injuries to vehicle occupants is strongly dependent on their size, and noted that the agency's frontal crash test standard specifies test requirements using only 50th percentile adult male dummies and 5th percentile adult female dummies. The petitioner stated that dummies representing three-year-old, six-year-old and ten-year-old children and 95th percentile adult males are in existence and should be incorporated into the agency's frontal crash test programs. More specifically, Mr. Hofferberth's petition made four requests. The first was that any motor vehicles certified for compliance with the crash test requirements of FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” also be required to “have a permanent, prominently displayed:

(a)Notice that specifies the occupant sizes for which the vehicle is not in compliance with the crash test performance requirements of FMVSS No. 208, and

(b)warning that such persons, other than small children using a child restraint system certified for compliance with FMVSS No. 213, “Child restraint systems,” are not protected by FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” and may be exposed to a higher risk of injury and fatality when riding in the vehicle.” Second, the petitioner requested an “order that vehicles claimed by the manufacturer to be in compliance with the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 208 for occupant sizes other than fifth percentile adult female and fiftieth percentile adult male be incorporated in the compliance test program to verify the manufacturer's claim.” Third, he asked “that crash testing using anthropomorphic dummies representing three-year-old children, six-year-old children, ten-year-old children, and ninety-fifth percentile adults be routinely included in the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).” Finally, the petitioner asked that the agency amend FMVSS No. 208 to add crash test requirements using dummies representing three-year-old children, six-year-old children, ten-year-old children, and ninety-fifth percentile adults. Mr. Hofferberth did not submit any data in support of his petition. Analysis and Decision We begin by noting that the protection of children in motor vehicle crashes is one of our agency's highest priorities. We have taken a number of actions in recent years to improve child safety, and have a number of ongoing actions. For example, on June 24, 2003, we published in the **Federal Register** (68 FR 37620) a final rule making a number of revisions in our safety standard for child restraint systems, including amendments for incorporating improved test dummies, updated procedures used to test child restraints, and an extension of the standard to apply it to child restraints recommended for use by children up to 65 pounds (30 kilograms). Child restraints will be tested using the most advanced test dummies available today and tested to conditions representing current model vehicles. On August 31, 2005, we published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 51720) a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)to further expand the applicability of our safety standard on child restraint systems to restraints recommended for children up to 80 pounds. That proposal would require booster seats and other restraints to meet performance criteria when tested with a crash test dummy representative of a 10-year-old child. NHTSA has also been evaluating the merits of including child dummies in the NCAP program pursuant to the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act. Section 14(b) of this Act directed the Secretary of Transportation to determine “whether to include child restraints in each vehicle crash tested under NCAP.” Two notices have been published on the agency's efforts in this area: Notice of final decision on the NCAP programs for child safety, published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 29815) on May 24, 2005, and response to comments, notice of decision for NCAP, published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 75536) on December 20, 2005. These documents discuss the agency's decision to maintain the current frontal impact test procedures while conducting the necessary research to evaluate if and how the program could be modified to include child dummies. Concurrently with that effort, the agency is conducting a special comprehensive review of the entire NCAP program, which is expected to be completed later in 2006. All of Mr. Hofferberth's various requests relate to incorporating additional dummies to the agency's frontal crash test programs. Implementation of any of his requests would require substantial agency resources. Extensive research and testing would be needed to support a rulemaking and/or develop a rating program which incorporates child and/or large size dummies. Among other things, the agency would need to thoroughly review equipment and test procedures for validity and reliability with respect to real-world collisions. NHTSA currently has an insufficient amount of data on child dummies in a FMVSS No. 208 crash environment to conduct a thorough crash test analysis. Also, the agency has not conducted rulemaking to include the 95th percentile adult male dummy in the Code of Federal Regulations, nor conducted the research and testing that would be needed to add this dummy to NCAP or to propose to use it as part of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These same issues are also relevant to the petitioner's request relating to requiring manufacturers to provide labels as to whether a vehicle would pass the crash test requirements of FMVSS No. 208 with dummies other than those specified by the standard. 1 To enable a determination to be made as to whether a vehicle would pass these requirements, the agency would need to conduct the necessary research and analyses to standardize test procedures, injury criteria, and performance limits for these dummies in these tests. 1 We note that the agency has not conducted an assessment as to its authority to issue this type of requirement, and it is unnecessary to do so in order to respond to this petition. Finally, if the agency were to propose adding new test requirements to FMVSS No. 208 or other requirements that manufacturers would be required to meet, it would also need to carefully assess costs and benefits. After carefully considering Mr. Hofferberth's petition, the agency has decided to deny it. NHTSA has limited resources, and, for the reasons discussed above, rulemaking to implement the petitioner's requests would require substantial agency resources. While the agency may in the future consider adding additional dummies to its frontal crash test and/or other programs, the petitioner did not provide any data or supporting documentation that convinced us that we should change our current priorities and devote additional resources in this area. In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's review of the petition. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30162; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: April 24, 2006. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E6-6423 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 71 82 Friday, April 28, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Doc. No. FV06-372] Notice of Change in Interest Rate Awarded in Reparation Proceedings Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture

(USDA)has changed the method used to calculate the interest to be awarded in reparation awards issued under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA). *Additional Information:* Contact Dexter Thomas, Senior Marketing Specialist, PACA Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 2095—South Building , Mail Stop 0242, Washington, DC 20250-0242. E-mail— *dexter.thomas@usda.gov.* This notice will also be posted on the Internet at *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/paca.htm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since 1992, reparation awards issued pursuant to the provisions of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, as amended (7 U.S.C. 499a *et seq.* ) (PACA), have included interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the basic damage award to provide the injured party the full amount of damages sustained. Public notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Judicial Officer, will now assess interest in PACA reparation awards consistent with the methodology set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1961 which sets forth a uniform rate of interest on any monetary judgment in a civil case recovered in district court, as well as final judgments against the United States in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal circuit, and judgments of the United States Court of Federal Claims. In an Order on Reconsideration issued on February 21, 2006, in a reparation proceeding under the PACA ( *PGB International, LLC* , v. *Bayche Companies, Inc.* , PACA Docket Number R-05-118, Decision on Reconsideration (2006)), the Judicial Officer noted that there should be consistency in the rate of interest on monetary judgments awarded in all federal forums. Since a claim can be pursued in a federal district court rather than under the PACA, and since the decision of the Secretary is appealable to the Federal district courts, the Judicial Officer found it appropriate for the Secretary to follow the same procedural statute for assessing interest on money judgments as in civil cases recovered in other Federal courts. The Judicial Officer further noted that other federal agencies have also determined that it is appropriate to utilize the formula stated in 28 U.S.C. 1961 to set the interest rate on monetary awards made in an administrative forum. Accordingly, all reparation awards issued under the PACA subsequent to the Judicial Officer's February 21, 2006, Order shall be calculated in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1961. The interest rate shall be calculated on the date of the Order, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the Order. Dated: April 24, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-6388 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0068] Notice of Request for Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Animal Welfare AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection in support of regulations issued under the Animal Welfare Act governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate handlers. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before June 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” box, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0068 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0068, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0068. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call

(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the regulations for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate handlers, contact Dr. Barbara Kohn, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234;

(301)734-7833. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at

(301)734-7477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Animal Welfare. *OMB Number:* 0579-0093. *Type of Request:* Extension of approval of an information collection. *Abstract:* The regulations in 9 CFR parts 1 through 3 were promulgated under the Animal Welfare Act (the Act) (7 U.S.C. 2131 *et seq.* ) to ensure the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of regulated animals under the Act. The Act and regulations are enforced by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The regulations in 9 CFR part 3, subparts A, D, and E cover dogs and cats, nonhuman primates, and marine mammals, respectively. Subparts B and C cover rabbits, guinea pigs, and hamsters. Subpart F of 9 CFR part 3 covers warmblooded animals other than dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, marine mammals, rabbits, guinea pigs, and hamsters. Regulated facilities are required to keep certain records and provide specific information regarding space, transportation, exercise plan, and perimeter fence requirements. We review this information to evaluate program compliance. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements of 9 CFR part 3, subparts A, B, C, D, E, and F do not mandate the use of any official government form. We are asking the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years. The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1)Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, *e.g.,* permitting electronic submission of responses. *Estimate of burden:* The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.3228688 hours per response. *Respondents:* Dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, carriers, and intermediate handlers. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 10,217. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 14.198101. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 145,062. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 46,836 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of April 2006. Elizabeth E. Gaston, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-6418 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee

(RAC)will meet in Red Bluff, California. Agenda items to be covered include:

(1)Introductions,

(2)Approval of Minutes,

(3)Public Comment,

(4)Discussion of Funding for next year,

(5)Chairman's Perspective,

(6)General Discussion,

(7)Next Agenda. DATES: The meeting will be held on May 11, 2006 from 9 a.m. and end at approximately 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Lincoln Street School, Conference Room A, 1135 Lincoln Street, Red Bluff, CA. Individuals wishing to speak or propose agenda items must sent their names and proposals to Janet Flanagan, Acting DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobbin Gaddini, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA 95939.

(530)968-5329; e-mail *ggaddini@fs.fed.us.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by May 8, 2006 will have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions. Dated: April 24, 2006. Janet Flanagan, Acting Designated Federal Official. [FR Doc. 06-4008 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 4

Traces to 4 documents

U.S. Code

7 references not yet in our index