Notices. Annual list of defect and noncompliance decisions affecting nonconforming vehicles imported by registered importers
12,913 words·~59 min read·
/register/2006/08/30/06-7219A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25687] Annual List of Defect and Noncompliance Decisions Affecting Nonconforming Imported Vehicles AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Annual list of defect and noncompliance decisions affecting nonconforming vehicles imported by registered importers. SUMMARY: This document contains a list of vehicles recalled by their manufacturers during Calendar Year 2005 (January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005) to correct a safety-related defect or a noncompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).
The listed vehicles are those that NHTSA has decided are substantially similar to vehicles imported into the United States that were not originally manufactured and certified to conform to all applicable FMVSS. The registered importers of those nonconforming vehicles are required to provide their owners with notification of, and a remedy for, the defects or noncompliances for which the listed vehicles were recalled. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle of the same model year that was originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115. Once NHTSA decides that a nonconforming vehicle is eligible for importation, it may be imported by a person who is registered with the agency pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30141(c).
Before releasing the vehicle for use on public streets, roads, or highways, the registered importer must certify to NHTSA, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30146(a), that the vehicle has been brought into conformity with all applicable FMVSS. If a vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States is decided to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or not to comply with an applicable FMVSS, 49 U.S.C. 30147(a)(1)(A) provides that the same defect or noncompliance is deemed to exist in any nonconforming vehicle that NHTSA has decided to be substantially similar and for which a registered importer has submitted a certificate of conformity to the agency.
Under 49 U.S.C. 30147(a)(1)(B), the registered importer is deemed to be the nonconforming vehicle's manufacturer for the purpose of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the defect or noncompliance. To apprise registered importers of the vehicles for which they must conduct a notification and remedy ( *i.e.* , “recall”) campaign, 49 U.S.C. 30147(a)(2) requires NHTSA to publish in the **Federal Register** notice of any defect or noncompliance decision that is made with respect to substantially similar U.S. certified vehicles.
Annex A contains a list of all such decisions that were made during Calendar Year 2005. The list identifies the Recall Number that was assigned to the recall by NHTSA after the agency received the manufacturer's notification of the defect or noncompliance under 49 CFR Part 573. After December 31, 2006, NHTSA will publish a comparable list of all defect and noncompliance decisions affecting nonconforming imported vehicles that are made during the current calendar year. Under 49 U.S.C. 30120(a), a manufacturer may remedy a safety-related defect or noncompliance in a motor vehicle by repairing the vehicle, replacing the vehicle with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or by refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation.
For each of the vehicles listed, the manufacturer elected to remedy the defect or noncompliance by repair, and not by replacing the vehicle or by refunding the purchase price. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30147(a)(2); delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: August 24, 2006. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle, Safety Compliance. Annex A Calendar Year 2005 Recalls Affecting Vehicles Imported by Registered Importers Make Model Model year NHTSA recall No.
ACURA MDX 2001 05V385000 ACURA MDX 2002 05V385000 ACURA TL 1999 05V025000 ACURA TL 2000 05V025000 ASTON MARTIN VANQUISH 2002 04V538000 ASTON MARTIN VANQUISH 2003 04V538000 BMW X5 2006 05V504000 BUICK RENDEZVOUS 2004 05V157000 CADILLAC CTS 2004 05V024000 CADILLAC ESCALADE 2003 05V163000 CADILLAC ESCALADE 2004 05V163000 CADILLAC ESCALADE 2005 05V055000 CADILLAC ESCALADE 2005 05V163000 CHEVROLET ASTRO 2001 05V099000 CHEVROLET ASTRO 2002 05V099000 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE 2002 05V379000 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE 2003 05V163000 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE 2004 05V043000 CHEVROLET AVALANCHE 2004 05V163000 CHEVROLET CAVALIER 2003 04V524000 CHEVROLET CORVETTE 2005 04V525000 CHEVROLET CORVETTE 2005 05V455000 CHEVROLET CORVETTE 2006 05V455000 CHEVROLET EXPRESS 2004 05V043000 CHEVROLET MALIBU 2003 04V528000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1999 05V161000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 1999 05V379000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2000 05V005000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2000 05V161000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2000 05V379000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2001 05V161000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2001 05V379000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2002 05V161000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2002 05V379000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2003 05V161000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2003 05V163000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2004 05V043000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2004 05V161000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2004 05V163000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2005 05V018000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2005 05V043000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2005 05V055000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2005 05V161000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2005 05V163000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2005 05V455000 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2006 05V455000 CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 2000 05V005000 CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 2000 05V155000 CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 2000 05V379000 CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 2001 05V155000 CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 2001 05V379000 CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 2002 05V379000 CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 2003 05V163000 CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 2004 05V043000 CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 2004 05V163000 CHEVROLET TAHOE 2000 05V379000 CHEVROLET TAHOE 2001 05V379000 CHEVROLET TAHOE 2002 05V379000 CHEVROLET TAHOE 2003 05V163000 CHEVROLET TAHOE 2004 05V163000 CHEVROLET TAHOE 2005 05V055000 CHEVROLET TAHOE 2005 05V103000 CHEVROLET TAHOE 2005 05V163000 CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER 2003 05V198000 CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER 2004 05V198000 CHEVROLET UPLANDER 2005 05V061000 CHEVROLET UPLANDER 2005 05V287000 CHEVROLET VENTURE 1997 04V597000 CHEVROLET VENTURE 1998 04V597000 CHEVROLET VENTURE 1999 04V597000 CHEVROLET VENTURE 2000 04V597000 CHEVROLET VENTURE 2001 04V597000 CHEVROLET VENTURE 2002 04V597000 CHEVROLET VENTURE 2003 04V597000 CHEVROLET VENTURE 2004 04V597000 CHEVROLET VENTURE 2005 04V597000 CHRYSLER 300 2005 05V460000 CHRYSLER PACIFICA 2005 05V066000 CHRYSLER TOWN AND COUNTRY 2001 04V531000 DODGE CARAVAN 2001 04V531000 DODGE CARAVAN 2002 04V531000 DODGE CARAVAN 2003 05V134000 DODGE DURANGO 2005 05V034000 DODGE DURANGO 2005 05V460000 DODGE GRAND CARAVAN 2001 04V531000 DODGE GRAND CARAVAN 2002 04V531000 FORD BRONCO 1994 05V388000 FORD BRONCO 1995 05V388000 FORD BRONCO 1996 05V388000 FORD CROWN VICTORIA 1997 05V086000 FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2003 05V206000 FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2004 05V206000 FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2005 05V206000 FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2005 05V518000 FORD E-250 2006 05V520000 FORD E-350 2006 05V520000 FORD E-250 2002 04V589000 FORD E-250 2003 04V589000 FORD E-250 2004 04V589000 FORD E-350 2002 04V589000 FORD E-350 2003 04V589000 FORD E-350 2004 04V589000 FORD E-350 2004 05V270000 FORD E-350 2005 05V270000 FORD E-450 2004 05V270000 FORD ESCAPE 2001 04V602000 FORD ESCAPE 2002 04V574000 FORD ESCAPE 2002 04V602000 FORD ESCAPE 2003 04V574000 FORD ESCAPE 2003 04V602000 FORD ESCAPE 2004 04V574000 FORD ESCAPE 2004 04V602000 FORD ESCAPE 2005 04V602000 FORD EXCURSION 2004 05V270000 FORD EXCURSION 2005 05V270000 FORD EXPEDITION 1997 05V388000 FORD EXPEDITION 1998 05V388000 FORD EXPEDITION 1999 05V388000 FORD EXPEDITION 2000 05V017000 FORD EXPEDITION 2000 05V388000 FORD EXPEDITION 2001 05V388000 FORD EXPEDITION 2002 05V388000 FORD EXPEDITION 2006 05V310000 FORD EXPEDITION 2006 05V520000 FORD EXPLORER 2006 05V520000 FORD F-150 2006 05V520000 FORD F-150 1994 05V388000 FORD F-150 1995 05V388000 FORD F-150 1996 05V388000 FORD F-150 1997 05V388000 FORD F-150 1998 05V388000 FORD F-150 1999 05V388000 FORD F-150 2000 05V017000 FORD F-150 2000 05V388000 FORD F-150 2001 05V388000 FORD F-150 2002 05V388000 FORD F-250 1994 05V388000 FORD F-250 1995 05V388000 FORD F-250 1996 05V388000 FORD F-250 1997 05V388000 FORD F-250 1998 05V388000 FORD F-250 1999 05V388000 FORD F-650 2005 05V202000 FORD F-650 2005 05V415000 FORD F-750 2005 05V202000 FORD F-750 2005 05V415000 FORD FOCUS 2000 05V030000 FORD FOCUS 2001 05V030000 FORD FOCUS 2002 05V030000 FORD FOCUS 2003 05V030000 FORD FOCUS 2004 05V030000 FORD FOCUS 2005 05V030000 FORD SUPERCREW 2001 05V017000 FREIGHTLINER COLUMBIA 2002 05V001000 FREIGHTLINER CORONADO 2004 05V408000 GMC ENVOY 2003 05V198000 GMC ENVOY 2004 05V198000 GMC SAFARI 2001 05V099000 GMC SAFARI 2002 05V099000 GMC SAVANA 2000 05V005000 GMC SIERRA 1999 05V161000 GMC SIERRA 1999 05V379000 GMC SIERRA 2000 05V005000 GMC SIERRA 2000 05V161000 GMC SIERRA 2000 05V379000 GMC SIERRA 2001 05V161000 GMC SIERRA 2001 05V379000 GMC SIERRA 2002 05V161000 GMC SIERRA 2002 05V379000 GMC SIERRA 2003 05V161000 GMC SIERRA 2003 05V163000 GMC SIERRA 2004 05V043000 GMC SIERRA 2004 05V161000 GMC SIERRA 2004 05V163000 GMC SIERRA 2005 05V018000 GMC SIERRA 2005 05V043000 GMC SIERRA 2005 05V055000 GMC SIERRA 2005 05V161000 GMC SIERRA 2005 05V163000 GMC SIERRA 2005 05V455000 GMC W4500 2003 05V168000 GMC W5500 2003 05V168000 GMC W5500 2004 05V168000 GMC YUKON 2000 05V379000 GMC YUKON 2001 05V379000 GMC YUKON 2002 05V379000 GMC YUKON 2003 05V163000 GMC YUKON 2004 05V163000 GMC YUKON 2005 05V055000 GMC YUKON 2005 05V103000 GMC YUKON 2005 05V163000 GMC YUKON XL 2000 05V005000 GMC YUKON XL 2000 05V155000 GMC YUKON XL 2000 05V379000 GMC YUKON XL 2001 05V155000 GMC YUKON XL 2001 05V379000 GMC YUKON XL 2002 05V379000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTC 2002 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTC 2003 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTC 2004 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTC 2005 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTCI 2002 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTCI 2003 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTCI 2004 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTCI 2005 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTF 2002 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTF 2003 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTF 2004 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTF 2005 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTFI 2002 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTFI 2003 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTFI 2004 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTFI 2005 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTN 2002 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTN 2005 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FLSTNI 2005 05V151000 HARLEY DAVIDSON FXDWGI 2004 05V430000 HARLEY DAVIDSON ROAD KING 2004 04V465000 HARLEY DAVIDSON SOFTAIL 2004 04V465000 HONDA ACCORD 1999 05V025000 HONDA ACCORD 2000 05V025000 HONDA ACCORD 2001 05V025000 HONDA ACCORD 2002 05V025000 HONDA GL1800A 2002 05V010000 HONDA GL1800A 2002 05V027000 HONDA ODYSSEY 2005 05V039000 HONDA ODYSSEY 2005 05V132000 HONDA ODYSSEY 2005 05V344000 HONDA PRELUDE 1997 05V025000 HONDA PRELUDE 1998 05V025000 HONDA PRELUDE 1999 05V025000 HONDA PRELUDE 2000 05V025000 HONDA PRELUDE 2001 05V025000 HONDA VFR800 2002 05V010000 HUMMER H2 2004 05V043000 HUMMER H2 2004 05V163000 HUMMER H2 2005 05V043000 HUMMER H2 2005 05V163000 HYUNDAI ELANTRA 2004 05V395000 HYUNDAI ELANTRA 2004 05V479000 INTERNATIONAL 4300 2006 05V297000 INTERNATIONAL 4400 2004 04V569000 INTERNATIONAL 4800 1999 03V415000 INTERNATIONAL 4800 2000 03V415000 INTERNATIONAL 7400 2002 05V188000 INTERNATIONAL 7400 2003 05V188000 INTERNATIONAL 7400 2005 04V569000 INTERNATIONAL 7400 2005 05V188000 INTERNATIONAL 7400 2006 05V188000 INTERNATIONAL 7500 2002 05V188000 INTERNATIONAL 7500 2003 05V188000 INTERNATIONAL 7500 2005 04V569000 INTERNATIONAL 7500 2005 05V188000 INTERNATIONAL 7500 2006 05V188000 INTERNATIONAL 7600 2003 05V188000 INTERNATIONAL 7600 2004 04V569000 INTERNATIONAL 7600 2004 05V188000 INTERNATIONAL 7600 2005 04V569000 INTERNATIONAL 7600 2005 05V188000 INTERNATIONAL 7600 2006 05V188000 INTERNATIONAL 9900I 2005 05V296000 JAGUAR S-TYPE 2002 04V484000 JAGUAR S-TYPE 2003 04V484000 JAGUAR X-TYPE 2002 04V487000 JEEP WRANGLER 2005 05V460000 KENWORTH C500 2005 05V189000 KENWORTH C500 2005 05V237000 KENWORTH T300 2005 05V417000 KENWORTH T300 2006 05V417000 KENWORTH T600 2004 04V580000 KENWORTH T600 2004 05V189000 KENWORTH T800 2004 04V580000 KENWORTH T800 2004 05V084000 KENWORTH T800 2004 05V189000 KENWORTH T800 2005 05V084000 KENWORTH T800 2005 05V189000 KENWORTH T800 2005 05V237000 KENWORTH T800 2005 05V543000 KENWORTH T800 2006 05V543000 KENWORTH W900 2005 05V084000 KENWORTH W900 2005 05V189000 KENWORTH W900 2005 05V237000 KIA RIO 2001 05V159000 KIA SEDONA 2002 05V013000 KIA SEDONA 2003 05V013000 KIA SEDONA 2003 05V232000 KIA SEDONA 2003 05V329000 KIA SORENTO 2003 05V353000 LAND ROVER FREELANDER 2002 04V347000 LAND ROVER FREELANDER 2002 05V300000 LAND ROVER FREELANDER 2004 04V347000 LAND ROVER FREELANDER 2004 05V300000 LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER 2006 05V502000 LEXUS LX470 1998 04V434000 LEXUS LX470 1999 04V434000 LEXUS LX470 2000 04V434000 LEXUS LX470 2002 04V434000 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR 1998 05V388000 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR 1999 05V388000 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR 2000 05V017000 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR 2000 05V388000 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR 2001 05V388000 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR 2002 05V388000 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR 2006 05V310000 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR 2006 05V519000 LINCOLN NAVIGATOR 2006 05V520000 LINCOLN TOWNCAR 2005 05V518000 MAZDA TRIBUTE 2001 04V605000 MAZDA TRIBUTE 2002 04V583000 MAZDA TRIBUTE 2002 04V605000 MERCEDES BENZ G55 2005 05V378000 MERCURY MARQUIS 1997 05V086000 MINI COOPER 2002 05V470000 NATIONAL ISLANDER 2006 05V196000 NISSAN MURANO 2003 05V319000 OLDSMOBILE ALERO 2003 04V528000 OLDSMOBILE BRAVADA 2003 05V198000 OLDSMOBILE SILHOUETTE 1997 04V597000 OLDSMOBILE SILHOUETTE 1998 04V597000 OLDSMOBILE SILHOUETTE 1999 04V597000 OLDSMOBILE SILHOUETTE 2000 04V597000 OLDSMOBILE SILHOUETTE 2001 04V597000 OLDSMOBILE SILHOUETTE 2002 04V597000 OLDSMOBILE SILHOUETTE 2003 04V597000 OLDSMOBILE SILHOUETTE 2004 04V597000 PETERBILT 335 2005 05V417000 PETERBILT 335 2006 05V417000 PETERBILT 357 2004 05V189000 PETERBILT 357 2005 05V189000 PETERBILT 378 2005 05V189000 PETERBILT 378 2005 05V543000 PETERBILT 379 2005 05V189000 PETERBILT 387 2005 05V543000 PLYMOUTH VOYAGER 2001 04V531000 PONTIAC GRAND AM 2003 04V528000 PONTIAC GRAND AM 2005 05V054000 PONTIAC GRAND PRIX 2004 05V046000 PONTIAC MONTANA 1997 04V597000 PONTIAC MONTANA 1998 04V597000 PONTIAC MONTANA 1999 04V597000 PONTIAC MONTANA 2000 04V597000 PONTIAC MONTANA 2001 04V597000 PONTIAC MONTANA 2002 04V597000 PONTIAC MONTANA 2003 04V597000 PONTIAC MONTANA 2004 04V597000 PONTIAC SUNFIRE 2003 04V524000 PONTIAC TRANS SPORT 1999 04V597000 PONTIAC TRANSPORT 1997 04V597000 PONTIAC TRANSPORT 1998 04V597000 PORSCHE CAYENNE 2004 04V593000 PORSCHE CAYENNES 2003 04V593000 STERLING ACTERRA 2003 05V126000 STERLING ACTERRA 2004 05V125000 STERLING ACTERRA 2004 05V126000 STERLING ACTERRA 2005 05V125000 STERLING CONDOR 2003 04V401000 STERLING CONDOR 2003 04V453000 STERLING LT9500 2004 04V590000 SUZUKI GRAND VITARA 1999 05V452000 SUZUKI GRAND VITARA 2000 05V452000 SUZUKI GRAND VITARA 2002 05V452000 SUZUKI GRAND VITARA 2005 05V452000 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER 1989 05V389000 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER 1990 05V389000 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER 1991 05V389000 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER 1992 05V389000 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER 1993 05V389000 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER 1994 05V389000 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER 1995 05V389000 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER 2001 05V225000 TOYOTA 4 RUNNER 2002 05V225000 TOYOTA CAMRY 2004 04V595000 TOYOTA CELICA 2000 04V566000 TOYOTA CELICA 2001 04V566000 TOYOTA SEQUOIA 2002 05V225000 TOYOTA SEQUOIA 2003 05V225000 TOYOTA SIENNA 2004 05V327000 TOYOTA SIENNA 2005 05V327000 TOYOTA T100 1996 05V389000 TOYOTA TACOMA 2001 05V225000 TOYOTA TACOMA 2002 05V225000 TOYOTA TACOMA 2003 05V225000 TOYOTA TUNDRA 2002 05V225000 TOYOTA TUNDRA 2003 05V225000 TOYOTA TUNDRA 2004 05V123000 TOYOTA TUNDRA 2004 05V225000 TOYOTA TUNDRA 2005 05V123000 TOYOTA TUNDRA 2005 05V328000 VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 1999 05V154000 VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 2000 04V584000 VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 2000 05V154000 VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 2001 04V584000 VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 2002 04V584000 VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 2004 04V586000 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 1999 05V154000 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2000 04V584000 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2000 05V154000 VOLKSWAGEN JETTA 2000 04V584000 VOLKSWAGEN JETTA 2001 04V584000 VOLKSWAGEN JETTA 2002 04V584000 VOLKSWAGEN JETTA 2004 04V586000 VOLVO C70 1998 04V504000 VOLVO C70 1999 04V504000 VOLVO C70 2000 04V504000 VOLVO S70 1998 04V504000 VOLVO S70 1999 04V504000 VOLVO S70 2000 04V504000 VOLVO V70 1998 04V504000 VOLVO V70 1999 04V504000 VOLVO V70 2000 04V504000 VOLVO V70XC 1999 04V504000 VOLVO V70XC 2000 04V504000 VOLVO VN 2000 04V457000 WINNEBAGO VECTRA 2005 04V608000 YAMAHA XVS11 2000 05V067000 YAMAHA XVS11 2000 05V256000 [FR Doc.
E6-14459 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22904, Notice 1] Denial of Petition for Compliance Investigation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Denial of petition for compliance investigation submitted by Safety Analysis & Forensic Engineering. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162 by Safety Analysis and Forensic Engineering.
The petition requested that the agency commence an investigation into whether certain Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer vehicles are in compliance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 216, “Roof crush resistance.” After review of the petition and other information submitted by the petitioner and the vehicle manufacturer, NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of the agency's investigative resources on the issue raised in the petition does not appear warranted.
The agency has accordingly denied the petition. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Krauss, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA
(202)366-5292. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction In September 2005, Safety Analysis & Forensic Engineering
(SAFE)petitioned NHTSA to conduct an investigation to determine if model year
(MY)1999-2001 4-door Ford Explorer vehicles are in compliance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, “Roof crush resistance.” In January 2006, SAFE extended the scope of its petition to include 1997-1998 Explorers and 1997-2001 Mercury Mountaineer vehicles. Based on a thorough review of all information submitted on this matter, the agency has decided to deny the petition. Background FMVSS No. 216 was promulgated in 1971 for the purpose of reducing deaths and injuries that are associated with the crushing of a vehicle roof into the occupant compartment during a rollover crash. This safety standard applies to passenger cars and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR)of 2,722 kilograms or less. The standard does not apply to school buses and convertibles. The standard states that when a force of 1.5 times the unloaded weight of the vehicle is applied to either the driver or passenger side of a vehicle roof by a large unyielding metal plate called a platen, the roof will not crush more than 127 millimeters (5 inches). The initial contact point of the platen is typically slightly rearward of the intersection of the A pillar and the roof. In engineering terms, a vehicle roof structure is required to develop a minimum resistive force of 1.5 times the vehicle's unloaded weight during the first 127 millimeters of roof crush. Therefore, the minimum strength-to-weight ratio
(STWR)for a vehicle roof tested in this manner must be 1.5. After reviewing the SAFE petition, NHTSA invited SAFE and Ford Motor Company
(Ford)to provide any additional information they believed was germane to this petition. Both companies made presentations to the agency in January of 2006. Ford made an additional submission to the agency on January 24, 2006. All submissions from both parties may be found in Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22904, which can be accessed at *http://dms.dot.gov* . There is no dispute that Ford based its certification to FMVSS No. 216 for the MY 1999-2001 4-door Explorer on five tests conducted on prototypes that were based on the MY 1995-1997 Explorer vehicles (to distinguish this from other relevant data, we will refer to these tests as Data Set 1). Ford uses the maximum possible unloaded vehicle weight
(MUVW)that can be calculated for any production vehicle when determining the STWR of the roof structure for certification purposes. Ford stated that the MUVW for 1999 models was 4,700 lbs. For the 2000 to 2001 models, the MUVW was 4,600 lbs. Ford states the average STWR for the five certification tests was 1.69, with the lowest measured as 1.63. A MUVW of 4,700 lbs was used to calculate these numbers. SAFE points out that there was an eight percent variation in the resistive forces recorded for these five certification tests. Ford conducted two development tests in 1999 using modified Explorers from the assembly line to determine if it could make a change in the way windshields were installed in the Explorer on the assembly line (Data Set 2). According to Ford, the purpose of this testing was to determine what effect using a maskless painting process may have on how the windshield would perform during a test of the strength of the roof structure. Based on the MUVW of 4,600 lbs, the STWRs for these tests were 1.51 and 1.53. SAFE notes that on one of the test reports the Ford engineer originally calculated the STWR using a MUVW of 4,700 lbs, which suggested a test failure. Ford later corrected the MUVW on the report. 1 Ford did not institute the proposed change in production and contends that these tests were not used for certifying the 1999, 2000, or 2001 models. 1 In its initial petition, SAFE placed great emphasis on this alleged test failure, even though it involved a vehicle modified in a manner (i.e., using a maskless paint process) that was not carried through for use in production vehicles. When the vehicle's actual MUVW (4,600 lbs) is used, there was no test failure. The record indicates that although the Ford employees conducting the test were informed of the vehicle's actual MUVW before the test, they performed calculations using a higher MUVW to determine whether the test results might be extended to a completely different vehicle with the higher MUVW on which Ford was considering using the same painting technique. After determining that the technique would not be feasible for the other vehicle, Ford personnel amended the test document to show the actual MUVW of the tested vehicle and the resultant calculations. The last set of data (Data Set 3) presented by Ford was generated from three tests conducted for Ford by Exponent, Inc. (Exponent). These tests were conducted on used vehicles that had between 48,800 and 91,500 miles on the odometer. Two of the vehicles were from the 1999 production and one was from the 2000 production. The average STWR calculated (using an MUVW of 4,700 lbs) was 1.55 with a force variation of two percent. SAFE has discounted these tests because Ford did not conduct them at its own facility. In addition, SAFE believes that the test procedure used by Exponent was flawed. SAFE contends that the test vehicles were supported at both the vehicle frame and the sill, thus violating the wording of the standard that states, “Place the sills or the chassis frame on a rigid horizontal surface * * * ” 49 CFR 571.216 S7.1. In support of its contention, SAFE refers to a photograph of Exponent's test set-up, which it contends indicates that the sills of the test vehicle were welded to the test fixture. Ford, in its January 24, 2006 submission to the agency, states that the sills were not welded to the test fixture. It further explains that jacks were used only to support the vehicle overhangs and did not provide an alternative load path for the FMVSS No. 216 applied forces. Therefore, Ford asserts that the Exponent test procedure is consistent with the procedure it uses to conduct FMVSS No. 216 testing. SAFE analyzed the above three sets of test data and concluded that the margin of compliance of the 4-door Explorer decreased from the time Ford conducted its certification testing. Because SAFE discounted the tests conducted by Exponent, it compared only Data Set 1 with Data Set 2. SAFE applied the eight percent variance it calculated for the resistive force of the five certification tests (Data Set 1) to the average STWR Ford provided for the second set of data, i.e., the windshield installation tests. From this calculation SAFE projected that a number of production vehicles will be in noncompliance with FMVSS No. 216. In an effort to determine why there may have been a decrease in the margin of compliance, SAFE performed tear-down studies on a number of Explorer roofs. SAFE did not find a significant change in the roof structure from 1996 1/2 to 2001 MY productions. However, SAFE did find a minor change in the front door structure. Ford stated that at the time of the change both its supplier, Budd Company, and its designers relied on their collective experience with roof crush testing to conclude that this change would have little if any effect on compliance with FMVSS No. 216. Based on the above test data sets, SAFE requested that NHTSA open an official compliance investigation. SAFE requested that NHTSA test a minimum of 10 vehicles that were produced at different assembly plants and have the largest number of options that add weight to the vehicles. Analysis The agency has reviewed all of the data submitted by both SAFE and Ford and has decided to deny the petition for the following reasons. First, none of the data presented indicate any of the vehicles tested failed to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 216. SAFE did not present any data indicating that any MY 1997-2001 Ford Explorer or Mercury Mountaineer vehicles failed FMVSS No. 216 compliance testing. Second, SAFE asserts that a segment of the 1997-2001 Explorer/Mountaineer production will not meet the standard. This assertion is based primarily on SAFE's contention that there was a decrease in the margin of compliance after Ford conducted its certification testing. SAFE bases this contention on the difference between the compliance margin calculated for Ford's certification tests (Data Set 1) and the lower margin calculated for Ford's development tests, conducted on modified assembly line vehicles (Data Set 2). Extrapolating from the eight percent variation in the certification tests of Data Set 1 and the lower average safety margin in the tests of the modified vehicles comprising Data Set 2, SAFE assumed that the test results of DATA Set 2 were representative of how production vehicles would perform and that those at the lower end of the presumed eight percent range in test results would not comply with the standard. NHTSA is unable to draw the same conclusion from the data presented. Statistics taken from a group of tests conducted on preproduction development vehicles on which production vehicles were based (Data Set 1) may not logically be extrapolated to the results of testing conducted on modified assembly line vehicles where the design change never went into production (Data Set 2). The test results concerning modified assembly line vehicles (Data Set 2) are not relevant to the potential compliance of production vehicles. The windshield modifications that Ford was considering when it modified and then tested these vehicles in 1999 never became part of production vehicles. Accordingly, one cannot assume, as SAFE does here, that developmental tests concerning a new process for windshield attachment, which was never adopted for production vehicles, are representative of likely test results for production vehicles. Moreover, the variation in test results for the three used production vehicles tested by Exponent (Data Set 3) was two percent. This indicates that production vehicles, even after years of use, produced lower test variation than the prototype vehicles. Third, all of the STWR data presented by SAFE and Ford are based on maximum possible unloaded vehicle weights for the model years in question. Ford stated that the heaviest 11 percent of the MY 1999 production (for which the MUVW was 4,700 lbs.) was between 4,450 and 4,678 lbs. The heaviest 12 percent of the MY 2000 and 2001 production (for which the MUVW was 4,600 lbs.) was between 4,380 and 4,580 lbs. Considering these production weight numbers, there are very few production vehicles that approached the MUVW. Since the STWR is the ratio of the resistive force to the unloaded vehicle weight, as the unloaded vehicle weight decreases the STWR increases. Therefore, the vast majority of Ford's production vehicles appear to have a greater margin of safety with respect to meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 216 than the margin described in data sets 1-3, all of which indicated compliance with the standard based on the MUVW. Fourth, SAFE requests that NHTSA test ten vehicles, but the compliance test prescribed in FMVSS No. 216 is intended to be applied to new vehicles. At this late date, NHTSA cannot obtain new MY 1999 to 2001 vehicles. Due to limited agency resources, the agency selects certain new vehicle models when it conducts compliance testing and, for practical reasons, cannot test every new model annually. NHTSA did test two earlier model year Explorers (a 1994 and 1996) when they were new. These model years met the FMVSS No. 216 performance requirement. We are not aware of design changes that occurred after the model years that NHTSA tested that would have had a significant impact on the roof strength of the MY vehicles that are addressed by SAFE's petition. Fifth, SAFE argues that Ford made a change in the door structure of the Explorer in 1997 that allegedly resulted in reduced roof strength. SAFE has not effectively substantiated either the reduced roof strength that it claims occurred or the causal role of the door structure change in the alleged reduction. Ford offered only the collective judgment of its staff and its supplier that such a change would have had little or no effect on roof strength. Having reviewed the information that both SAFE and Ford submitted concerning that change, we have no basis for concluding that the change had any negative effect on roof strength. In any event, the only actual tests (Data Set 3) of vehicles built after the date of that change, which involved vehicles that had been in use for several years, showed that the vehicles met the roof strength standard. Finally, efficient allocation of the agency's enforcement resources is among the criteria NHTSA may consider when deciding whether to grant or deny a petition to initiate a compliance investigation. See 49 CFR 552.8. Having fully considered all information presented by SAFE and Ford, we do not believe that the investigation SAFE wants NHTSA to conduct would be likely to lead to an agency determination that the subject vehicles do not comply with FMVSS No. 216. We believe NHTSA's limited enforcement resources are better allocated to investigations that are more likely to reveal noncompliance. Conclusion In consideration of the above, this petition for a compliance investigation is denied. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: August 24, 2006. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-14458 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA-2006-24872] Guidelines for Impaired Driving Records Information Systems AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final guidelines. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth guidelines on the types and formats of data that States should collect relating to drivers who are arrested or convicted for violation of laws prohibiting the impaired operation of motor vehicles, as directed by Section 2007(c) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). DATES: These final guidelines are effective on August 30, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For programmatic issues: Ms. De Carlo Ciccel, Highway Safety Specialist, Impaired Driving Division, NTI-111, or Ms. Heidi Coleman, Chief, Impaired Driving Division, NTI-111, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202)366-1694. For legal issues: Ms. Nygina T. Mills, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-113, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone
(202)366-1834. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Annually, more than a million drivers are arrested for alcohol-impaired driving. While States bear the primary responsibility for enacting and enforcing impaired driving laws and for adjudicating and sanctioning offenses, they sometimes lack the most effective tools to manage their programs. A comprehensive data system containing records of impaired driving arrests and convictions would enable a State to make more effective traffic safety decisions. The ideal system should contain timely, accurate, complete, consistent, integrated, accessible and secure information. The less timely citation data are, the less their utility. Citation data that are not accurate or complete ( *e.g.* , misspelled name, incorrect charge) can result in dismissed cases or reduced charges and can complicate linkage to other traffic records system components such as driver license files. Citation data that are not consistent can lead to charges that vary by jurisdiction or by law enforcement agency. Data that are not accessible or that cannot be integrated or linked almost always require more time, effort and resources to process and complete, and can delay or interfere with the adjudication process. Data that are not secure can lead to system-wide failures and data corruption. NHTSA's experience indicates that a successful *Impaired Driving Records Information System* requires significant efforts by a State to generate, transmit, store, update, link, manage, analyze, and report information on impaired driving offenders and citations. Such a system should include impaired driving-related information that is collected and managed by the system's stakeholders. Key system stakeholders include law enforcement agencies, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and the judicial system. A comprehensive electronic Impaired Driving Records Information System is a powerful tool to assist States in developing an effective system of deterrence for impaired driving. In the agency's latest reauthorization, Congress recognized the need for States to employ more robust impaired driving data systems. Section 2007(c) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), directs NHTSA to “issue guidelines to the States specifying the types and formats of data that States should collect relating to drivers who are arrested or convicted for violation of laws prohibiting the impaired operation of motor vehicles.” In response to that direction, the agency published a notice of proposed guidelines and invited public comment. The proposed guidelines were set forth in the form of a model system for impaired driving records, based on the results of NHTSA experience in this area. This experience suggests that important statistical and data elements should include data covering arrests, case prosecutions, court dispositions and sanctions, and that it is critical to provide for the linkage of such data and traffic records systems to appropriate jurisdictions and offices within the State. NHTSA's Experience: Impaired Driving Data Systems In 1997, NHTSA published “Driving While Intoxicated Tracking Systems” (DOT HS 808 520). This report laid the foundation for building a comprehensive tracking system for driving while intoxicated
(DWI)offenses. An effective DWI Tracking System was defined as one that:
(1)Effectively manages DWI information from arrest through sanction completion and/or license reinstatement;
(2)adequately gauges DWI trends and the effectiveness of a wide range of education, information, legislation, and other countermeasures and targeted reduction programs;
(3)provides key decision makers (law enforcement, DMV, prosecutors, judges, etc.) with adequate and timely information to allow equitable imposition of charges and penalties; and
(4)reduces the administrative burden on system stakeholders and improves efficiency while increasing the punitive nature of State laws and processes. Specific DWI Tracking System types in use effectively by States include case management systems, statistical systems and hybrid systems. The 1997 report recognized the importance of various key stakeholders to the success of the system. The judicial system was assumed to encompass the various parties involved in the prosecution and adjudication of impaired driving cases, including judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and, in some States, probation officials. Other identified key stakeholders included treatment agencies, departments of correction, departments of criminal justice, legislatures, advocacy groups, and the State Highway Safety Offices. Since each State is unique in its governmental structure and strategies, the report concluded that a single DWI tracking system design that would meet the needs of all States could not be developed. However, the report provided a framework for an effective core system, described the key system characteristics, discussed the criticality of DWI tracking, and laid the foundation for developing an effective DWI Tracking System. Since 1997, most States have worked to develop specific components of a DWI Tracking System, often with very little exchange or interaction between system components. Consequently, most States still lack a comprehensive system to identify, adjudicate, prosecute, and track incidences involving alcohol-impaired and/or other drug-impaired drivers. In 2001, in collaboration with State and Federal agencies, NHTSA expanded the framework of a DWI Tracking System to a more comprehensive impaired driving records information system. This expanded system, known as the *Model Impaired Driving Records Information System* , enabled a State to perform the following functions: • Appropriately charge and sentence offenders, based on their driving history; • Manage impaired driving cases from arrest through the completion of court and administrative sanctions; • Identify populations and trends, evaluate countermeasures and identify problematic components of the overall impaired driving control system; • Provide stakeholders with adequate and timely information to fulfill their responsibilities; and • Reduce administrative costs for system stakeholders and increase system efficiencies. In 2002, NHTSA solicited participation in a *Model Impaired Driving Records Information System* that provided immediate electronic access to driver history and vehicle information, electronic collection of data, electronic transmission of data between key stakeholders, and on-line access to complete, accurate, and timely information on impaired driving cases. 67 FR 40381 (June 12, 2002). With this system, States could begin to use the model requirements and data elements as a collective resource and thereby curb the installation of costly and duplicative record systems. The system ideally provides full access to all key stakeholders and addresses each stakeholder's needs. The system also tracks each impaired driving offense and offender administratively and through the judicial system, from arrest through dismissal or sentence completion, and provides aggregate data ( *e.g.* , number of arrests, convictions, blood alcohol concentration
(BAC)distribution, and offender demographics) to better manage a State's impaired driving program. States participating in this demonstration project include Alabama, Connecticut (added in 2004), Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. These States have implemented the use of real-time data to plan and better manage their impaired driving programs. NHTSA plans to make the results of these States' experiences available in 2007 to assist other States to improve impaired driving records information systems. The reports received to date from these sites indicate that using real-time data systems can not only be successfully accomplished, but that various obstacles to implementation can be overcome. Based on the agency's experience and the efforts described above, NHTSA has developed a framework for an effective data system containing records of impaired driving arrests and convictions. In response to the requirement in SAFETEA-LU to issue guidelines to assist the States in the types and formats of data to collect concerning impaired driving arrests and convictions, the agency published proposed guidelines on June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36877), in the form of a Model Impaired Driving Records Information System, and solicited comments from interested persons. Comments The agency received comments from the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (Virginia DMV), and the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE). GHSA “strongly concur[red]” with NHTSA on the need for improved state DWI data and supported comprehensive DWI tracking systems in the states. While embracing the NHTSA model as an “ideal system,” GHSA asserted that States face significant institutional barriers and it would take “millions of dollars and many years” to achieve full implementation. As a result, GHSA stressed that the model system proposed by NHTSA represents a “goal” and should not be a mandate or a condition for future Federal highway safety grants. In accordance with SAFETEA-LU, the model system sets forth guidelines on the types and formats of data States should collect concerning impaired driving arrests and convictions. The model system is not a mandate. Virginia DMV urged NHTSA to include clear security and data privacy parameters in the guidelines to protect the privacy of individuals. Virginia DMV also asserted that the issuance of guidelines was premature given that NHTSA is not scheduled to release the results of its impaired driving records demonstration project until 2007. In this regard, Virginia DMV noted that the results of its own pilot program on impaired driving records, scheduled to begin in October of 2006, would be instructive in further refining the guidelines. Virginia DMV thought that its concerns could best be addressed using information stemming from the results of NHTSA's demonstration program and its own pilot program. Finally, Virginia DMV requested that grant funds be made available to the states to implement the guidelines and that States be provided ample lead time for implementation should the guidelines be changed to regulations. NHTSA agrees with Virginia DMV that privacy and security of State information are important considerations. However, these considerations are beyond the scope of the guidelines, which are limited to the types and formats of impaired driving data states should collect. States should have their own processes in place to address privacy and security concerns for all data they may collect. NHTSA also agrees that the results of the demonstration project could serve to inform the guidelines. In fact, the guidelines reflect the practices used by the States in the demonstration project. However, the agency is unable to delay issuance of the guidelines until release of the demonstration project results as SAFETEA-LU directs that they be issued not later than 12 months after its enactment. Should the results of the demonstration project warrant it, the agency will update the guidelines. The making available of grant funds to implement the guidelines and the issuance of regulations are matters that are beyond the scope of this action. Any funding that might become available would be the subject of a separate announcement and the issuance of regulations would be guided by statute. The CRE was “perplexed that NHTSA failed to include in the **Federal Register** notice * * * a discussion of the guidelines' compliance with Departmental information quality standards and responsibilities.” CRE recommended that NHTSA conduct a pre-dissemination review of the proposed guidelines to ensure that they comply with Department of Transportation and Office of Management and Budget information quality guidelines and include a discussion of the conclusions reached in the **Federal Register** along with the final guidelines. CRE also recommended that all future NHTSA proposed and final actions include a discussion of the agency's adherence to the DOT and OMB information quality guidelines. The agency notes that CRE does not challenge the quality of the information contained in the guidelines, but instead suggests changes to our information review processes under the Data Quality Act. NHTSA adheres strictly to DOT and OMB guidelines for ensuring the “quality, objectivity, utility and integrity” of data disseminated by the agency. Before a proposed guideline, rule or other agency action is released by NHTSA, it is subjected to a rigorous pre-dissemination review involving various offices within NHTSA that possess extensive subject matter expertise. In the instant case, as we explained when we published the proposed guidelines and have restated in this document, these guidelines have grown out of almost a decade of experience and research and a demonstration project involving multiple States. We also solicited comment from the interested public. It should be observed that the agency is not releasing data to the public in these guidelines. Rather, in accordance with SAFETEA-LU, NHTSA is recommending the types and formats of impaired driving data that States should collect. Neither the Data Quality Act nor the DOT or OMB guidelines require us to publish a discussion of our internal pre-dissemination review. Rather, these guidelines simply direct that such a review take place, and that it be conducted in a manner that ensures that the information intended for dissemination has the requisite level of quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity required under the Act. We are confident that the process described above satisfies these requirements, and that we need not publish any additional discussion on the subject. Based on the comments received, we have made no changes to the proposed guidelines. Therefore, in accordance, with Section 2007(c) of SAFETEA-LU we are adopting, as final guidelines, the Model Impaired Driving Records System set forth below. Model Impaired Driving Records Information System Introduction The *Model Impaired Driving Records Information System* supports several important functions. It should: • Track each impaired driving offender from arrest through dismissal or sentence completion; • Provide aggregate impaired driving data; • Conform to national standards and system performance standards; • Provide accurate, complete, timely, and reliable data; and • Contain quality control and security features that prevent core and essential data elements and/or driving records from becoming corrupted or compromised. States vary widely in their organizational structure. States vary, for example, in the structure of their court systems and their executive functions related to public safety, driver licensing, public health, substance abuse, and criminal justice. Also, there are substantial differences in State laws concerning impaired driving, access to public records, acceptance of electronic signatures on charging documents, and many other areas. Therefore, some States may need to make adjustments to the model for conformance with their particular structures and systems. Specific Features The *Model Impaired Driving Records Information System* should have the following specific features: • Statewide coverage (DMV, all courts adjudicating impaired driving cases, all law enforcement agencies); • Electronic access by law enforcement officers and courts to current information on license history and status; vehicle registration status, applicable criminal history, and outstanding warrants; • An electronic citation system that is used by officers at the roadside and/or at the police station and that supports the use of bar codes, magnetic striping, or other technologies to automatically capture driver license and registration information on the citation and other standard legal forms, such as an implied consent form; • A citation tracking system that accepts electronic citation data (and other standard legal forms) from law enforcement agencies, provides real-time tracking and accountability from the distribution of citation forms to issuance by police officers, through the final court adjudication, and the imposition and completion of court and administrative sanctions, provides access by offender and by citation number or other unique identifier, and allows on-line access by stakeholders; • Electronic transmission of data from law enforcement agencies and the courts to the driver license system to permit immediate and automatic imposition of administrative sanctions, if applicable, and recording of convictions on the driver license; • Electronic reporting to courts and DMVs by probation, treatment, or correctional agencies, as applicable, with regard to compliance or non-compliance with court or administrative sanctions; • Linkage of information from the incident/case-based tracking system and the offender-based DMV license, treatment, and probation systems to develop a complete record for each offender, including driver history; • Timely access by all stakeholders, including the State Highway Safety Office, to periodic statistical reports needed to support agency operations and to manage the impaired driving control system, identify trends, and support problem identification, policy development, and evaluation of countermeasures; • Flexibility to include additional data and technological innovations; and • Conformity with national standards developed by, for example, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Core Data Definitions The core set of data available in the *Model Impaired Driving Records Information System* includes data generated as a result of an impaired driving arrest and the movement of the case through the system as well as data obtained from existing databases or created by linking existing data elements. Specific data elements should conform to national standards developed by AAMVA and others. Subject to State and Federal laws and policies regarding access to data and privacy restrictions, the core data available to (but not necessarily accessed by) the courts, DMV, and law enforcement agencies are listed below. The following data should be obtained from existing databases: • Driver identifying information, including name, address, driver license number and State, date of birth, physical characteristics (race, gender, height, eye color, weight); • Driver license class and endorsements, status ( *e.g.* , suspended, hardship license, cancelled), restrictions; • Vehicle license plate number and State of registration, status ( *e.g.* , registered, impounded, stolen), Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), DOT motor carrier identification number for commercial vehicles; • Relevant criminal history; • Outstanding warrants and other administrative actions; • In accordance with the State's policies for posting and retaining information on the driver record, offender's history of prior non-impaired driving traffic convictions and associated penalties, impaired driving convictions and/or pre-conviction administrative actions and associated penalties, crashes, current accumulated license penalty points, administrative license actions; and • Outstanding citations or arrests. The following data should be generated at the time of the impaired driving arrest and at subsequent points throughout the adjudication and sanctioning stages: • Arrest/citation information: ○ Citation number(s). ○ Date. ○ Time of day. ○ Roadway location and jurisdiction. ○ Arresting office, Law Enforcement Agency
(LEA)identifier. ○ Violation(s) charged. ○ Crash involvement, severity, number of passengers. ○ Alcohol test result: refusal, Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC), missing. ○ Drug test result: refusal, drugs detected, missing. ○ Results of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and other field tests, as applicable. • Pre-conviction administrative license and vehicle penalties imposed ○ Type of sanction. ○ Date imposed. ○ Length of sanction. • Prosecution/adjudication data ○ Court case identifier. ○ Date of arraignment. ○ Identifiers for court, judge, jurisdiction. ○ Date of disposition. ○ Completion or non-completion of pre-conviction or pre-sentence deferral program ( *e.g.* , court defers sentencing or conviction pending offender's completion of alcohol treatment program and/or other conditions). ○ Final court disposition ( *e.g.* , dismissed, acquitted, plea to reduced charge (specified), convicted of original charge after trial, diversion program, adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, pending). ○ Court penalties imposed, including length of jail sentence, house arrest, electronic home monitoring, plate impoundment, ignition interlock device; dollar amount of fines and fees; length and terms of probation; substance abuse assessment/treatment sentence; hours of community service; amount of restitution to victims; vehicle forfeiture; length of license revocation or suspension; other. ○ Probation report and/or pre-sentence assessment information, if available by law. • Subsequent violations, including driving while suspended/revoked, during license suspension period and resulting penalties. • Completion of treatment/assessment (start and finish dates). • Completion/non-completion of court and/or administrative sanctions, including amounts of fines and fees collected; terms of jail time, license suspension or revocation, vehicle or plate impoundment/forfeiture, community service, ignition interlock; other. • Penalties for failure to complete court and/or administrative sanctions or violations of probation, including license suspensions/revocations. • Whether license was reinstated and if so, date of reinstatement. Data Entry, Storage, and Transmission Although treatment agencies and other stakeholders provide important data to the system, the timely collection and transmission of data by the courts, Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), and Departments of Motor Vehicles
(DMVs)are of primary importance. Each of these agencies should generate and transmit data electronically. In States where data on alcohol and drug tests are collected and managed by a fourth agency, it is imperative that these data also are generated and transmitted electronically. Other types of data obtained from other agencies, such as treatment agencies, also should be transmitted electronically. The software for generating court records and citations should have extensive edits and menu pull-downs to minimize data entry errors. When used correctly, the software should ensure that data entry is virtually error-free. The electronic citation software should provide for the automatic population of the citation form and any other related arrest forms with information from the driver license and vehicle registration. This may be accomplished through several mechanisms, including the use of bar codes or magnetic striping or by accessing the driver license file online from a mobile computer in the patrol vehicle or station. The court and DMV systems should have built-in audits that periodically check a sample of records for the timeliness of the receipt of the data and the accuracy and completeness of the records. Ideally, each component of the system should provide real-time, on-line access to stakeholders and real-time, immediate transmission of data. Electronic capture, retrieval, and data transmission provides for timeliness and consistency in data. Also, electronic system edits ensure more accurate and reliable data. Law enforcement officers and courts should have immediate (or near-equivalent) access to current driver license and registration records and criminal history records. The immediate access to driver license and registration information may be accomplished in various ways, including the use of palm pilots or on-line access to the driver license file through a mobile computer in the vehicle or at the station. If allowed by State law and policy, officers and courts should be able to correct or update a limited number of specified fields in the driver record. For example, a driver's address may be incorrect on the driver license record because the driver changed residence but failed to notify DMV. Specific Major Stakeholder Data Requirements While various stakeholders are important to the success of the Model system, NHTSA's experience has shown that key system stakeholders include LEAs, DMVs and the courts. *Law Enforcement Agencies.* The electronic issuance of citations and other standardized forms ( *e.g.* , alcohol or drug test form) should occur at the point of arrest, either at the roadside or at the station, depending on local and State laws and policies. Immediately, or no later than 48 hours after the issuance of the citation, the citation record should be transmitted electronically to the courts and the DMV (if the State imposes pre-conviction administrative license or vehicle sanctions) and integrated into the court and DMV computer systems. The electronic transmission of data can occur in several ways, for example, by wireless transfer via low-energy waves of cellular/digital networks, by downloading the data to a disk and transmitting via the Internet from a desktop computer connected to a landline, or online from a mobile computer in the vehicle. The data may go directly to the courts or be routed through data centers located throughout a State. The results of drug tests and alcohol tests, when based on a blood sample, will not be available at the time of the arrest and must be provided at a later date. An interface with unique identifiers allows for seamless electronic transfer of test results to the appropriate offender, which ultimately improves system efficiencies and significantly reduces errors. *Courts.* Many, if not most, courts use case management software to track cases and support administrative functions ( *e.g.* , scheduling court appearances and assigning cases). Traffic Court Case Management Systems Functional Requirement Standards are obtainable from the National Center for State Courts Technology Services at *http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/standards/.* Electronic citation information transmitted by Law Enforcement Agencies
(LEAs)may interface directly with a court database or be sent via an interim data warehouse or gateway to which data are sent and then retrieved by courts and other authorized parties ( *e.g.* , prosecutors, defense attorneys). After any necessary translation of the record layout, the electronic citation becomes part of the court's electronic case record and the court's case management system LEAs, the DMV, prosecutors, and other key stakeholders should have online access to query the court system about the status of a particular case or a set of cases ( *e.g.* , citations issued by an LEA in the past month). In States where only one violation is placed on a citation form, the system should allow for accessing all citations issued to an offender in a particular incident. The information needed by the DMV ( *e.g.* , notice of conviction or completion of arraignment, prompting administrative license or vehicle sanctions) should be transmitted electronically by the courts immediately, or no later than 48 hours after the action ( *e.g.* , conviction or arraignment). This transmission may occur through a variety of mechanisms, for example, via the Internet with the DMV accessing a mailbox on a court Web site and downloading relevant files or via the Internet directly from the court to the DMV. Programming by the courts or the DMVs may be needed to translate court records into a form that can be integrated with DMV records. *DMV.* Driver license and vehicle records that are easily understood should be available electronically to the courts, LEAs, and other authorized stakeholders. The driver license and vehicle registration systems should be adapted as necessary to receive information electronically from the courts and LEAs, if applicable. Data received from the courts or LEAs should be integrated into the DMV data bases immediately, or no later than 24 hours after receipt of data. The licensing and vehicle registration computer systems should be programmed so that administrative and court-ordered sanctions are triggered automatically when the information is received from the courts or LEAs. Information needed by treatment agencies, probation offices, and other agencies involved in sanctioning offenders should be provided electronically by the DMV to the extent practicable. In turn, these agencies should report electronically to the DMV about the completion of sanction. The DMV also should develop protocols with the courts to ensure that information related to the failure to complete sanctions and corrections to court records identified by the DMV are transmitted back to the courts. Statistical Report Capabilities A *Model Impaired Driving Records Information System* enables organizational stakeholders, including the State Highway Safety Office, the State legislature, NHTSA, and others, to obtain periodic and special statistical reports on impaired driving activities within the State. Standardized statistical reports should be periodically generated, and the stakeholders and other authorized system users should be able to obtain simple sets of statistical data on an ad hoc basis through a user-friendly protocol, to the extent that State laws permit. In States where some of the relevant records are sealed to protect personal privacy, the system should permit such records to be included in aggregate summaries. States vary widely in their definitions of first and repeat impaired driving offenses, both in terms of the look-back period of years and in terms of the offenses that qualify as a prior offense. In some States, for example, a refusal to submit to the alcohol test would count as a prior offense. In generating statistics related to first and repeat offenses, data should be generated using the State's definition of a repeat offense. Current and historical aggregated data should be available, and the data should be available on a statewide basis, by jurisdiction, or for specific courts or LEAs, as applicable. Aggregate numbers and rates ( *e.g.* , alcohol test refusals per person arrested), as applicable, should be provided for the following first and subsequent offenses, to the extent that State laws permit: • Impaired driving arrest events (including multiple-charge events) by charge; • All types of final court dispositions, for example, conviction on original charge, conviction on reduced charge (specified), acquittal, dismissal, adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, pending failure to appear in court; • Trials by charge and disposition; • Location of arrests, *e.g.* , roadway segment, jurisdiction; • Alcohol test refusals and BAC results for tests administered; • Drug test refusals and results for tests administered; • Age and gender of persons arrested and convicted; • All types of court penalties imposed; • All types of administrative penalties imposed by the DMV, for example, pre-conviction driver license suspension, pre-conviction license plate impoundment; • Sentence or adjudication diversions/deferrals, if applicable; • Referrals to treatment by first and repeat offender; • Completion/non-completion of treatment; • License reinstatements; • Sentence completions/non-completions, for example, paid and unpaid fines, jail time served/not served, and community service completed/not completed; • Average time from arrest to first court appearance, to conviction, and to sentencing statewide by charge; • Outstanding warrants issued and other administrative actions; and • Subsequent violations, including driving while suspended/revoked, and resulting penalties during license suspension period. The generation of much of these data draws from and links information stored in various stakeholders' systems. Depending on a State's laws for charging violations, deriving a particular measure ( *e.g.* , second offenders) may necessitate linking data from a case-based records system ( *e.g.* , court system) with data from a driver-based records system ( *e.g.* , DMV system). The priority for each of the three key stakeholders (LEAs, courts, DMV) is necessarily developing a data system to support its operations and responsibilities. Thus, it is unlikely that any of these stakeholders currently has or will develop a computer system with the capability to generate these kinds of linked data, unless this is a statutory responsibility of the organization. Data Warehouse What will typically be required is a data warehouse, or its equivalent, with a database drawing from the various stakeholder data systems, with the capability to link these data and generate standardized periodic statistical reports, and with user-friendly access to stakeholders. A single agency should have the responsibility for developing and maintaining this data warehouse, based on the mutual agreement of the key stakeholders. It may be one of the key stakeholders—most likely the DMV—or it may be another organization, such as the highway safety office, a university, a legislative research division, or a criminal justice organization. Each stakeholder should have a secure means of access to the information, for example, through a secure “mailbox.” The centralized data repository may be a single database, procedures for assimilating data, or a networked distributed database with access gateways. The data warehouse does not replace the need for each stakeholder to maintain its own data records system. Nor does it eliminate the need for each stakeholder's system to be accessible on-line for basic queries by other stakeholders, since only selected data would be extracted from each stakeholder's system. In addition, for the data warehouse function to operate most effectively, it should be viewed as serving an end in itself (that is, the generation of statistical information cutting across agencies and across the different stages of the impaired driving process), rather than as an adjunct to a stakeholder system designed for a different, albeit related, purpose. Guidelines for Implementation States should assess their own circumstances as they conform their DWI tracking systems to the Model System. These circumstances include the complexity of the State's impaired driving law, the amount and types of resources needed to purchase hardware and software and to obtain programming support, the telecommunications infrastructure in the State to support roadside access to DMV driver records and to move data electronically among stakeholders, the computer network for the transmission of data among stakeholders, the degree of uniformity with regard to procedures and policies within organizations and jurisdictions, and intra-organizational and inter-organizational issues such as territorial concerns, poorly defined roles and responsibilities, and lack of agreement on priorities, problems, or solutions within the State. States may need to address particular obstacles or accommodate certain critical factors in conforming to the model system. For example, depending on geography and size, the impaired driving stakeholders may not have the ability or the resources to upgrade an inadequate telecommunications infrastructure. The selected system must be capable of functioning within this environment. In addition to problematic telecommunications infrastructure, a State's ability to implement improvements to existing system components is hampered by complicated impaired driving laws ( *e.g.* , tiered BAC systems, different levels of offenses adjudicated by different courts, complex mixes of administrative and court sanctions), a non-unified court system, the lack of a uniform traffic citation, paper-based and antiquated mainframe systems within the stakeholder agencies, and budget constraints. In order to attempt full conformity with the Model System, States should undertake the following steps: • Under the auspices of the State's Traffic Records Coordinating Committee, form a subcommittee or task force charged with overseeing the development and implementation of the system, including the courts (judges, prosecutors, and probation, if applicable), the DMV, the State police and local LEA representatives, treatment, the highway safety office, and other important stakeholders; • Designate a single lead agency for developing and implementing the system; • Establish a mechanism for working with the State's information and technology offices to plan and implement the system, including writing software and hardware specifications, selecting vendors, etc.; • Develop a shared understanding of stakeholders' roles and responsibilities; • Develop a detailed impaired driving critical path. This critical path describes the step-by-step procedures related to an impaired driving offense, beginning with the citation, continuing through adjudication (administrative and judicial), and ending when the disposition is posted to the driver file (see diagram below). • Conduct a detailed assessment of current systems to collect, manage, and analyze impaired driving data, in comparison with the model system. (An appropriate assessment of the current systems in comparison with the model system should inventory the current stock of hardware and software to identify the needs of courts, LEAs, the DMV, and other key stakeholders, relate the current systems to the detailed impaired driving critical path, identify deficiencies and steps needed to conform to the specific features noted in the “ *Specific Features of the Model System* ” section of these guidelines, examine the compatibility of existing record formats, processes, hardware, software, etc., and evaluate the State's compliance with national standards, for example, standards for electronically readable driver licenses); • Standardize processes, procedures, forms, terminology, and data elements among stakeholders and jurisdictions; • Develop a detailed, step-by-step, long-range plan (including funding levels) for implementing and maintaining the resulting system, training personnel in affected agencies, system upgrades, and obtaining buy-in from the primary stakeholders; • Develop a formal interagency cooperative agreement to implement the plan, detailing the responsibilities of the agencies and potential sources of short-term and long-term funding; • Identify statutory, regulatory, or procedural changes needed to implement the system; consider simplification of regulations or laws; • Establish protocols for authorizing system users and procedures to protect personal privacy rights and the security of the system; • Identify sources of funding; consider the use of dedicated fees or fines; • Consider working with other States to take advantage of economies of scale and to minimize duplicative efforts; and • Formulate a plan to “sell” the importance of the system to the public, advocacy groups, and State policymakers and enlist their support for implementation of improved impaired driving records information system components and related systems. BILLING CODE 4910-59-P Example of an Impaired Driving Critical Path 1 1 Based on “DWI Tracking System” (NHTSA 1997). ER30AU06.000 Issued on: August 25, 2006. Marilena Amoni, Associate Administrator for Research and Program Development. [FR Doc. E6-14463 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-C DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Departmental Offices; Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection that is due for extension approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Office of International Monetary and Financial Policy within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning Extension of Foreign Currency Form FC-1 (OMB No. 1505-0012) Weekly Consolidated Foreign Currency Report of Major Market Participants, Form FC-2 (OMB No. 1505-0010) Monthly Consolidated Foreign Currency Report of Major Market Participants, and Form FC-3 (OMB No. 1505-0014) Quarterly Consolidated Foreign Currency Report. The reports are mandatory. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before October 30, 2006 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Timothy D. DuLaney, Office of International Monetary and Financial Policy, Department of the Treasury, Room 5422, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. In view of possible delays in mail delivery, please also notify Mr. DuLaney by e-mail ( *Tim.Dulaney@do.treas.gov* ), FAX (202-622-2021) or telephone (202-622-2052). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the proposed forms and instructions are available on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Web site, in the U.S. Department of the Treasury section of the webpage for Regulatory Reports Forms and Instructions at: *http://www.ny.frb.org/bankinfo/regrept/regrept.html* . Requests for additional information should be directed to Mr. DuLaney. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Weekly Consolidated Foreign Currency Report of Major Market Participants, Foreign Currency Form FC-1. *OMB Control Number:* 1505-0012. *Title:* Monthly Consolidated Foreign Currency Report of Major Market Participants, Foreign Currency Form FC-2. *OMB Control Number:* 1505-0010. *Title:* Quarterly Consolidated Foreign Currency Report, Foreign Currency Form FC-3. *OMB Control Number:* 1505-0014. *Abstract:* The filing of Foreign Currency Forms FC-1, FC-2, and FC-3 is required by law (31 U.S.C. 5315, 31 CFR part 128, subpart C), which directs the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations requiring reports on foreign currency transactions conducted by a United States person or a foreign person controlled by a United States person. The forms collect data on the foreign exchange spot, forward, futures, and options markets from all significant market participants. *Current Actions:* No changes to the current forms FC-1, FC-2 and FC-3 and instructions are being proposed. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* Foreign Currency Form FC-1: 24 respondents. Foreign Currency Form FC-2: 24 respondents. Foreign Currency Form FC-3: 44 respondents. *Estimated Average Time Per Respondent:* Foreign Currency Form FC-1: One
(1)hour per respondent per response. Foreign Currency Form FC-2: Four
(4)hours per respondent per response. Foreign Currency Form FC-3: Eight
(8)hours per respondent per response. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* Foreign Currency Form FC-1: 1,248 hours, based on 52 reporting periods per years. Foreign Currency Form FC-2: 1,152 hours, based on 12 reporting period per year. Foreign Currency Form FC-3: 1,408 hours, based on 4 reporting periods per year. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. The public is invited to submit written comments concerning:
(a)Whether Foreign Currency Forms FC-1, FC-2, and FC-3 are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Office, including whether the information will have practical uses;
(b)the accuracy of the above estimates of the burdens;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, usefulness and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the reporting and /or record keeping burdens on respondents, including the use of information technologies to automate the collection of the data; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs of operation, maintenance and purchase of services to provide information. Timothy D. DuLaney, Office of International Monetary and Financial Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury. [FR Doc. E6-14347 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4811-37-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 24, 2006. The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before September 29, 2006 to be assured of consideration. Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)*OMB Number:* 1545-1699. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* REG-103805-99 (Final) Agent for Consolidated Group. *Description:* The information is needed in order for a terminating common parent of a consolidated group to designate a substitute agent for the group and receive approval of the Commissioner, or for a default substitute agent to notify the Commissioner that it is the default substitute agent, pursuant to Trea. Reg. Sec. 1.1502-77(d). The Commissioner will use the information to determine whether to approve the designation of the substitute agent (if approval is required) and to change the IRS's records to reflect the information about the substitute agent. *Respondents:* Businesses and other for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 200 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-0991. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Application to Participate in the IRS e-file Program. *Form:* 8633. *Description:* Form 8633 is used by tax preparers, electronic return collectors, software firms, service bureaus and electronic transmitters, as an application to participate in the electronic filing program covering individual income tax returns. *Respondents:* Business and other for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 50,000 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-1538. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Notice 97-34, Information Reporting on Transactions With Foreign Trusts and on Large Foreign Gifts. *Description:* This notice provides guidance on the foreign trust and foreign gift information reporting provisions contained in the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. *Respondents:* Businesses or other for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 3,750 hours. *OMB Number:* 1545-0892. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Report of Cash Payment Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business. *Form:* 8300. *Description:* Anyone in a trade or business who, in the course of such trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in cash or foreign currency in one or more related transactions must report it to the IRS and provide a statement to the payor. Any transaction must report be reported under Title 31 on Form 4789 is exempted from reporting the same transaction on Form 8300. *Respondents:* Businesses or other for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 87,757 hours. *Clearance Officer:* Glenn P. Kirkland,
(202)622-3428, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. *OMB Reviewer:* Alexander T. Hunt,
(202)395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Robert Dahl, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-14467 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service [INTL-64-93] Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, INTL-64-93 (TD 8611). Conduit Arrangements Regulations (§§ 1.881-4 and 1.6038A-3). DATES: Written comments should be received on or before October 30, 2006 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Larnice Mack at Internal Revenue Service, room 6512, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at
(202)622-3179, or through the internet at ( *Larnice.Mack@irs.gov* ). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Conduit Arrangements Regulations. *OMB Number:* 1545-1440. *Regulation Project Number:* INTL-64-93. *Abstract:* This regulation provides rules that permit the district director to recharacterize a financing arrangement as a conduit arrangement. The recharacterization will affect the amount of U.S. withholding tax due on financing transactions that are part of the financing arrangement. This regulation affects withholding agents and foreign investors who engage in multi-party financing arrangements. *Current Actions:* There is no change to this existing regulation. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,000. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 10 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 10,000. The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: August 11, 2006. Glenn Kirkland, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-14419 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission; Notice of Meeting The Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission has scheduled a meeting for September 13-15, 2006, in the Ballroom of the Beacon Hotel, 1615 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will begin 8:30 a.m. each day. on September 13, the meeting will end at 5 p.m., on September 14 at 4:30 p.m., and on September 15 at 12 noon. the meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the Commission is to carry out a study of the benefits under the laws of the United States that are provided to compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. The agenda for September 13 will include updates on the progress of the studies being conducted by the Institute of Medicine
(IOM)and the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA). CNA will also present a report of its review of lump sum payments as an option for disability compensation. There will be a presentation by the Veterans Health Administration on environmental and deployment health issues related to presumption of service connection and an overview by Commission staff of the Bradley Commission report. The agenda for September 14 will include a briefing on the Army's Battle Mind Training program and discussions of the 2006 Older Americans Report and the aging veteran population, as well as initial draft issue papers by Commission staff. Commissioners Cassiday and McGinn will provide a summary of their regional team site visits to the Pacific Northwest and New England. There will also be time set aside on Thursday afternoon, September 14, for public comments. On September 15, the Commission will receive an update on the VA-DoD Information Technology
(IT)initiatives in various stages of development or implementation to foster interoperability between the two agencies' health IT systems. Certification and training for VA Compensation and Pension examiners and the use of templates for these exams will also be addressed. Interested persons may attend and present oral statements to the Commission on Thursday, September 14. Oral presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, depending on the number of participants. Interested parties may also provide written comments for review by the Commission prior to the meeting or at any time, by e-mail to *veterans@vetscommission.intranets.com* or by mail to Mr. Ray Wilburn, Executive Director, Veteran's Disability Benefits Commission, 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20004. Dated: August 23, 2006. By Direction of the Secretary. E. Philip Riggin, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 06-7219 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 9
Traces to 9 documents
U.S. Code
- Importing motor vehicles capable of complying with standards§ 30141
- Certification of compliance§ 30115
- Release of motor vehicles and bonds§ 30146
- Responsibility for defects and noncompliance§ 30147
- Remedies for defects and noncompliance§ 30120
- Petitions by interested persons for standards and enforcement§ 30162
- Reports on foreign currency transactions§ 5315
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information§ 6103
8 references not yet in our index
- 49 CFR 573
- 49 CFR 1.50
- 49 CFR 571.216
- 49 CFR 552.8
- 31 CFR 128
- Pub. L. 104-13
- T.D. 8611
- Pub. L. 92-463
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Annual list of defect and noncompliance decisions affecting nonconforming vehicles imported by registered importers
Cite49 CFR 573
Cite49 CFR 1.50
Cite49 CFR 571.216
Cites 17 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources