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

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-05-01 · Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT) · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

22,517 words·~102 min read·/register/2006/05/01/06-4012

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

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 83 Monday, May 1, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24585; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-275-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and -15F Airplanes; Model DC-9-21 Airplanes; Model DC-9-30 Series Airplanes; Model DC-9-41 Airplanes; and Model DC-9-51 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)that applies to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires a one-time inspection at a certain disconnect panel in the left forward cargo compartment to find contamination of electrical connectors and to determine if a dripshield is installed over the disconnect panel, and corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD would revise the applicability of the existing AD to remove certain airplanes and add others. This proposed AD results from a report of electrical arcing that resulted in a fire. We are proposing this AD to prevent contamination of certain electrical connectors, which could cause electrical arcing and consequent fire on the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • 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. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024), for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elvin K. Wheeler, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone
(562)627-5344; fax
(562)627-5210. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-24585; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-275-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or may can visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion On January 22, 2003, we issued AD 2003-03-08, amendment 39-13032 (68 FR 4900, January 31, 2003), for certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes. That AD requires a one-time inspection at a certain disconnect panel in the left forward cargo compartment to find contamination of electrical connectors and to determine if a dripshield is installed over the disconnect panel, and corrective actions if necessary. That AD resulted from a report of electrical arcing that resulted in a fire. We issued that AD to prevent contamination of certain electrical connectors, which could cause electrical arcing that could result in a fire on the airplane. Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued Since we issued AD, we have reviewed Revision 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, dated October 12, 2004 (Revision 1 of the service bulletin was referred to in AD 2003-03-08 as the appropriate source of service information for the required actions). The one-time general visual inspection and corrective actions specified in Revision 2 are identical to those in Revision 1. The effectivity of Revision 2 has been changed to include 369 additional airplanes (254 U.S.-registered airplanes) that were inadvertently omitted from Revision 1 and to remove 25 airplanes (19 U.S.-registered airplanes) that have been removed from service due to an accident, dismantling, or scrapping. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede AD 2003-03-08 and would retain the requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also revise the applicability of the existing AD to remove certain airplanes and add others. For the added airplanes, this proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 2, dated October 12, 2004, described previously. Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-15F airplanes are not specifically identified by model name in paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 2. However, those airplanes are identified by manufacturer's fuselage numbers in the effectivity listing. Therefore, we have listed those airplanes in the applicability of this proposed AD. In addition, paragraph 1.A., “Effectivity,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 2, specifies Model “DC-9-33” airplanes. There is no such model on the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A6WE, dated November 1, 2001. Therefore, the applicability of this proposed AD does not refer to that model designation. We have coordinated the differences above with the airplane manufacturer. Changes to Existing AD This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2003-03-08. Since AD 2003-03-08 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table: Revised Paragraph Identifiers Requirement in AD 2003-03-08 Corresponding requirement in this proposed AD Paragraph
(a)Paragraph (f). Paragraph
(b)Paragraph (g). After AD 2003-03-08 was issued, we reviewed the figures we have used over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from $65 per work hour to $80 per work hour. Also, the number of affected U.S.-registered airplanes that need to comply with the inspection required by AD 2003-03-08 was increased from 51 airplanes to 170 airplanes. The cost impact information, below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate. Costs of Compliance There are about 649 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Inspection (required by AD 2003-03-08) 1 $80 $80 170 $13,600 Inspection (new proposed action) 1 80 80 254 20,320 Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by removing amendment 39-13032 (68 FR 4900, January 31, 2003) and adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **McDonnell Douglas:** Docket No. FAA-2006-24585; Directorate Identifier 2004-NM-275-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 15, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2003-03-08. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to the McDonnell Douglas airplanes identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 2, dated October 12, 2004. Table 1.—Affected Airplanes Model
(1)DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and -15F airplanes.
(2)DC-9-21 airplanes.
(3)DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-32F (C-9A, C-9B), DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, and DC-9-34F airplanes.
(4)DC-9-41 airplanes.
(5)DC-9-51 airplanes. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from a report of electrical arcing that resulted in a fire. We are issuing this AD to prevent contamination of certain electrical connectors, which could cause electrical arcing and consequent fire on the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Requirements of AD 2003-03-08 One-Time Inspection and Corrective Actions
(f)For airplanes equipped with forward lavatories, as listed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2001: Within 18 months after March 7, 2003 (the effective date AD 2003-03-08), perform a one-time general visual inspection of the disconnect panel at station Y=237.000 in the left forward cargo compartment to find evidence of contamination ( *e.g.* , staining or corrosion) of electrical connectors by blue water, and to determine if a dripshield is installed over the disconnect panel. Do this inspection according to the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 01, excluding Evaluation Form, dated November 21, 2001.
(1)If no evidence of contamination of electrical connectors is found, and a dripshield is installed, no further action is required by this AD.
(2)If any evidence of contamination of any electrical connector is found: Before further flight, remove each affected connector, and install a new or serviceable connector according to the service bulletin.
(3)If no dripshield is installed over the disconnect panel: Before further flight, install a dripshield according to the service bulletin. Previously Accomplished Inspections and Corrective Actions
(g)Inspections and corrective actions accomplished before March 7, 2003, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, dated July 31, 2001, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD. New Requirements of this AD One-Time Inspection and Corrective Actions
(h)For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph
(f)of this AD: Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do the one-time general visual inspection and applicable corrective actions specified in paragraph
(f)of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 2, dated October 12, 2004. The applicable corrective actions must be done before further flight. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 20, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-6497 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 310 RIN 3084-0098 Telemarketing Sales Rule Fees AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment. SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission” or “FTC”) is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to amend the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) to revise the fees charged to entities accessing the National Do Not Call Registry, and invites written comments on the issues raised by the proposed changes. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. Comments should refer to “TSR Fee Rule, Project No. P034305,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered, with two complete copies, to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Moreover, because paper mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay, please consider submitting your comments in electronic form, as prescribed below. Comments containing confidential material, however, must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 1 1 The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by clicking on the following weblink: *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-dncfees2006* and following the instructions on the web-based form. To ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the web-based form at the *https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-dncfees2006* weblink. If this notice appears at *http://www.regulations.gov,* you may also file an electronic comment through that Web site. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov forwards to it. You may also visit the FTC Web site at *http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/04/dncfees2006.htm* to read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the news release describing this proposed Rule. The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at *http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.htm.* As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at *http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John A. Krebs,
(202)326-3747, Division of Planning & Information, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On December 18, 2002, the Commission issued final amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule, which, *inter alia* , established the National Do Not Call Registry, permitting consumers to register, via either a toll-free telephone number or the Internet, their preference not to receive certain telemarketing calls (“Amended TSR”). 2 Under the Amended TSR, most telemarketers are required to refrain from calling consumers who have placed their numbers on the registry. 3 Telemarketers must periodically access the registry to remove from their telemarketing lists the telephone numbers of those consumers who have registered. 4 2 68 FR 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003). 3 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B). 4 16 CFR 310.4(b)(3)(iv). The Commission recently amended the TSR to requires telemarketers to access the National Registry at least once every 31 days, effective January 1, 2005. See 69 FR 16368 (Mar. 29, 2004). Shortly after issuance of the Amended TSR, Congress passed The Do-Not-Call Implementation Act (“the Implementation Act”). 5 The Implementation Act gave the Commission the specific authority to “promulgate regulations establishing fees sufficient to implement and enforce the provisions relating to the ‘do-not-call' registry of the [TSR] * * * No amounts shall be collected as fees pursuant to this section for such fiscal years except to the extent provided in advance in appropriations Acts. Such amounts shall be available * * * to offset the costs of activities and services related to the implementation and enforcement of the [TSR], and other activities resulting from such implementation and enforcement.” 6 5 Pub. L. 108-10, 117 Stat. 557 (2003). 6 Id. On July 29, 2003, pursuant to the Implementation Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, 7 the Commission issued a Final Rule further amending the TSR to impose fees on entities accessing the National Do Not Call Registry (“the Original Fee Rule”). 8 Those fees were based on the FTC's best estimate of the number of entities that would be required to pay for access to the National Registry, and the need to raise $18.1 million in Fiscal Year 2003 to cover the costs associated with the implementation and enforcement of the “do-not-call” provisions of the Amended TSR. The Commission determined that the fee structure would be based on the number of different area codes of data that an entity wished to access annually. The Original Fee Rule established an annual fee of $25 for each area code of data requested from the National Registry, with the first five area codes of data provided at no cost. 9 The maximum annual fee was capped at $7,375 for entities accessing 300 area codes of data or more. 10 On July 30, 2004, pursuant to the Implementation Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, 11 the Commission issued a revised Final Rule further amending the TSR and increasing fees on entities accessing the National Do Not Call Registry (“the 2004 Fee Rule”). 12 Those fees were based on the FTC's experience through June 1, 2004, its best estimate of the number of entities that would be required to pay for access to the National Registry, and the need to raise $18 million in Fiscal Year 2004 to cover the costs associated with the implementation and enforcement of the “do-not-call” provisions of the Amended TSR. The Commission determined that the fee structure would continue to be based on the number of different area codes of data that an entity wished to access annually. The 2004 Fee Rule established an annual fee of $40 for each area code of data requested from the National Registry, with the first five area codes of data provided at no cost. 13 The maximum annual fee was capped at $11,000 for entities accessing 280 area codes of data or more. 14 7 Pub. L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 11 (2003). 8 68 FR 45134 (July 31, 2003). 9 Once an entity requested access to area codes of data in the National Registry, it could access those area codes as often as it deemed appropriate for one year (defined as its “annual period”). If, during the course of its annual period, an entity needed to access data from more area codes than those initially selected, it would be required to pay for access to those additional area codes. For purposes of these additional payments, the annual period was divided into two semi-annual periods of six-months each. Obtaining additional data from the registry during the first semi-annual, six month period required a payment of $25 for each new area code. During the second semi-annual, six-month period, the charge for obtaining data from each new area code requested during that six-month period was $15. These payments would provide the entity access to those additional area codes of data for the remainder of its annual period. 10 68 FR at 45141. 11 Pub. L. 108-199, 118 Stat. 3 (2004). 12 69 FR 45580 (July 30, 2004). 13 Id. at 45584. The 2004 Fee Rule had the same fee structure as the Original Fee Rule. However, fees were increased from $25 to $40 per area code for the annual period and from $15 to $20 per area code for the second six-month period. 14 Id. On July 27, 2005, pursuant to the Implementation Act and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, 15 the Commission issued a revised Final Rule further amending the TSR and increasing fees on entities accessing the National Do Not Call Registry (“the 2005 Fee Rule”). 16 These fees were based on the FTC's experience through June 1, 2005, its best estimate of the number of entities that would be required to pay for access to the National Registry, and the need to raise $21.9 million in Fiscal Year 2005 to cover the costs associated with the implementation and enforcement of the “do-not-call” provisions of the Amended TSR. The Commission again determined that the fee structure would be based on the number of different area codes of data that an entity wished to access annually. The 2005 Fee Rule established an annual fee of $56 for each area code of data requested from the National Registry, with the first five area codes of data provided at no cost. 17 The maximum annual fee was capped at $15,400 for entities accessing 280 area codes of data or more. 18 15 Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809 (2004). 16 70 FR 43273 (July 27, 2005). 17 Id. at 43275. The 2005 Fee Rule had the same fee structure as the 2004 Fee Rule, except that the fees were increased from $40 to $56 per area code for the annual period and from $20 to $28 per area code for the second six-month period. 18 Id. In the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (“the 2006 Appropriations Act”), 19 Congress directed the FTC to collect offsetting fees in the amount of $23 million in Fiscal Year 2006 to implement and enforce the TSR. 20 Pursuant to the 2006 Appropriations Act and the Implementation Act, as well as the Telemarketing Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (“the Telemarketing Act”), 21 the FTC is issuing this NPRM to amend the fees charged to entities accessing the National Do Not Call Registry. 19 Pub. L. 109-108, 119 Stat. 2290 (2005). 20 *Id.* at 2330. 21 15 U.S.C. 6101-08. II. Calculation of Proposed Revised Fees In the Original Fee Rule, the Commission estimated that 10,000 entities would be required to pay for access to the National Do Not Call Registry. The Commission based its estimate on the “best information available to the agency” at that time. 22 It noted that this estimate was based on “a number of significant assumptions,” about which the Commission had sought additional information during the comment period. The Commission noted, however, that it received virtually no comments providing information supporting or challenging these assumptions. 23 As a result, the Commission anticipated “that these fees may need to be reexamined periodically and adjusted, in future rulemaking proceedings, to reflect actual experience with operating the registry.” 24 22 68 FR at 45140. 23 *Id.* 24 *Id.* at 45142. In the 2004 Fee Rule, the Commission reported that “[a]s of June 1, 2004, more than 65,000 entities had accessed the national registry. More than 57,000 of those entities had accessed five or fewer area codes of data at no charge, and 1,100 ‘exempt' entities also accessed the registry at no charge. Thus, more than 7,100 entities have paid for access to the registry, with over 1,200 entities paying for access to the entire registry.” 25 The Commission based its calculation of revised fees on this experience, with the expectation that the number of entities accessing the registry in Fiscal Year 2004 would be substantially the same as in Fiscal Year 2003. As in the Original Fee Rule, the Commission based its estimate on the best information available at the time, with the continuing intent to periodically reexamine and adjust the fees to reflect actual experience with operating the registry. 25 69 FR at 45584. In the 2005 Fee Rule, the Commission reported that from March 1, 2004 through February 28, 2005, 26 “more than 60,800 entities have accessed all or part of the information in the registry. Approximately 1,300 of these entities are ‘exempt' and therefore have accessed the registry at no charge. An additional 52,700 entities have accessed five or fewer area codes of data, also at no charge. As a result, approximately 6,700 entities have paid for access to the registry, with slightly less than 1,100 entities paying for access to the entire registry.” 27 26 The Commission noted that “[a]s of June 1, 2005, there [had] been no significant or material changes in the number of entities that have accessed the registry since the Commission issued 2005 Fee Rule NPR.” 70 FR at 43279. 27 79 FR at 43279 n. 81. From March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2006, slightly less than 66,200 entities have accessed all or part of the information in the registry. Approximately 1,300 of these entities are “exempt” and therefore have accessed the registry at no charge. 28 An additional 58,300 entities have accessed five or fewer area codes of data, also at no charge. As a result, approximately 6,500 entities have paid for access to the registry, with slightly less than 1,000 entities paying for access to the entire registry. 28 The 2005 Fee Rule, the 2004 Fee Rule, and the Original Fee Rule stated that “there shall be no charge to any person engaging in or causing others to engage in outbound telephone calls to consumers and who is accessing the National Do Not Call Registry without being required to under this Rule, 47 CFR 64.1200, or any other federal law.” 16 CFR 310.8(c). Such “exempt” organizations include entities that engage in outbound telephone calls to consumers to induce charitable contributions, for political fund raising, or to conduct surveys. They also include entities engaged solely in calls to persons with whom they have an established business relationship or from whom they have obtained express written agreement to call, pursuant to 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B) *(i)* or *(ii)* , and who do not access the National Registry for any other purpose. *See* 70 FR at 43275; 69 FR at 45585-6; and 68 FR at 45144. As previously stated, the 2006 Appropriations Act directs the Commission to collect offsetting fees in Fiscal Year 2006 to implement and enforce the Amended TSR. 29 The Commission is proposing a revised Fee Rule to raise $23 million of fees to offset costs it expects to incur in this Fiscal Year for the following purposes related to implementing and enforcing the Amended TSR. First, funds are required to operate the National Registry. This includes items such as handling consumer registration and complaints, telemarketer access to the registry, state access to the registry, and the management and operation of law enforcement access to appropriate information. 30 Second, funds are required for law enforcement efforts, including identifying targets, coordinating domestic and international initiatives, challenging alleged violators, and consumer and business education efforts, which are critical to securing compliance with the Amended TSR. These law enforcement efforts are a significant component of the total costs, given the large number of ongoing investigations currently being conducted by the agency, and the substantial effort necessary to complete such investigations. Third, funds are required to cover ongoing agency infrastructure and administration costs associated with the operation and enforcement of the registry, including information technology structural supports and distributed mission overhead support costs for staff and non-personnel expenses such as office space, utilities, and supplies. 29 2004 $23.1 *See* 119 Stat. at 2330. This $23.1 million includes collections of $5.1 million from the Fiscal Year 2003 Original Fee Rule that were actually collected in Fiscal Year 2004 and $18 million to be raised from this year's Amended Fee Rule. 30 From March 2005 to February 2006, approximately 51 million phone numbers were added to the National Registry, with a total since inception of approximately 121 million registrations. Since inception, the registry has also handled many requests from organizations wishing to access the registry (e.g. telemarketers, states, and law enforcers), including hundreds of thousands of subscription requests, and millions of area code access requests (including downloads and interactive search requests). The Commission proposes to revise the fees charged for access to the National Registry based on the assumption that approximately the same number of entities will access similar amounts of data from the National Registry during their next annual period. 31 Based on that assumption, and the continued allowance for free access to “exempt” organizations and for the first five area codes of data, the proposed revised fee would be $62 per area code. The maximum amount that would be charged to any single entity would be $17,050, which would be charged to any entity accessing 280 area codes of data or more. The fee charged to entities requesting access to additional area codes of data during the second six months of their annual period would be $31. 31 Telemarketers were first able to access the National Registry on September 2, 2003. As a result, the first year of operation did will not conclude until August 31, 2004 and the second year of operation did not end until August 31, 2005. Similarly, the third year of operation will not end until August 31, 2006. The Commission realizes that a small number of additional entities may access the National Registry for the first time prior to September 1, 20062004, and should be considered in calculating the revised fees. In this regard, the Commission will adjust the assumptions to reflect the actual number of entities that have accessed the registry, and make the appropriate changes to the fees, at the time of issuance of the Final Rule. The Commission proposes to continue allowing all entities accessing the National Registry to obtain the first five area codes of data for free. 32 The Commission allowed such free access in the Original Fee Rule, the 2004 Fee Rule, and the 2005 Fee Rule, “to limit the burden placed on small businesses that only require access to a small portion of the national registry.” 33 The Commission noted that such a fee structure was consistent with the mandate of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 34 which requires that to the extent, if any, a rule is expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, agencies should consider regulatory alternatives to minimize such impact. As stated in the prior fee rules, “the Commission continues to believe that providing access to five area codes of data for free is an appropriate compromise between the goals of equitably and adequately funding the national registry, on one hand, and providing appropriate relief for small businesses, on the other.” 35 In addition, requiring over 58,000 entities to pay a small fee for access to five or fewer area codes from the National Registry would place a significant burden on the registry, requiring the expenditure of even more resources to handle properly that additional traffic. Nonetheless, the Commission continues to seek comment on this issue. 32 If all entities accessing the National Registry were charged for the first five area codes of data, the cost per area code would be reduced to $38$32, while the maximum amount charged to access the entire National Registry would be $10,640$8960. These hypothetical fee rates are based on the assumption that the same number of entities would pay to access the same number of area codes they currently access for free. 33 *See* 68 FR at 45140; 69 FR at 45582; and 70 FR at 43275. 34 5 U.S.C. 601. 35 *See* 68 FR at 45141; 69 FR at 45584; and 70 FR at 43275-6. The Commission also proposes to continue allowing “exempt” organizations, as discussed in footnote 28, above, to obtain free access to the National Registry. The Commission believes that any exempt entity, voluntarily accessing the National Registry to avoid calling consumers who do not wish to receive telemarketing calls, should not be charged for such access. Charging such entities access fees, when they are under no legal obligation to comply with the “do-not-call” requirements of the TSR, may make them less likely to obtain access to the National Registry in the future, resulting in an increase in unwanted calls to consumers. As with free access to five or fewer area codes, the Commission seeks comment on this issue as well. III. Invitation to Comment All persons are hereby given notice of the opportunity to submit written data, views, facts, and arguments addressing the issues raised by this NPRM. Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2006. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above. IV. Communications by Outside Parties to Commissioners or Their Advisors Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications respecting the merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor will be placed on the public record. See 16 CFR 1.26(b)(5). V. Paperwork Reduction Act Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 36 the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) approved the information collection requirements in the TSR and assigned OMB Control Number 3084-0097. 37 The proposed rule amendment, as discussed above, provides for an increase in the fees that are charged for accessing the National Do Not Call Registry. Therefore, the proposed rule amendment does not create any new recordkeeping, reporting, or third-party disclosure requirements that would be subject to review and approval by OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 36 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. 37 Commission staff is currently seeking an extension of the clearance for the information collection requirements associated with the TSR. See 71 FR 3302 (January 20, 2006). VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act 38 requires an agency either to provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) with a proposed rule, or certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FTC does not expect that the rule concerning revised fees will have the threshold impact on small entities. As discussed in Section II, above, this NPRM specifically proposes charging no fee for access to one to five area codes of data included in the registry. As a result, the Commission anticipates that many small businesses will be able to access the National Registry without having to pay any annual fee. Thus, it is unlikely that there will be a significant burden on small businesses resulting from the adoption of the proposed revised fees. Nonetheless, the Commission has determined that it is appropriate to publish an IRFA in order to inquire into the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, the Commission has prepared the following analysis. 38 5 U.S.C. 604(a). A. Reasons for the Proposed Rule As outlined in Section II, above, the Commission is proposing to amend the fees charged to entities accessing the National Registry in order to raise sufficient amounts to offset the current year costs to implement and enforce the Amended TSR. B. Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis The objective of the current proposed rule is to collect sufficient fees from entities that must access the National Do Not Call Registry. The legal authority for this NPRM is the 2006 Appropriations Act, the Implementation Act, and the Telemarketing Act. C. Description of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply The Small Business Administration has determined that “telemarketing bureaus” with $6.5 million or less in annual receipts qualify as small businesses. 39 Similar standards, i.e., $6.5 million or less in annual receipts, apply for many retail businesses which may be “sellers” and subject to the proposed revised fee provisions outlined in this NPRM. In addition, there may be other types of businesses, other than retail establishments, that would be “sellers” subject to the proposed rule. 39 See 13 CFR 121.201. As described in Section II, above, over 58,000 entities have accessed five or fewer area codes of data from the National Registry at no charge. While not all of these entities may qualify as small businesses, and some small businesses may be required to purchase access to more than five area codes of data, the Commission believes that this is the best estimate of the number of small entities that would be subject to the proposed revised fee rule. The Commission invites comment on this issue, including information about the number and type of small business entities that may be subject to the revised fees. D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements The information collection activities at issue in this NPRM consist principally of the requirement that firms, regardless of size, that access the National Registry submit minimal identifying and payment information, which is necessary for the agency to collect the required fees. The cost impact of that requirement and the labor or professional expertise required for compliance with that requirement were discussed in section V of the 2004 Fee Rule Notice of Proposed Rule Making. 69 FR 23701, 23704 (April 30, 2004). As for compliance requirements, small and large entities subject to the revised fee rule will pay the same rates to obtain access to the National Do Not Call Registry in order to reconcile their calling lists with the phone numbers maintained in the National Registry. As noted earlier, however, compliance costs for small entities are not anticipated to have a significant impact on small entities, to the extent the Commission believes that compliance costs for those entities will be largely minimized by their ability to obtain data for up to five area codes at no charge. E. Duplication With Other Federal Rules None. F. Discussion of Significant Alternatives The Commission recognizes that alternatives to the proposed revised fee are possible. For example, instead of a fee based on the number of area codes that a telemarketer accesses from the National Registry, access could be provided on the basis of a flat fee regardless of the number of area codes accessed. The Commission believes, however, that these alternatives would likely impose greater costs on small businesses, to the extent they are more likely to access fewer area codes than larger entities. Another alternative the Commission has considered entails providing small businesses with free access to the National Registry. 40 This alternative would require entities seeking an exemption from the fees to submit information regarding their annual revenues, to determine whether they meet the statutory threshold to be classified a small business and exempt from the fees. The Commission continues to believe, however, “an alternative approach that would provide small business with exemptive relief more directly tied to size status would not balance the private and public interests at stake any more equitably or reasonably than the approach currently proposed by the Commission.” 41 The Commission also continues to believe that “such a system would present greater administrative, technical, and legal costs and complexities than the Commission's current proposal which does not require any proof or verification of that status.” 42 40 See 69 FR at 45583; see also 68 FR 16238, 16243 n.53 (April 3, 2003). 41 See 68 FR at 16243 n.53. 42 Id. Accordingly, the Commission believes its current proposal is likely to be the least burdensome for small businesses, while achieving the goal of covering the necessary costs to implement and enforce the Amended TSR. Despite these conclusions, the Commission welcomes comment on any significant alternatives that would further minimize the impact on small entities, consistent with the objectives of the Telemarketing Act, the 2006 Appropriations Act, and the Implementation Act. List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 310 Telemarketing, Trade practices. VII. Proposed Rule Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Trade Commission proposes to amend part 310 of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 310—TELEMARKETING SALES RULE 1. The authority citation for part 310 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 6101-6108. 2. Revise § 310.8(c) and
(d)to read as follows: § 310.8 Fee for access to the National Do Not Call Registry.
(c)The annual fee, which must be paid by any person prior to obtaining access to the National Do Not Call Registry, is $62 per area code of data accessed, up to a maximum of $17,050; *provided,* however, that there shall be no charge for the first five area codes of data accessed by any person, and *provided further,* that there shall be no charge to any person engaging in or causing others to engage in outbound telephone calls to consumers and who is accessing the National Do Not Call Registry without being required under this Rule, 47 CFR 64.1200, or any other federal law. Any person accessing the National Do Not Call Registry may not participate in any arrangement to share the cost of accessing the registry, including any arrangement with any telemarketer or service provider to divide the costs to access the registry among various clients of that telemarketer or service provider.
(d)After a person, either directly or through another person, pays the fees set forth in § 310.8(c), the person will be provided a unique account number which will allow that person to access the registry data for the selected area codes at any time for twelve months following the first day of the month in which the person paid the fee (“the annual period”). To obtain access to additional area codes of data during the first six months of the annual period, the person must first pay $62 for each additional area code of data not initially selected. To obtain access to additional area codes of data during the second six months of the annual period, the person must first pay $31 for each additional area code of data not initially selected. The payment of the additional fee will permit the person to access the additional area codes of data for the remainder of the annual period. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-6507 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Parts 657 and 658 [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2006-24134] RIN 2125-AF17 Size and Weight Enforcement and Regulations AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments. SUMMARY: This action updates the regulations governing the enforcement of commercial vehicle size and weight to incorporate provisions enacted in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006. This action would further add various definitions; correct obsolete references, definitions, and footnotes; eliminate redundant provisions; amend numerical route changes to the National Highway designations; and incorporate statutorily mandated weight and length limit provisions. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 30, 2006. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable. 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, or submit electronically at * http:// dmses.dot.gov/submit, * or fax comments to
(202)493-2251. Alternatively, comments may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* 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 comment must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard or you may print the acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments electronically. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments in any one of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, or labor union). 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. William Mahorney, Office of Freight Management and Operations,
(202)366-6817, or Mr. Raymond Cuprill, Office of the Chief Counsel
(202)366-0791, Federal Highway Administration, 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 and Filing You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System
(DMS)at: *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit.* Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. Alternatively, internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT Docket Facility by using the universal resource locator
(URL)*http://dms.dot.gov.* It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Please follow the instructions. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: *http://www.archives.gov* or the Government Printing Office's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara.* Background The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144), the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 544), and the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2396) amended several areas of the size and weight regulations in the areas of auxiliary power units, custom harvesters, over-the-road buses, and drive-away saddlemount vehicle combinations. Additionally, the transfer of motor carrier safety functions to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) established by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748) affected the internal organizational structure of the FHWA. Although the responsibility for commercial motor vehicle size and weight limitation remained in the FHWA, the references in the regulations to the old FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers
(OMC)and its officials are obsolete. This action will update these references to reflect the changes in the agency's organizational structure. Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposals Section 657.1 Purpose Section 657.1 indicates that the purpose of the regulations is to prescribe requirements for administering a program of vehicle size and weight enforcement on “Federal-aid
(FA)highways.” This term refers to the Federal-aid primary (FAP), Federal-aid secondary (FAS), and Federal-aid urban
(FAU)systems, as indicated in the current definition of “Enforcing or Enforcement” in 23 CFR 657.3 and as provided in 23 U.S.C. 141. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914) eliminated these old highway system categories and replaced them with the National Highway System
(NHS)as the Federal-aid highway system for the purpose of apportioning Federal highway funds. It left unchanged the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 141 that States enforce their size and weight laws on the FAP, FAS, and FAU. Section 4006(c) of the ISTEA did preserve the Secretary's authority to designate FAP routes as part of the National Network but limited it to FAP routes in existence as of June 1, 1991. The requirements of 23 U.S.C. 141 were reflected in 23 CFR 657.15(c)(1) by requiring States to certify that their size and weight laws are being enforced on those highways which, prior to October 1, 1991, were designated as part of the FAP, FAS, and FAU. This date was selected because it is the start of the States' yearly enforcement period. Therefore, the FHWA proposes to amend 23 CFR 657.1 to replace the reference to “Federal-aid
(FA)highways” with “highways which, prior to October 1, 1991, were designated as part of the Federal-aid Interstate, Federal-aid primary, Federal-aid secondary, or Federal-aid urban systems.” The October 1, 1991, date is the same as that adopted in connection with the certification in 23 CFR 657.15(c)(1). Section 657.3 Definitions The FHWA proposes to amend the definition of “Enforcing or Enforcement” to delete the old references to “Federal-aid
(FA)highways” and to replace this reference with “highways which, prior to October 1, 1991, were designated as part of the Federal-aid Interstate, Federal-aid primary, Federal-aid secondary, or Federal-aid urban systems” for the reasons noted above. Prior to a final rule published June 13, 1994 (59 FR 30392, 30416), section 657.15(b) required States to identify and analyze enforcement efforts in “urban areas” not subject to State size and weight enforcement. The FHWA recognized such areas as those with a population of 5,000 or more. Since the intent of section 658.15(b) was to ensure adequate enforcement in larger cities, the 1994 final rule changed the requirement to “urbanized areas,” meaning those with a population of 50,000 or more. However, the 1994 rule failed to define “urbanized areas.” In order to clarify the intent of the change, this notice proposes to adopt a definition of “urbanized areas” in 23 CFR 657.3 as areas with a population of 50,000 or more, as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101. Section 657.11 Evaluation of Operations Prior to creation of the FMCSA, the responsibility for the enforcement of vehicle size and weight laws and regulations was a function of the Office of Motor Carriers within the FHWA. Evaluation or operations reports were forwarded through the Regional Director of Motor Carriers. After the creation of the FMCSA, various driver and vehicle safety inspection functions were transferred from the FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers to the FMCSA in a final rule published on October 19, 1999 (64 FR 56270). Not transferred, but remaining within FHWA, was enforcement of commercial motor vehicle size and weight laws and regulations. The FHWA proposes to remove outdated references to the Office of Motor Carriers and the Regional Director of Motor Carriers in paragraphs
(a)and (b). The proposed changes reflect changes to the agency's organizational structure, but do not change the intent or requirements of the section. Section 657.15 Certification Content The FHWA proposes to add a period after the citation, “* * * 49 U.S.C. 31112” in 23 CFR 657.15(b) so that the word “Urbanized” is the start of a new sentence. It also proposes to delete the last sentence in 23 CFR 657.15(e) because it is out of date. The requirement that laws and regulations pertaining to special permits and penalties be specifically identified and analyzed in accordance with section 123 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-599, 92 Stat. 2689) has been eliminated by section 3003 of the Federal Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-66, 109 Stat. 1914). Therefore, the FHWA proposes to eliminate the requirement to collect this data, since it not only serves no purpose, but also is duplicative of other requirements for this information. The States would still be required to report on penalties and permits because policies and practices in regard to each would still be included as part of the State enforcement plans required pursuant to 23 CFR 657.9(b)(1)(ii) and (iii). The FHWA is further proposing to eliminate a burdensome regulatory requirement found in section 657.15(f)(3)(iii) related to the reporting of overwidth movements for divisible loads. The requirement for States to report the number of permits issued for overwidth movement of a divisible load is no longer necessary and therefore the FHWA proposes that it be eliminated. Section 3003 of the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-66, 109 Stat. 707) eliminated this reporting requirement. In addition, the number of divisible overwidth permits issued by States has never been considered in determining whether a State is adequately enforcing its size and weight laws. The States have retained the authority to allow overwidth vehicles on the National Network by requiring a permit, and may issue any number of such permits on any basis that is deemed appropriate. Consequently, eliminating the need to report on the number of divisible overwidth permits issued would relieve States of an unnecessary and burdensome reporting requirement. This requirement would be deleted from section 657.15(f)(3)(iii). Section 657.17 Certification Submittal References to the Office of Motor Carriers in 657.17(a) and
(b)would be replaced in this proposed rule by references to the FHWA. In addition, the references in 657.17(b) to the “Office of Motor Carriers” and “Associate Administrator for Motor Carriers” would be eliminated, because those positions no longer exist. Section 657.19 Effect of Failure To Certify or To Enforce State Laws Adequately The FHWA proposes to amend this section to replace the outdated reference to “Federal-aid highways.” The requirements in this section apply not to current Federal-aid highways (which comprise the National Highway System (NHS)), but to highways which, prior to October 1, 1991, were designated as part of the Federal-aid primary (FAP), Federal-aid secondary,
(FAS)and Federal-aid urban
(FAU)systems. The second Federal-aid reference is correct because it refers to Federal-aid funds for the NHS that would be withheld if a State failed to adequately enforce its size and weight limits on highways that, prior to October 1, 1991, were designated as the FAP, FAS, and FAU systems. Part 658 Section 658.5 Definitions The current definition for “Commercial motor vehicle” was issued in a final rule published March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11994) and excluded RVs during the relatively small amounts of time when they are operated for a commercial purpose, such as being driven from a manufacturer to a dealer. However, the definition as currently written is flawed because it would exclude them only when “operated” as RVs, i.e., when used for a private recreational purpose. As a result, RVs operated for a commercial purpose remained CMVs subject to Federal width limits. The FHWA is proposing to amend the definition to clarify those movements that include transportation to/from the manufacturer for customer delivery, sale, or display purposes are not subject to the provisions of this part. The FHWA believes that the rare occasions and limited periods of time in which a recreational vehicle is operated to/from the manufacturer does not change the characteristic of a vehicle enough to merit inclusion in the regulation. The FHWA invites comments on the possible safety effects of this proposed change. The definition of “nondivisible” load or vehicle” provides criteria to determine whether or not a load is nondivisible. This definition is important, because with few exceptions, a State may not issue an overweight permit for a divisible load. This notice proposes to expand these criteria to include vehicles loaded with salt, sand, chemicals or a combination of these materials, to be used in spreading the materials on any winter roads, and when operating as emergency response vehicles. These vehicles may be equipped with, or without, a plow or blade in front. These vehicles would necessarily use the Interstate System while performing its duties in order to access other roads. Although these vehicles transport divisible loads and could be loaded to less than capacity in order to comply with Federal Interstate weight limits, it would be counterproductive to their mission to require them to return to their depots for reloading more often. This would render them less effective in responding to emergency road conditions. In addition, the vehicles would be overweight for only a portion of their movement, since the load would be reduced as the material was deployed. The FHWA has recognized the importance of treating snow or ice-covered highways quickly and efficiently. The proposed revision to the definition of “non-divisible load or vehicle” will facilitate the ability of States to meet emergency snow and ice conditions through the issuance of special overweight permits for emergency response vehicles. This proposed change would not extend to vehicles transporting sand, salt, and/or chemicals for other purposes than those specified above. The FHWA believes that this proposed change would be a reasonable action, balancing the safety of the motoring public during harsh winter weather against the effects of a temporarily overweight snow and ice removal vehicle. FHWA invites public comment on this proposed change to the regulations. Section 4141 of SAFETEA-LU amended section 31111(a) of title 49, United States Code, to include a definition of “Drive-away Saddlemount with Fullmount Vehicle Transporter Combination” and to impose a vehicle length limitation of not less than or more than 97 feet on a drive-away saddlemount with fullmount vehicle transporter combinations. The SAFETEA-LU section 4141 defines the term “Drive-away Saddlemount with Fullmount Vehicle Transporter Combination” to mean “a vehicle combination designed and specifically used to tow up to 3 trucks or truck tractors, each connected by a saddle to the frame or fifth-wheel of the forward vehicle of the truck or truck tractor in front of it.” House committee staff that drafted the amendment alerted the FHWA that the lack of reference in the definition to the fullmount vehicle was intended to expand the term to include saddlemount combinations with or without fullmount. The FHWA believes that this is a reasonable interpretation of the SAFETEA-LU provision. As a result, the FHWA proposes to add the definition of “Drive-away Saddlemount Vehicle Transporter Combination” to its regulations, omitting the term fullmount, and amend its regulations at 23 CFR part 658 to extend the 97 foot length limitation to all drive-away saddlemount vehicle combinations that are specifically designed to tow up to 3 trucks or truck tractors, each connected by a saddle to the frame or fifth wheel of the forward vehicle of the truck or truck tractor in front of it. Section 347 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 419) included “over-the-road bus(es)” in the temporary exemption already provided for transit vehicles that allows them to exceed established Federal Interstate axle weights during Interstate operations. Section 658.5, however, does not contain a definition of “over-the-road bus.” The FHWA therefore proposes incorporating the previously established definition of “over-the-road bus” found in section 12181(5) of title 42, United States Code into § 658.5. Section 658.13 Length Section 4112 of SAFETEA-LU explicitly adds special rules for certain property-carrying units operating in Nebraska. Specifically, truck-tractors pulling trailers or semitrailers, used to transport custom harvester equipment during harvest months, may be allowed to operate on Nebraska highways at a length of up to 81 feet, 6 inches. The FHWA therefore proposes to amend § 658.13 to reflect this statutory change. Section 4141 of SAFETEA-LU amended 49 U.S.C. 31111(a) and
(b)by inserting a definition of “Drive-away Saddlemount with Fullmount Vehicle Transporter Combination” and preempted the States from prescribing or enforcing a regulation that “imposes a vehicle length limitation of not less than or more than 97 feet” on these vehicle combinations. As discussed above, the FHWA is proposing to amend the specialized equipment provision § 658.13(e)(1)(iii) to incorporate this statutory length limit that is now applicable to drive-away saddlemount vehicle transporter combinations. Section 658.15 Width Section 658.15(c)(2) currently exempts recreational vehicles from width limitations. Because, as discussed above, the FHWA is proposing to amend 23 CFR 658.5 to eliminate any Federal role in regulating the width of RVs as commercial motor vehicles, the agency is also proposing to eliminate this paragraph. Section 658.17 Weight Section 347 of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 419) included over-the-road buses in the temporary exemption for transit vehicles. The definition of over-the-road bus used is that found in section 12181(5) of title 42, United States Code. Section 1309 of SAFETEA-LU extended the temporary exemption until October 1, 2009. Subsequently, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-115, 199 Stat. 2396) provided that a covered State, or any political subdivision in such State, may not enforce a single axle weight limitation of less than 24,000 pounds, including enforcement tolerances, on any transit or over-the-road bus. A “covered state” means a State that has enforced, in the period beginning October 6, 1992, and ending on November 30, 2005, a single axle weight limitation of 20,000 pounds or greater but less than 24,000 pounds. As a result, the FHWA proposes to amend the regulations in order to reflect the new, 24,000-pound axle weight provision mandated by Congress. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594) amended 23 U.S.C. 127(a) to allow an increase in the Federal weight limits by up to 400 pounds to account for idle reduction systems or auxiliary power units installed in any heavy-duty vehicle. The intent of this provision is to promote the use of technologies that reduce fuel consumption and emissions that result from engine idling. To qualify for this exception, drivers must present proof by demonstration and/or certification from the manufacturer, that the idle reduction technology is functional at all times, does not exceed 400 pounds gross weight (including fuel), and that the unit cannot be used for any other purpose. The FHWA is therefore proposing regulations to implement the standards for certification and weight tolerances of this new statutory provision. The FHWA encourages public comment on how the certification and demonstration required by this provision might best be carried out by State enforcement authorities or other sources. Section 658.23 LCV Freeze; Cargo-Carrying Unit Freeze As previously noted, prior to creation of the FMCSA, the responsibility for the enforcement of vehicle size and weight laws and regulations was a function delegated to the Office of Motor Carriers within the FHWA. After the creation of the FMCSA, various driver and vehicle safety inspection functions were transferred from the FHWA and the Office of Motor Carriers was eliminated. Consequently, the FHWA proposes to replace obsolete references to the Office of Motor Carriers with references to the FHWA. Appendix A to 23 CFR 658—National Network—Federally-Designated Routes Section 411(e)(1) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-424, 96 Stat. 2100) authorized the Secretary to designate Federal-Aid Primary
(FAP)routes (including the Interstate System) where States must allow vehicles subject to Federal length and width requirements to operate. The resulting “National Network” is shown in appendix A to 23 CFR part 658. However, the explanatory column headings in appendix A currently contain an improper reference to the Federal-aid Primary highways. This heading is not only incorrect but also unnecessary. It is incorrect because the final rule implementing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914) published June 13, 1991 (59 FR 30392) noted that, “The ISTEA [in section 4006(c)] effectively replaced what had been known as the FAP system with the NHS (National Highway System).” Thus, it is inappropriate to refer to the Federal-aid Primary Highway as it no longer exists. Further, the explanation is unnecessary because there is no need to indicate how the routes were derived since they are specifically listed. Therefore, the FHWA proposes to revise the explanatory heading of the columns in appendix A to read as follows: [The federally-designated routes on the National Network consist of the Interstate System, except as noted, and the following additional highways.] Similarly, the listing for 16 States (AR, CO, IN, KS, LA, MS, MT, NE, NV, OH, OK, SD, TX, UT, WA, and WY) in appendix A are followed by an explanatory statement that reads as follows: No additional routes have been federally designated; STAA dimensioned commercial vehicles may legally operate on all Federal-aid Primary highways under State law. This statement is incorrect because there are no longer any highways designated as FAP, however highways on the National Network have not been specifically listed for these States so a general description is necessary. As noted earlier, the ISTEA preserved the Secretary's authority to designate National Network routes from FAP routes in existence as of June 1, 1991. Therefore, the FHWA proposes to revise the explanatory statement to read as follows: No additional routes have been federally designated; STAA dimensioned commercial vehicles may legally operate on all highways which, prior to June 1, 1991, were designated as Federal-aid Primary highways. The State of New Mexico has notified the FHWA of route number changes for routes on its portion of the National Network. These changes are numerical only and will not change the original network. The FHWA is therefore proposing to amend appendix A to reflect these route number changes. A portion of NM 550 has been re-designated NM 516, U.S. 80 has been re-designated NM 80, U.S. 64 now terminates at NM 516 Farmington, and U.S. 666 has been re-designated as NM 491. Appendix B to Part 658—Grandfathered Semitrailer Lengths Footnotes 1, 2, and 3 in appendix B to 23 CFR 658 refer to 23 CFR 658.13(h). However, section 658.13 was reorganized in a previous rulemaking action, at 67 FR 15110, March 29, 2002, and the provisions that formerly appeared in paragraph
(h)are now found in paragraph (g). The footnotes will be corrected accordingly. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, the FHWA will also continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available after the comment period closing date, and interested persons should continue to examine the docket for new material. A final rule may be published at any time after close of the comment period. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures The FHWA has determined preliminarily that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and would not be significant within the meaning of the U.S. Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This proposed rule will not adversely affect, in a material way, any sector of the economy. This proposed action changes out-dated references to offices within the FHWA and updates the current regulations to reflect changes made by the Congress in SAFETEA-LU and other recent legislation. Additionally, this proposed action would add various definitions; correct obsolete references, definitions, and footnotes; eliminate redundant provisions; amend numerical route changes to the National Highway designations; and incorporate a statutorily mandated weight limit provision. There will not be any additional costs incurred by any affected group as a result of this rule. In addition, these proposed changes will not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and will not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs. Consequently, a regulatory evaluation is not required. Regulatory Flexibility Act In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have evaluated the effects of this proposed action on small entities and have determined that the proposed action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FHWA certifies that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and the FHWA has preliminarily determined that this proposed action would not warrant the preparation of a Federalism assessment. Any federalism implications arising from this proposed rule are attributable to SAFETEA-LU sections 4112 and 4141. The FHWA has determined that this proposed action would not affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State government functions. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program. Accordingly, the FHWA solicits comments on this issue. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this proposal does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This proposed rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48). This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120.7 million or more in any one year. (2 U.S.C. 1532) Further, in compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the FHWA will evaluate any regulatory action that might be proposed in subsequent stages of the proceeding to assess the effects on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) This proposed action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children) The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The FHWA certifies that this proposed action would not cause any environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property) The FHWA has analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. The FHWA does not anticipate that this proposed action would affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. National Environmental Policy Act The FHWA has analyzed this proposed action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and has determined that this proposed action will not have any effect on the quality of the environment. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation) The FHWA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the proposed action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes; would not impose substantial compliance costs on Indian tribal governments; and will not preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects) We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a significant energy action under that order because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. Regulation Identification Number A regulation identification number
(RIN)is assigned to each regulatory section listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this section with the Unified Agenda. List of Subjects in 23 CFR Parts 657 and 658 Grants Program—transportation, Highways and roads, Motor carriers. Issued on: April 21, 2006. Frederick G. Wright, Federal Highway Administration Executive Director. In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA proposes to amend Chapter I of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, by revising Parts 657 and 658, respectively, as set forth below. PART 657—CERTIFICATION OF SIZE AND WEIGHT ENFORCEMENT 1. Revise the authority citation for part 657 to read as follows: Authority: Sec. 123, Pub. L. 95-599, 92 Stat. 2689, 23 U.S.C. 127, 141 and 315; 49 U.S.C. 31111, 31113 and 31114; sec. 1023, Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914; and 49 CFR 1.48(b)(19), (b)(23), (c)(1) and (c)(19). 2. Revise § 657.1 to read as follows: § 657.1 Purpose. To prescribe requirements for administering a program of vehicle size and weight enforcement on highways which, prior to October 1, 1991, were designated as part of the Federal-aid Interstate, Federal-aid Primary, Federal-aid Secondary, or Federal-aid Urban Systems, including the required annual certification by the State. 3. Revise § 657.3 to read as follows: § 657.3 Definitions. Unless otherwise specified in this part, the definitions in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) are applicable to this part. As used in this part: *Enforcing* or *Enforcement* means all actions by the State to obtain compliance with size and weight requirements by all vehicles operating on highways which, prior to October 1, 1991, were designated as part of the Federal-aid Interstate, Federal-aid Primary, Federal-aid Secondary, or Federal-aid Urban Systems. *Urbanized area* means an area with a population of 50,000 or more. 4. Revise the first sentence of paragraph
(a)and revise paragraph
(b)of § 657.11 to read as follows: § 657.11 Evaluation of operations.
(a)The State shall submit its enforcement plan or annual update to the FHWA Division Office by July 1 of each year. * * *
(b)The FHWA shall review the State's operation under the accepted plan on a continuing basis and shall prepare an evaluation report annually. The State will be advised of the results of the evaluation and of any needed changes in the plan itself or in its implementation. Copies of the evaluation reports and subsequent modifications resulting from the evaluation shall be forwarded to the FHWA's Office of Operations. 5. Revise paragraphs (b), (e), and (f)(3)(iii) of § 657.15 to read as follows: § 657.15 Certification content.
(b)A statement by the Governor of the State, or an official designated by the Governor, that all State size and weight limits are being enforced on the Interstate System and those routes which, prior to October 1, 1991, were designated as part of the Federal-aid Interstate, Federal-aid Primary, Urban, and Secondary Systems, and that the State is enforcing and complying with the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 127(d) and 49 U.S.C. 31112. Urbanized areas not subject to State jurisdiction shall be identified. The statement shall include an analysis of enforcement efforts in such areas.
(e)A copy of any State law or regulation pertaining to vehicle size and weights adopted since the State's last certification and an analysis of the changes made.
(f)* * *
(3)* * *
(iii)*Permits.* The number of permits issued for overweight loads shall be reported. The reported numbers shall specify permits for divisible and nondivisible loads and whether issued on a trip or annual basis. 6. Revise § 657.17 to read as follows: § 657.17 Certification submittal.
(a)The Governor, or an official designated by the Governor, shall submit the certification to the FHWA division office prior to January 1 of each year.
(b)The FHWA division office shall forward the original certification to the FHWA's Office of Operations and one copy to the Office of Chief Counsel. Copies of appropriate evaluations and/or comments shall accompany any transmittal. 7. Revise § 657.19 to read as follows: § 657.19 Effect of failure to certify or to enforce State laws adequately. If a State fails to certify as required by this regulation or if the Secretary determines that a State is not adequately enforcing all State laws respecting maximum vehicle sizes and weights on highways which, prior to October 1, 1991, were designated as part of the Federal-aid Interstate, Federal-aid primary, Federal-aid secondary or Federal-aid urban systems, notwithstanding the State's certification, the Federal-aid funds for the National Highway System apportioned to the State for the next fiscal year shall be reduced by an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount which would otherwise be apportioned to the State under 23 U.S.C. 104, and/or by the amount required pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 127. PART 658—TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT, ROUTE DESIGNATIONS—LENGTH, WIDTH AND WEIGHT LIMITATIONS 8. The authority citation for part 658 continues to read as follows: Authority: 23 U.S.C. 127 and 315; 49 U.S.C. 31111, 31112, and 31114; 49 CFR 1.48(b)(19) and (c)(19). 9. Amend § 658.5 by revising the definition of “commercial motor vehicle” and paragraph
(2)of the definition of “nondivisible load or vehicle”; and adding definitions of “drive-away saddlemount vehicle transporter combinations” and “over-the-road bus” to read as follows: § 658.5 Definitions. *Commercial motor vehicle.* For purposes of this regulation, a motor vehicle designed or regularly used to carry freight, merchandise, or more than ten passengers, whether loaded or empty, including buses, but not including vehicles used for vanpools, or recreational vehicles. *Drive-away saddlemount vehicle transporter combination.* The term drive-away saddlemount vehicle transporter combination means a vehicle combination designed and specifically used to tow up to 3 trucks or truck tractors, each connected by a saddle to the frame or fifth wheel of the forward vehicle of the truck tractor in front of it. Such combinations may include up to one fullmount. *Nondivisible load or vehicle.*
(1)* * *
(2)A State may treat as nondivisible loads or vehicles: Emergency response vehicles, including those loaded with salt, sand, chemicals or a combination thereof, with or without a plow or blade attached in front, and being used for the purpose of spreading the material on highways that are or may become slick or icy; casks designed for the transport of spent nuclear materials; and military vehicles transporting marked military equipment or materiel. *Over-the-road bus.* The term over-the-road bus means a bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment, and typically operating on the Interstate System or roads previously designated as making up the Federal-aid Primary System. 10. Amend § 658.13 by revising paragraph (e)(1)(iii) and by adding paragraph
(h)to read as follows: § 658.13 Length.
(e)* * *
(1)* * *
(iii)Drive-away Saddlemount vehicle transporter combinations are considered to be specialized equipment. No State shall impose an overall length limit of less or more than 97 feet on such combinations. This provision applies to drive-away saddlemount combinations with up to three saddlemounted vehicles. Such combinations may include one fullmount. Saddlemount combinations must also comply with the applicable motor carrier safety regulations at 49 CFR 393.71.
(h)Truck-tractors, pulling 2 trailers or semitrailers, used to transport custom harvester equipment during harvest months within the State of Nebraska may not exceed 81 feet 6 inches. 11. Revise paragraph
(c)of § 658.15 to read as follows: § 658.15 Width.
(c)Notwithstanding the provisions of this section or any other provision of law, a State may grant special use permits to motor vehicles, including manufactured housing, that exceed 102 inches in width. 12. In § 658.17, revise paragraph
(k)and add paragraph
(n)to read as follows: § 658.17 Weight.
(k)Any over-the-road bus, or any vehicle which is regularly and exclusively used as an intrastate public agency transit passenger bus, is excluded from the axle weight limits in paragraphs
(c)through
(e)of this section until October 1, 2009. Any State that has enforced, during the period beginning October 6, 1992 and November 30, 2005, a single axle weight limitation of 20,000 pounds or greater but less than 24,000 pounds may not enforce a single axle weight limit on these vehicles of less than 24,000 pounds.
(n)Any vehicle subject to this subpart that utilizes an auxiliary power or idle reduction technology unit in order to promote reduction of fuel use and emissions because of engine idling, may be allowed up to an additional 400 pounds total in gross, axle, and/or tandem axle weights. To be eligible for this exception, the operator of the vehicle must be able to prove, by demonstration and/or certification from the manufacturer, that the idle reduction technology is functional at all times, does not exceed 400 pounds gross weight (including fuel), and that the 400 pound weight increase is not used for any other purpose. Such certification must be available to law enforcement officers at all times. 13. Revise paragraphs
(c)and
(e)of § 658.23 to read as follows: § 658.23 LCV freeze; cargo-carrying unit freeze.
(c)For specific safety purposes and road construction, a State may make minor adjustments of a temporary and emergency nature to route designation and vehicle operating restrictions applicable to combinations subject to 23 U.S.C. 127(d) and 49 U.S.C. 31112 and in effect on June 1, 1991 (July 6, 1991, for Alaska). Adjustments which last 30 days or less may be made without notifying the FHWA. Minor adjustments which exceed 30 days require approval of the FHWA. When such adjustments are needed, a State must submit to the FHWA, by the end of the 30th day, a written description of the emergency, the date on which it began, and the date on which it is expected to conclude. If the adjustment involves route designations the State shall describe the new route on which vehicles otherwise subject to the freeze imposed by 23 U.S.C. 127(d) and 49 U.S.C. 31112 are allowed to operate. To the extent possible, the geometric and pavement design characteristics of the alternate route should be equivalent to those of the highway section which is temporarily unavailable. If the adjustment involves vehicle operating restrictions, the State shall list the restrictions that have been removed or modified. If the adjustment is approved, the FHWA will publish the notice of adjustment, with an expiration date, in the **Federal Register** . Requests for extension of time beyond the originally established conclusion date shall be subject to the same approval and publications process as the original request. If upon consultation with the FHWA a decision is reached that minor adjustments made by a State are not legitimately attributable to road or bridge construction or safety, the FHWA will inform the State, and the original conditions of the freeze may be reimposed immediately. Failure to do so may subject the State to a penalty pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 141.
(e)States further restricting or prohibiting the operation of vehicles subject to 23 U.S.C. 127(d) and 49 U.S.C. 31112 after June 1, 1991, shall notify the FHWA within 30 days after the restriction is effective. The FHWA will publish the restriction in the **Federal Register** as an amendment to appendix C to this part. Failure to provide such notification may subject the State to a penalty pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 141. Appendix A to Section 658—National Network—Federally Designated Routes 14. Amend appendix A to part 658 as follows: A. By removing the words “[The federally-designated routes on the National Network consist of the Interstate System, except as noted, and the following additional highways.]” and adding, in their place, the words “[The federally-designated routes on the National Network consist of the Interstate System, except as noted, and the following additional highways.]” in each place that they appear; B. By removing the explanatory phrase “No additional routes have been federally designated; STAA-dimensioned commercial vehicles may legally operate on all Federal-aid Primary highways under State law” for the States of Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and add, in its place, the words, “No additional routes have been federally designated; STAA-dimensioned commercial vehicles may legally operate on all highways which, prior to June 1, 1991, were designated as Federal-aid primary highways.”; C. By revising the entries for “New Mexico” to read as follows: New Mexico US 56 I-25 Springer OK State Line. US 60 AZ State Line I-25 Socorro. US 62 U.S. 285 Carlsbad TX State Line. US 64 AZ State Line NM 516 Farmington. US 70 AZ State Line I-10 Lordsburg. US 70 I-10 Las Cruces U.S. 54 Tularosa. US 70 U.S. 285 Roswell U.S. 84 Clovis. NM 80 AZ State Line I-10 Road Forks. US 84 TX State Line Clovis CO State Line. US 87 U.S. 56 Clayton TX State Line. US 160 AZ State Line (Four Corners). CO State Line. US 285 TX State Line s. of Carlsbad. CO State Line. NM 491 1-40 Gallup CO State Line. US 516 U.S. 64 Farmington U.S. 550 Aztec. US 550 NM 516 Aztec CO State Line. US 666 I-40 Gallup CO State Line. Appendix B to Part 658—Grandfathered Semitrailer Lengths 15. Amend appendix B to Part 658 in footnotes 1,2, and 3 by removing the reference “23 CFR 658.13(h)” and by adding in its place “23 CFR 658.13(g)” each place it appears. 29 [FR Doc. E6-6422 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-06-033] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Pamlico River, Washington, NC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations for the “SBIP—Fountain Powerboats Kilo Run and Super Boat Grand Prix”, a marine event to be held August 4 and August 6, 2006, on the waters of the Pamlico River, near Washington, North Carolina. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Pamlico River during the event. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 119 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, fax them to
(757)398-6203, or e-mail them to *Dennis.M.Sens@uscg.mil* . The Inspections and Investigations Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Inspections and Investigations Branch, at
(757)398-6204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-06-033), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Coast Guard at the address listed under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register.** Background and Purpose On August 4 and August 6, 2006, Super Boat International Productions will sponsor the “SBIP—Fountain Powerboats Kilo Run and Super Boat Grand Prix”, on the Pamlico River, near Washington, North Carolina. The event will consist of approximately 40 high-speed powerboats racing in heats along a 5-mile oval course on August 4 and 6, 2006. Preliminary speed trials along a straight one-kilometer course will be conducted on August 4, 2006. Approximately 20 boats will participate in the speed trials. Approximately 100 spectator vessels will gather nearby to view the speed trials and the race. If either the speed trials or races are postponed due to weather, they will be held the next day. During the speed trials and the races, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Pamlico River near Washington, North Carolina. The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 4, 2006, and from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on August 6, 2006. If either the speed trials or races are postponed due to weather, then the temporary special local regulations will be enforced during the same time period the next day. The effect of the temporary special local regulations will be to restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the speed trials and races. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. Non-participating vessels will be allowed to transit the regulated area between races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander determines it is safe to do so. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this proposed regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Pamlico River near Washington, North Carolina during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect. Extensive advance notifications will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, local radio stations and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Vessel traffic may be able to transit the regulated area between races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Pamlico River during the event. This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be enforced for only a short period, from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 4, 2006 and from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on August 6, 2006. The regulated area will apply to a segment of the Pamlico River near the Washington, North Carolina waterfront. Marine traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels will be required to proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we would issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Coast Guard at the address listed under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade permit are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add temporary § 100.35T-05-033 to read as follows: § 100.35T-05-033 Pamlico River, Washington, North Carolina.
(a)*Regulated area.* The regulated area is established for the waters of the Pamlico River including Chocowinity Bay, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the south by a line running northeasterly from Camp Hardee at latitude 35°28′23″ North, longitude 076°59′23″ West, to Broad Creek Point at latitude 35°29′04″ North, longitude 076°58′44″ West, and bounded on the north by the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
(b)*Definitions.*
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(3)*Participant* includes all vessels participating in the “Fountain Super Boat Grand Prix” under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
(c)*Special local regulations.*
(1)Except for event participants and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed.
(ii)All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol.
(iii)When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course.
(d)*Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 4, 2006, and from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on August 6, 2006. If either the speed trials or the races are postponed due to weather, then the temporary special local regulations will be enforced during the same time period the next day. Dated: April 21, 2006. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-6519 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-06-037] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, NJ AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations for “Thunder over the Boardwalk Airshow”, an aerial demonstration to be held over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This proposed action would restrict vessel traffic in portions of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey during the aerial demonstration. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 31, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpi), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 119 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax them to
(757)398-6203. The Coast Guard Inspections and Investigations Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Project Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District, Inspections and Investigations Branch, at
(757)398-6204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-06-037), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose On August 23, 2006, the Atlantic City Chamber of Commerce will sponsor the “Thunder over the Boardwalk Airshow”. The event will consist of high performance jet aircraft performing low altitude aerial maneuvers over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. A fleet of spectator vessels is expected to gather nearby to view the aerial demonstration. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey. The regulated area includes a section of the Atlantic Ocean approximately 2.5 miles long, running from Pennsylvania Avenue to Columbia Avenue, and extending approximately 900 yards out from the shoreline. The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 23, 2006, and will restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the aerial demonstration. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area during the enforcement period. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this proposed regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and area newspapers so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Atlantic Ocean during the event. This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only a short period, from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 23, 2006. Affected waterway users can pass safely around the regulated area. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under ADDRESSES . The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add a temporary section, § 100.35T-05-037 to read as follows: § 100.35T-05-037 Atlantic Ocean, Atlantic City, NJ.
(a)*Regulated area* . The regulated area is established for the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey, bounded by a line drawn between the following points: Southeasterly from a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°21′31″ N, longitude 074°25′04″ W, thence to latitude 39°21′08″ N, longitude 074°24′48″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 39°20′16″ N, longitude 074°27′17″ W, thence northwesterly to a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°20′44″ N, longitude 074°27′31″ W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to latitude 39°21′31″ N, longitude 074°25′04″ W. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
(b)*Definitions:*
(1)*Coast Guard Patrol Commander* means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay.
(2)*Official Patrol* means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
(c)*Special local regulations:*
(1)Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2)The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must:
(i)Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol.
(ii)Proceed as directed by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol.
(d)*Enforcement period* . This section will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 23, 2006. Dated: April 21, 2006. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-6518 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Chapter 1 Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area ACTION: Notice of third meeting. Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1, section 10), of the third meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. DATES: The Committee will meet on Monday, May 15, 2006 at the Officers's Club at 1 Fort Mason in upper Fort Mason, in San Francisco. The meeting will begin at 3 p.m. This, and any subsequent meetings, will be held to assist the National Park Service in potentially developing a special regulation for dogwalking at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The proposed agenda for this meeting of the Committee may contain the following items; however, the Committee may modify its agenda during the course of its work. The Committee will provide for a public comment period during the meeting. 1. Agenda review 2. Approval of April 18 meeting summary 3. Updates since previous meeting 4. No Action Alternative for Dog Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)under National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)5. Data inventory 6. Information needs for Negotiated Rulemaking process 7. Decision-making criteria 8. Public comment 9. Adjourn To request a sign language interpreter for a meeting, please call the park TDD line
(415)556-2766, at least a week in advance of the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Go to the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment
(PEPC)Web site, *http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/goga* and select Negotiated Rulemaking for Dog Management at GGNRA or call the Dog Management Information Line at 415-561-4728. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings are open to the public. The Committee was established pursuant to the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 561-570). The purpose of the Committee is to consider developing a special regulation for dogwalking at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Interested persons may provide brief oral/written comments to the Committee during the Public Comment period of the meeting or file written comments with the GGNRA Superintendent. Dated: April 18, 2006. Loran Fraser, Chief, Office of Policy. [FR Doc. E6-6486 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 242 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 100 RIN 1018-AU70 Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart A; Makhnati Island Area AGENCIES: Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would revise the jurisdiction of the Federal Subsistence Management Program by adding submerged lands and waters in the area of Makhnati Island, near Sitka, Alaska. This would then allow Federal subsistence users to harvest marine resources in this area under seasons, harvest limits, and methods specified in Federal Subsistence Management regulations. DATES: We must receive your written public comments on this proposed rule no later than June 15, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Thomas H. Boyd, Office of Subsistence Management;
(907)786-3888. For questions specific to National Forest System lands, contact Steve Kessler, Regional Subsistence Program Leader, USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region,
(907)786-3888. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), Congress found that “the situation in Alaska is unique in that, in most cases, no practical alternative means are available to replace the food supplies and other items gathered from fish and wildlife which supply rural residents dependent on subsistence uses * * *” and that “continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses of resources on public and other lands in Alaska is threatened * * *.” As a result, Title VIII requires, among other things, that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) implement a program to provide for rural Alaska residents a priority for the taking for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources on public lands in Alaska, unless the State of Alaska enacts and implements laws of general applicability that are consistent with ANILCA and that provide for the subsistence definition, priority, and participation specified in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA. The State implemented a program that the Department of the Interior previously found to be consistent with ANILCA. However, in December 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in *McDowell* v. *State of Alaska* that the rural priority in the State subsistence statute violated the Alaska Constitution. The Court's ruling in *McDowell* caused the State to delete the rural priority from the subsistence statute which therefore negated State compliance with ANILCA. The Court stayed the effect of the decision until July 1, 1990. As a result of the *McDowell* decision, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990, responsibility for implementation of Title VIII of ANILCA on public lands. On June 29, 1990, the Departments published the Temporary Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska in the **Federal Register** (55 FR 27114). Permanent regulations were jointly published on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22940), and have been amended since then. As a result of this joint process between Interior and Agriculture, these regulations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)both in title 36, “Parks, Forests, and Public Property,” and title 50, “Wildlife and Fisheries,” at 36 CFR 242.1-28 and 50 CFR 100.1-28, respectively. The regulations contain the following subparts: Subpart A, General Provisions; Subpart B, Program Structure; Subpart C, Board Determinations; and Subpart D, Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife. Consistent with Subparts A, B, and C of these regulations, as revised May 7, 2002 (67 FR 30559), and December 27, 2005 (70 FR 76400), the Departments established a Federal Subsistence Board (Board) to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program, as established by the Secretaries. The Board's composition includes a Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. National Park Service; the Alaska State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM); the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through the Board, these agencies participated in the development of regulations for Subparts A, B, and C, and the annual Subpart D regulations. Jurisdictional Perspective Federal Subsistence Management Regulations (50 CFR 100.3 and 36 CFR 242.3) currently specify that “The public lands described in paragraphs
(b)and
(c)of this section remain subject to change through rulemaking pending a Department of the Interior review of title and jurisdictional issues regarding certain submerged lands beneath navigable waters in Alaska.” In April 2005, the Board requested a review by the U.S. Department of the Interior's, Office of the Solicitor to determine whether a Federal interest presently exists in certain areas of southeastern Alaska. The specific areas were originally identified by the Sitka Tribe of Alaska and presented before the Southeast Alaska Subsistence Regional Advisory Council, who forwarded a request for review to the Board. In November 2005, the Office of the Solicitor responded that the Makhnati Island area withdrawal in Executive Order 8877 (August 29, 1941) was not rescinded until after statehood, so the submerged land did not transfer to the State of statehood. Since this submerged land is not included in any other withdrawal, reservation, or administrative setaside, the marine submerged lands, including any filled lands owned by the United States, are under the administration of the BLM. Accordingly, the Solicitor's Office indicated that this area should be included within the jurisdiction of the Federal Subsistence Management Program. See 70 FR 76400 (December 27, 2005). The specific area encompasses approximately 610 acres of land and water adjacent to Japonski Island. Whiting Harbor and numerous small islands are included within the boundary of the withdrawal. The Board recommends the inclusion of this area in the Federal Subsistence Management Program. Therefore, we propose to amend the Federal Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska to reflect Federal subsistence management jurisdiction in the area of Makhnati Island, near Sitka, Alaska. We propose to amend Section __3(b), which includes those areas where marine waters are included, and where the regulations contained in 50 CFR 100 and 36 CFR 242 apply to both navigable and non-navigable waters. If additional marine submerged lands are determined in the future to be held by the United States, those additional lands would be the subject of future rulemakings. Because the Federal Subsistence Management Program relates to public lands managed by an agency or agencies in both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, we would propose to incorporate identical text into 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100.W Conformance with Statutory and Regulatory Authorities National Environmental Policy Act Compliance A Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS)for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. That document described in major issues associated with Federal subsistence management as identified through public meetings, written comments, and staff analysis, and examined the environmental consequences of four alternatives. Proposed regulations (Subparts A, B, and C) that would implement the preferred alternative were included in the DEIS as an appendix. The DEIS and the proposed administrative regulations presented a framework for an annual regulatory cycle regarding subsistence hunting and fishing regulations (Subpart D). The Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)was published on February 28, 1992. Based on the public comments received, the analysis contained in the FEIS, and the recommendations of the Federal Subsistence Board and the Department of the Interior's Subsistence Policy Group, the Secretary of the Interior, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture—Forest Service, implemented Alternative IV as identified in the DEIS and FEIS (Record of Decision on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska (ROD), signed April 6, 1992). The DEIS and the selected alternative in the FEIS defined the administrative framework of an annual regulatory cycle for subsistence hunting and fishing regulations. The final rule for Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A, B, and C, published May 29, 1992, implemented the Federal Subsistence Management Program and included a framework for an annual cycle for subsistence hunting and fishing regulations. The following **Federal Register** documents pertain to this rulemaking: Federal Register Documents Pertaining to Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A and B Federal Register citation Date of publication Category Details 57 FR 22940 May 29, 1992 Final Rule “Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska; Final Rule” was published in the Federal Register . 64 FR 1276 January 8, 1999 Final Rule (amended) Amended to include subsistence activities occurring on inland navigable waters in which the United States has a reserved water right and to identify specific Federal land units where reserved water rights exist. Extended the Federal Subsistence Board's management to all Federal lands selected under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the Alaska Statehood Act and situated within the boundaries of a Conservation System Unit, National Recreation Area, National Conservation Area, or any new national forest or forest addition, until conveyed to the State of Alaska or an Alaska Native Corporation. Specified and clarified Secretaries' authority to determine when hunting, fishing, or trapping activities taking place in Alaska off the public lands interfere with the subsistence priority. 66 FR 31533 June 12, 2001 Interim Rule Expanded the authority that the Board may delegate to agency field officials and clarified the procedures for enacting emergency or temporary restrictions, closures, or openings. 67 FR 30559 May 7, 2002 Final Rule In response to comments on an interim rule, amended the operating regulations. Also corrected some inadvertent errors and oversights of previous rules. 68 FR 7703 February 18, 2003 Direct Final Rule This rule clarified how old a person must be to receive certain subsistence use permits and removed the requirement that Regional Councils must have an odd number of members. 68 FR 23035 April 30, 2003 Affirmation of Direct Final Rule Received no adverse comments on the direct final rule (68 FR 7703). Adopted direct final rule. 68 FR 60957 October 14, 2004 Final Rule Established Regional Council membership goals. 70 FR 76400 December 27, 2005 Final Rule Revised jurisdiction in marine waters and clarified jurisdiction relative to military lands. An environmental assessment was prepared in 1997 on the expansion of Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is available by contacting the office listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The Secretary of the Interior with the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture determined that the expansion of Federal jurisdiction did not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the human environment, and therefore, signed a Finding of No Significant Impact. Compliance With Section 810 of ANILCA The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. A Section 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process. The final Section 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD, which concluded that the Federal Subsistence Management Program may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but that the program is not likely to significantly restrict subsistence uses. Paperwork Reduction Act These rules contain no new information collection requirements subject to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. They apply to the use of public lands in Alaska. The information collection requirements described in the rule were approved by OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501 and were assigned clearance number 1018-0075, which expires August 31, 2006. We will not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information request unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Other Requirements Economic Effects—This rule is not a significant rule subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866. This rulemaking will impose no significant costs on small entities; this rule does not restrict any existing sport or commercial fishery on the public lands, and subsistence fisheries will continue at essentially the same levels as they presently occur. The number of businesses and the amount of trade that will result from this Federal land-related activity is unknown but expected to be insignificant. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* requires preparation of regulatory flexibility analyses for rules that will have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, which include small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. The Departments have determined that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rulemaking will impose no significant costs on small entities; the exact number of businesses and the amount of trade that will result from this Federal land-related activity is unknown. The aggregate effect is an insignificant positive economic effect on a number of small entities, such as tackle, boat, and gasoline dealers. The number of small entities affected is unknown; however, the fact that the positive effects will be seasonal in nature and will, in most cases, merely continue preexisting uses of public lands indicates that the effects will not be significant. In general, the resources harvested under this rule will be consumed by the local harvester and do not result in a dollar benefit to the economy. However, we estimate that about 26.2 million pounds of fish (including about 9 million pounds of salmon) are harvested Statewide by the local subsistence users annually and, if based on a replacement value of $3.00 per pound, would equate to $78.6 million in food value Statewide. Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence preference on public lands. The scope of this program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these regulations have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630. The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 *et seq.* that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. The implementation of this rule is by Federal agencies, and no cost is involved to any State or local entities or tribal governments. The Service has determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 on Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife resources on Federal lands unless their program is compliant with the requirements of that Title. In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), 512 DM 2, and E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a participating agency in this rulemaking. On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. The Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 13211, affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, this action is not a significant action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. William Knauer drafted these regulations under the guidance of Thomas H. Boyd of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Dennis Tol and Taylor Brelsford, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management; Greg Bos, Carl Jack, and Jerry Berg, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; San Rabinowitch and Nancy Swanton, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service; Warren Eastland, Pat Petrivelli, and Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Steve Kessler, Alaska Regional Office, USDA-Forest Service provided additional guidance. List of Subjects 36 CFR Part 242 Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife. 50 CFR Part 100 Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Secretaries propose to amend title 36, part 242, and title 50, part 100, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below. PART__—SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA 1. The authority citation for both 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733. Subpart A—General Provisions 2. In Subpart A of 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100, § __.3 would be amended by adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows: § __.3 Applicability and scope.
(b)* * *
(5)Southeastern Alaska—Makhnati Island Area: Land and waters beginning at the southern point of Fruit Island, 57°21′35″ north latitude, 135°21′07″ west longitude as shown on United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8244, May 21, 1941; from the point of beginning, by metes and bounds; S. 58° W., 2500 feet, to the southern point of Nepovorotni Rocks; S. 83° W., 5600 feet, on a line passing through the southern point of a small island lying about 150 feet south of Makhnati Island; N. 6° W., 4200 feet, on a line passing through the western point of a small island lying about 150 feet west of Makhnati Island, to the northwestern point of Signal Island; N. 24° E., 3000 feet, to a point, 57°03′15″ north latitude, 135°23′07″ west longitude; East, 2900 feet, to a point in course No. 46 in meanders of U.S. Survey No. 1496, on west side of Japonski Island; Southeasterly, with the meanders of Japonski Island, U.S. Survey No. 1496 to angle point No. 35, on the Southwestern point of Japonski Island; S. 60° E., 3300 feet, along the boundary line of Naval reservation described in Executive order No. 8216, July 25, 1939, to the point beginning. Dated: March 22, 2006. P. Lynn Scarlett, Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior. Dated: April 4, 2006. Dennis E. Bschor, Regional Forester, USDA-Forest Service. [FR Doc. 06-4012 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 36
Traces to 36 documents
64 references not yet in our index
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 16 CFR 310
  • Pub. L. 108-10
  • 117 Stat. 557
  • Pub. L. 108-7
  • 117 Stat. 11
  • Pub. L. 108-199
  • 118 Stat. 3
  • Pub. L. 108-447
  • 118 Stat. 2809
  • Pub. L. 109-108
  • 119 Stat. 2290
  • 15 USC 6101-08
  • 47 CFR 64.1200
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 15 USC 6101-6108
  • Pub. L. 109-59
  • 119 Stat. 1144
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • 119 Stat. 544
  • Pub. L. 109-115
  • 119 Stat. 2396
  • Pub. L. 106-159
  • 113 Stat. 1748
  • Pub. L. 102-240
  • 105 Stat. 1914
  • Pub. L. 95-599
  • 92 Stat. 2689
  • Pub. L. 104-66
  • 109 Stat. 1914
  • 109 Stat. 707
  • 23 CFR 658
  • 117 Stat. 419
  • 199 Stat. 2396
  • 119 Stat. 594
  • Pub. L. 97-424
  • 96 Stat. 2100
  • Pub. L. 96-354
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-4
+ 24 more
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 106
C.F.R.§ 39.19
C.F.R.§ 4.9
C.F.R.§ 310.4
C.F.R.§ 310.8
U.S.C.§ 601
C.F.R.§ 1.26
SCOTUS62 U.S. 28
SCOTUS70 U.S. 285
SCOTUS87 U.S. 5
Cites 100 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

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

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