Notices. Notice of Meeting

20,125 words·~91 min read·/register/2006/11/03/06-9041

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

BILLING CODE 9210-01-P OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY Meeting of the Advisory Commission on Drug Free Communities AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control Policy. ACTION: Notice of Meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Drug Free Communities Act, a meeting of the Advisory Commission on Drug Free Communities will be held on December 7 and 8, 2006, at the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the 5th Floor Conference Room, 750 17th Street NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will commence at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, December 7, 2006 and adjourn for the evening at 5:30 p.m.

The meeting will reconvene at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, December 8, 2006 in the same location. The meeting will adjourn at 4 p.m. on Friday, December 8, 2006. The agenda includes: Remarks by ONDCP Director John P. Walters, remarks by ONDCP Deputy Director Mary Ann Solberg, remarks by the DFC Program's Administrator, a discussion of the program's evaluation, a review of new grant awards, and an update from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. There will be an opportunity for public comment from 9-9:30 on Friday December 8, 2006.

Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting and/or make public comment should contact Carlos Dublin, at

(202)395-6762 to arrange building access. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Shapiro,

(202)395-6762. Dated: October 30, 2006. Linda V. Priebe, Assistant General Counsel. [FR Doc. E6-18550 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3180-02-P NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES General Clearance for Guidelines, Applications, and Reporting Forms AGENCIES: Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities. ACTION: Notice of requests for information collection, comment request. SUMMARY: The Institute of Museum and Library Services as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3508(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Institute of Museum and Library Services is currently soliciting comments on IMLS program guidelines and reporting requirements. DATES: Comments must be received by January 2, 2007. The IMLS is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.,* permitting electronic submission of responses. ADDRESSES: For a copy of the documents contact: Barbara Smith, E-Projects Officer, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M Street, NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC. Ms. Smith can be reached by telephone: 202-653-4688; fax: 202-653-8625; or e-mail: *bsmith@imls.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Institute of Museum and Library Services

(IMLS)is an independent Federal grant-making agency authorized by the Museum and Library Services Act, Pub. L. 104-208. IMLS is charged with promoting the improvement of library and museum services for the benefit of the public. Through grant-making and library and museum services, IMLS seeks to assure that libraries and museums are able to play an active role in cultivating an educated and engaged citizenry. IMLS builds the capacities of libraries and museums by encouraging the highest standards in management, pubic service, and education; leadership in the use of technology; strategic planning for results, and partnerships to create new networks that support lifelong learning and the effective management of assets. According to its strategic plan, IMLS is dedicated to creating and sustaining a nation of learners by helping libraries and museums serve their communities. IMLS believes that libraries and museums are key resources for education in the United States and promote the vision of a learning society in which learning is seen as a community-wide responsibility supported by both formal and informal educational entities. Pub. L. 104-208 enacted on September 30, 1996 contains the Library Services and Technology Act and the Museum Services Act. These Acts authorize the Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services to make grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements for activities that support museum and library services to the public. II. Current Actions To administer these programs of grants, cooperative agreements and contracts, IMLS must develop application guidelines, applications and reporting forms. *Agency:* Institute of Museum and Library Services. *Title:* IMLS Guidelines, Applications and Reporting Forms *OMB Number:* 3137-0029, 3137-0049, 3137-0056, 3137-0057; 3137-0060; 3137-0065. *Agency Number:* 3137. *Frequency:* Annually, Semi-annually. *Affected Public:* State Library Administrative Agencies, museums, libraries, institutions of higher education, library and museum professional associations, and museum and library professionals, Native tribes. *Number of Respondents:* 4700. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* .25-120 hours. *Total Burden Hours:* 69,019. *Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs:* 0. *Total Annual Costs:* $1,380,000. *Contact:* For a copy of the documents contact: Barbara Smith, E-Projects Officer, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 1800 M Street, NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC. Ms. Smith can be reached by telephone: 202-653-4688; fax: 202-653-8625; or e-mail: *bsmith@imls.gov.* Dated: October 30, 2006. Rebecca Danvers, Director of Research and Technology. [FR Doc. E6-18551 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7036-01-P NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HUMANITIES Meeting October 27, 2006. Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended) notice is hereby given the National Council on the Humanities will meet in Washington, DC on November 16-17, 2006. The purpose of the meeting is to advise the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities with respect to policies, programs, and procedures for carrying out his functions, and to review applications for financial support from and gifts offered to the Endowment and to make recommendations thereon to the Chairman. The meeting will be held in the Old Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC A portion of the morning and afternoon sessions on November 16-17, 2006, will not be open to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4),(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code because the Council will consider information that may disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency action. I have made this determination under the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority dated July 19, 1993. The agenda for the sessions on November 16, 2006 will be as follows: Committee Meetings (Open to the Public) Policy Discussion. 9-10:30 a.m. Challenge Grants—Room 420 Education Programs—Room M-07 Federal/State Partnership—Room 510 Preservation and Access—Room 415 Research Programs—Room 315 (Closed to the Public) Discussion of specific grant applications and programs before the Council. 10:30 a.m. until Adjourned Challenge Grants—Room 420 Education Programs—Room M-07 Federal/State Partnership—Room 510 Preservation and Access—Room 415 Research Programs—Room 315 The morning session on November 17, 2006 will convene at 9 a.m., in the 1st Floor Council Room M-09, and will be open to the public, as set out below. The agenda for the morning session will be as follows: A. Minutes of the Previous Meeting B. Reports 1. Introductory Remarks 2. Staff Report 3. Congressional Report 4. Budget Report 5. Reports on Policy and General Matters a. Challenge Grants b. Education Programs c. Federal/State Partnership d. Preservation and Access e. Research Programs The remainder of the proposed meeting will be given to the consideration of specific applications and closed to the public for the reasons stated above. Further information about this meeting can be obtained from Heather Gottry, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, or by calling

(202)606-8322, TDD

(202)606-8282. Advance notice of any special needs or accommodations is appreciated. Heather Gottry, Acting Advisory Committee, Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-18552 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket NOS. 50-317 AND 50-318] Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 50.46 and Appendix K to Part 50 for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69, issued to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2), located in Calvert County, Maryland. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed exemption would allow the licensee to use up to four lead fuel assemblies

(LFAs)containing a limited number of fuel rods with cladding other than Zircaloy or ZIRLO in the core of either Calvert Cliffs 1 or 2. Two of the LFAs were manufactured by Westinghouse Electric Company and contain a limited number of fuel rods clad with advanced zirconium-based alloys. The other two LFAs were manufactured by Framatome ANP, Inc. with fuel rod cladding material as M5 alloy. These LFAs were originally inserted into the Calvert Cliffs 2 core in April of 2003 (operating cycles 15 and 16). The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated January 19, 2006. The Need for the Proposed Action 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K make no provisions for use of fuel rods clad in a material other than Zircaloy or ZIRLO. Since the material specifications of the advanced zirconium-based and M5 alloys differ from the specification for Zircaloy or ZIRLO, a plant-specific exemption is required to support the use of the four LFAs for either Calvert Cliffs 1 or 2. If the exemption were not approved, the licensee would not gain practical experience of these designs relative to grid-to-rod fretting. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the exemption described above would continue to satisfy the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K and will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. The safety evaluations performed by Westinghouse and Framatome ANP demonstrate that the predicted chemical, mechanical, and material performance of the advanced zirconium and M5 cladding are acceptable under all anticipated operational occurrences and postulated accidents. Furthermore, the LFAs will be placed in non-limiting core locations (low duty locations on the core periphery). In the event that the cladding failures occur in the LFAs, the environmental impact would be minimal and is bound by the previous environmental assessments. The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the regulation. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action ( *i.e.* , the “no-action” alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2, dated April 1973, and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG-1437, Supplement 1), dated October 1999. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on October 27, 2006, the staff consulted with the Maryland State official, Mr. R. McLean of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated January 19, 2006. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of October 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-18594 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Rule 15a-5; SEC File No. 270-527; OMB Control No. 3235-0587. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collections of information discussed below. Section 15(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-15(a)) (the “Investment Company Act” or “Act”) prohibits any person from serving as an investment adviser (or a subadviser) to a fund except under a written contract that the fund's shareholders have approved. The Commission has granted exemptive relief, by order, to a number of registered open-end management investment companies (“funds”) whose investment advisers do not directly manage a portfolio of securities, but instead supervise one or more subadvisers, which are themselves responsible for the day-to-day management of the funds' portfolios (“manager of managers funds”). 1 Sponsors have analogized subadvisers in a manager of managers arrangement to portfolio managers employed by a fund adviser who may be hired and fired without the consent of shareholders. 1 In this notice, we use the term “subadviser” to mean a party that contracts with a fund's principal adviser to provide investment advisory services to the fund, and the term “principal adviser” to mean a party that contracts directly with a fund to provide investment advisory services to the fund. Proposed Rule 15a-5 (17 CFR 270.15a-5) and amendments to Form N-1A (17 CFR 239.15A, 17 CFR 274.11A) together would codify the orders we have issued for manager of managers funds, including many of their conditions, allowing any fund that satisfies the conditions to enter into or materially amend a subadvisory contract without shareholder approval. To provide for the protection of fund shareholders, a fund that relied on the proposed rule would have to satisfy a number of conditions, some of which would result in information collection requirements. For example, any fund that relied on the proposed rule would have to include certain provisions in all its advisory and subadvisory contracts. Specifically, all the fund's subadvisory contracts for which shareholder approval is not sought would have to provide the principal adviser with the authority to terminate the subadvisory contract at any time, on no more than 60 days written notice, without payment of penalty. 2 In addition, the advisory contract between each principal adviser and the fund would have to require that the principal adviser supervise the activities of its subadvisers. These provisions are intended to ensure that only manager of managers funds (in which subadvisers resemble and perform the duties of a portfolio manager in a typical fund) are eligible for relief under the proposed rule and to allow the principal adviser to carry out its principal duties to the fund, the selection and monitoring of subadvisers, in an efficient manner. 2 Most subadvisory contracts already contain terms that allow the principal adviser to terminate the contract at any time. We therefore estimate there would be no burden hours or costs imposed on funds by this requirement. During the first year after adoption of the rule, Commission staff estimates that each fund relying on the rule would incur an initial one-time burden to modify its existing contract with the principal adviser to require the principal adviser to supervise the activities of its subadvisers. Staff estimates this burden would be 5 hours per fund (4 hours by in-house counsel, 0.5 hours by fund directors, 0.5 hours by support staff). 3 Commission staff estimates that 149 funds would have to modify their advisory contracts with their principal advisers to comply with the proposed rule, which would result in an estimated total of 745 burden hours and 149 responses. 4 3 These estimates are based on discussions with fund representatives. 4 These 149 funds include 125 funds that currently rely on exemptive orders, 14 funds that have filed an application for an exemptive order and, as explained infra note 5, 10 additional funds that we estimate would choose to rely on the proposed rule during the first year. Commission staff estimates that after the first year, approximately 10 funds 5 would spend, on average, 5 hours annually (4 hours by in-house counsel, 0.5 hours by fund directors, 0.5 hours by support staff) to modify their advisory contracts with their principal advisers to comply with the proposed rule. Thus, the Commission estimates these modifications would result in a total of 50 burden hours and 10 responses. 5 Based on the number of manager of managers applications submitted since 1995, the staff estimates that 20 additional funds would seek to rely on the proposed rule each year. Approximately 10 of those funds would be funds whose securities have already been publicly offered, and therefore would need to modify their advisory contracts with principal advisers. We estimate that the 10 new funds that would rely on the proposed rule would incur no additional burden or costs to include this provision in the initial advisory contract. The proposed rule also would require funds to provide shareholders (and file with the Commission) an information statement within 90 days after entry into the subadvisory contract or after making a material change to a wholly-owned subsidiary's existing subadvisory contract. The information statement must describe the agreement and contain all of the information that shareholders would have received in a proxy statement had a shareholder vote been held. This information collection is needed to ensure that shareholders are aware of the identity of the subadvisers that would be making investment decisions for the fund and the terms of each subadvisory contract. During the first 3 years after adoption of the proposed rule, Commission staff estimates that 179 funds 6 would each spend 20 hours 7 annually in preparing and distributing information statements. The total annual estimate for complying with the third party disclosure requirement of 15a-5 would be 3580 burden hours and 358 responses. 6 Commission staff estimates that 159 funds (including 125 funds that currently rely on exemptive orders, 14 funds that have filed an application for an exemptive order, and 20 additional funds that would have filed for exemptive relief during the first year after the rule's adoption) would rely on the proposed rule during the first year after its adoption. After the first year, the staff estimates that each year 20 additional funds would rely on the proposed rule. 7 Based on discussions with fund representatives, the Commission estimates that on average each fund would hire 2 new subadvisers per year. Therefore, funds would be required to send to shareholders 2 information statements per year. Based on discussions with fund representatives, the Commission estimates that each fund would spend 10 hours to prepare and mail each information statement. To arrive at the total information collection burden, staff has calculated a weighted average of the first year burden and the annual burden thereafter. Using a three-year period, the estimated weighted annual average information collection burden is 3862 hours 8 and 414 responses. 9 8 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (4325 hours (year 1) + 3630 hours (year 2) + 3630 hours (year 3)) ÷ 3 = 3861.6 hours. 9 This estimate is based on the following calculation: (507 responses (year 1) + 368 responses (year 2) + 368 responses (year 3)) ÷3 = 414.3 responses. The collections of information required by proposed 15a-5 would be voluntary because 15a-5 is an exemptive rule and, therefore, funds may choose not to rely on the proposed rule. The filings with the Commission required under the proposed rule would be available to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. General comments regarding the above information should be directed to the following persons:

(i)Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: *David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov* ; and

(ii)R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312, or send an e-mail to: *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov* . Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice. Dated: October 30, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-18608 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54671; File No. SR-MSRB-2006-08] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendment to Rule A-6, on Committees of the Board October 30, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on October 24, 2006, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB” or “Board”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the MSRB. The MSRB has filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change consisting of an amendment to Rule A-6, on committees of the Board, to delete a provision from the rule that states that, in all matters, the role of any committee shall be solely advisory. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site ( *http://www.msrb.org* ), at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Board has been reviewing its Administrative Rules and by-laws to ensure that they are consistent with current good corporate governance practices. Rule A-6, on committees of the Board, currently provides, among other things, that in all matters, the role of any Board committee shall be solely advisory. The Board has determined to delete this provision from the rule (as well as from By-Law Article 6) to allow Board committees to undertake appropriate responsibilities at the direction of the Board or pursuant to the committee charters consistent with such good corporate governance practices. 5 5 Such practices include, but are not limited to, vesting responsibility in the audit committee for the hiring, firing and compensation of the independent financial auditors. 2. Statutory Basis The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(I) of the Act, 6 which authorizes the MSRB to adopt rules that provide for the operation and administration of the MSRB. The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with this provision because it is concerned solely with the operation and administration of the MSRB. 6 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(I). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act since it only applies to the operation and administration of the MSRB. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Date of Commission Action The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 7 and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder 8 because it is concerned solely with the administration of the MSRB. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 9 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3). 9 *See* Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-MSRB-2006-08 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2006-08. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2006-08 and should be submitted on or before November 24, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 10 10 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-18607 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; New System of Records AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA). ACTION: Proposed new system of records and proposed routine uses. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (e)(11)), we are issuing public notice of our intent to establish a new system of records, entitled the *Identity Management System* , 60-0361, and routine uses applicable to this system of records. Hereinafter, we will refer to the proposed system of records as the *IDMS* system. We invite public comment on this proposal. DATES: We filed a report of the proposed new *IDMS* system and proposed routine use disclosures with the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform, and the Director, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget on October 26, 2006. The proposed *IDMS* system and proposed routine uses will become effective on December 5, 2006, unless we receive comments warranting them not to become effective. ADDRESSES: Interested individuals may comment on this publication by writing to the Executive Director, Office of Public Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Room 3-A-6 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401. All comments received will be available for public inspection at the above address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Margo Wagner, Social Insurance Specialist, Disclosure Policy Team, Office of Public Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Room 3-A-6 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, telephone:

(410)965-1482, e-mail: *margo.wagner@ssa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Purpose of the Proposed IDMS System A. General Background On October 27, 2004, President Bush signed Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (HSPD-12), requiring all Federal agencies to implement a standard personal identity verification

(PIV)card for use by individuals who require access Federal or federally controlled buildings and/or information systems in order to eliminate terrorist threats. HSPD-12 charges the Department of Commerce and the Office of Management and Budget to set standards and guidance for implementing the PIV cards. In order to carry out our responsibilities under HSPD-12, SSA must issue PIV cards to all individuals who require regular, ongoing access to Agency facilities, information technology systems, or information classified in the interest of national security. These individuals include applicants for employment or contracts, Federal employees, contractors, students, interns, volunteers, affiliates, as well as individuals authorized to perform or use services provided in agency facilities ( *e.g.* , Credit Union, Fitness Center, etc.). To issue PIV cards, SSA must collect and maintain personal information about individuals to whom the Agency will issue a PIV card. We will maintain the information in the newly established *IDMS* system and retrieve the information from the system when needed by the Social Security number

(SSN)or other unique identifier of the individual to whom the information pertains. Thus, the *IDMS* system will constitute a system of records under the Privacy Act. B. Collection and Maintenance of the Data for the IDMS System The information that SSA will collect and maintain in the *IDMS* system will consist of identifiable information ( *i.e.* , name, address, phone number, SSN) of individuals who require a PIV card. The “Categories of records” section of the notice of the *IDMS* system below contains a detailed description of the records that will be maintained in the *IDMS* system. II. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data Maintained in the Proposed IDMS System A. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures We are proposing to establish routine uses of information that will be maintained in the proposed *IDMS* system as discussed below. 1. To the Office of the President for the purpose of responding to an individual pursuant to an inquiry received from that individual or from a third party on his or her behalf. We will disclose information under this routine use only in situations in which an individual may contact the Office of the President, seeking that office's assistance in a matter relating to information contained in this system of records. Information will be disclosed when the Office of the President makes an inquiry and indicates that it is acting on behalf of the individual whose record is requested. 2. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that office made at the request of the subject of a record. We may disclose information under this routine use only in situations in which an individual may ask his or her congressional representative to intercede in a matter relating to information contained in this system of records. Information will be disclosed when the congressional representative makes an inquiry and indicates that he or she is acting on behalf of the individual whose record is requested. 3. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), a court or other tribunal, or another party before such tribunal when:

(a)The Social Security Administration (SSA), or any component thereof; or

(b)any SSA employee in his/her official capacity; or

(c)any SSA employee in his/her individual capacity where DOJ (or SSA where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or

(d)the United States or any agency thereof where SSA determines that the litigation is likely to affect the operation of SSA or any of its components, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and SSA determines that the use of such records by DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before such tribunal, is relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case SSA determines that such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected. We may disclose information under this routine use only as necessary to enable DOJ to effectively defend SSA, its components or employees in litigation involving this system of records and ensure that courts and other tribunals have appropriate information. 4. To student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other individuals performing functions for SSA but technically not having the status of agency employees, if they need access to the records in order to perform their assigned agency functions. Under certain Federal statutes, SSA is authorized to use the service of volunteers and participants in certain educational, training, employment, and community service programs. Examples of such statutes and programs include: 5 U.S.C. 3111 regarding student volunteers and 42 U.S.C. 2753 regarding the College Work-Study Program. We will disclose information under this routine use only when SSA uses the services of these individuals and they need access to information in this system to perform their assigned agency duties. 5. To the appropriate public authority whether a Federal, foreign, State, local or tribal agency, except as noted on Forms SF 85, 85-P, and 86, when a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, for enforcing, investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, or rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the information disclosed is relevant to any enforcement, regulatory, investigative or prosecutorial responsibility of the receiving entity. We may disclose information under this routine use except as noted on Forms SF 85, 85-P, and 86, when a record on its face, or in conjunction with other records, indicates a violation or potential violation of law under the authority of the requesting agency. 6. To a Federal, State, local, foreign, or tribal or other public authority the fact that this system of records contains information relevant to the retention of an employee, the retention of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or retention of a license, grant, or other benefit. The other agency or licensing organization may then make a request supported by the written consent of the individual for the entire record if it so chooses. No disclosure will be made unless the information has been determined to be sufficiently reliable to support a referral to another office within the agency or to another Federal agency for criminal, civil, administrative personnel or regulatory action. We may disclose to the requesting agency the fact that this system of records contains information relevant to that agency's retention of an employee, the retention of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or retention of a license, grant, or other benefit. We will not disclose any other information to the agency without the written consent of the subject of the record. 7. To a Federal, State, or local agency, or other appropriate entities or individuals, or through established liaison channels to selected foreign governments, in order to enable an intelligence agency to carry out its responsibilities under the National Security Act of 1947 as amended, the CIA Act of 1949 as amended, Executive Order 12333 or any successor order, applicable national security directives, or classified implementing procedures approved by the Attorney General and promulgated pursuant to such statutes, orders or directives. We may disclose information to the agencies and entities described in the routine use for the purpose of carrying out their responsibilities and activities under the authorities cited in the routine uses when information in this system of records is relevant to those responsibilities and activities. 8. To notify another Federal agency when, or verify whether, a PIV card is no longer valid. We may disclose information under this routine use for the purpose cited so that individuals with invalid PIV cards may not use them to gain entry to Federal facilities. 9. To the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when requested in connection with investigations into alleged or possible discriminatory practices in the Federal sector, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, compliance by Federal agencies with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, or other functions vested in the Commission. We may disclose information to the EEOC to assist in investigations into alleged or possible discriminatory practices in the Federal sector and for other functions vested in the Commission. 10. To the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Office of the Special Counsel, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the Federal Service Impasses Panel, or an arbitrator when information is requested in connection with the investigations of allegations of unfair practices, matters before an arbitrator or the Federal Service Impasses Panel. We may disclose information under this routine use, as necessary, to the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the General Counsel, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and the Federal Service Impasses Panel, or an arbitrator, when requested in connection with allegations of unfair labor practices, matters before an arbitrator or the Federal Service Impasses Panel. 11. To the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Office of Special Counsel in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of rules and regulations, investigation of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and other such functions promulgated in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 12, or as may be authorized by law. We will disclose information under this routine use, as necessary, to the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Office of Special Counsel when requested in matters pending before the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Office of Special Counsel. 12. To contractors and other Federal agencies, as necessary, for the purpose of assisting Social Security Administration

(SSA)in the efficient administration of its programs. We will disclose information under this routine use only in situations in which SSA may enter a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing an agency function relating to this system of records. SSA occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when this would contribute to effective and efficient operations. For example, this may include contractors, as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3718, or Federal agencies that either operate debt collection centers or that will assist SSA in collecting debts through Federal salary, administrative, and tax refund offset as provided by 5 U.S.C. 3716 and § 3720A. SSA must be able to give a contractor or Federal agency whatever information SSA can legally provide in order for the contractor or Federal agency to fulfill its duties. In situations in which we use contractors, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract. 13. To Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and private security contractors, as appropriate, information necessary:

(a)To enable them to protect the safety of SSA employees and the public, the security of the SSA workplace, and the operation of SSA facilities; or

(b)to assist investigations or prosecutions with respect to activities that affect such safety and security or activities that disrupt the operation of SSA facilities. We will disclose information under this routine use to law enforcement agencies and private security contractors when information is needed to respond to, investigate, or prevent, activities that jeopardize the security and safety of the public, employees or workplaces or that otherwise disrupt the operation of SSA facilities. Information would also be disclosed to assist in the prosecution of persons charged with violating a Federal, State or local law in connection with such activities. 14. To the National Archives and Records Administration or to the General Services Administration for records management inspections conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. The Administrator of GSA and the Archivist of NARA are charged by 44 U.S.C. 2904, as amended, with promulgating standards, procedures and guidelines regarding record management and conducting records management studies. 44 U.S.C. 2906, as amended, provides that GSA and NARA are to have access to Federal agencies' records and that agencies are to cooperate with GSA and NARA. In carrying out these responsibilities, it may be necessary for GSA and NARA to have access to this proposed system of records. In such instances, the routine use will facilitate disclosure. B. Compatibility of Proposed Routine Uses The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3)) and our disclosure regulations (20 CFR Part 401) permits us to disclose information under a published routine use for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which we collected the information. Section 401.150(c) of the regulations permits us to disclose information under a routine use where necessary to carry out SSA programs. Section 401.120 of the regulations provides that we will disclose information when required by to do so by Federal law. Disclosures under routine uses numbered 1-13 will be made in connection with SSA's responsibilities concerning the *IDMS* system. Disclosures under routine use numbered 14 are required by Federal law. Thus, all routine uses are appropriate and meet the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria. III. Record Storage Medium and Safeguards for the Information Maintained in the Proposed IDMS System The proposed *IDMS* system will maintain information in electronic and manual forms. Only authorized SSA and contractor personnel who have a need for the information in the performance of their official duties are permitted access to the information. We will safeguard the security of the information by requiring the use of access codes to enter the computer system that will maintain the data and will store computerized records in secured areas that are accessible only to employees who require the information in performing their official duties. Manually maintained records are kept in locked cabinets or in otherwise secure areas. All SSA personnel receive annual reminders of the need to protect personal data to which they have access for official purposes and are reminded of the criminal penalties that apply to unauthorized access to or disclosure of personal information. See 5 U.S.C. 52a(i)(1). Furthermore, SSA employees having access to SSA databases maintaining personal information must sign a sanction document annually, acknowledging their accountability for making unauthorized access to or disclosure of such information. Contractor personnel having access to data in the proposed *IDMS* system will be required to adhere to SSA rules concerning safeguards, access and use of the data. IV. Effect of the Proposed IDMS System on the Rights of Individuals The proposed *IDMS* system will consist of information that is relevant to establishing PIV cards for SSA employees and contractors. SSA will adhere to all applicable provisions of the Privacy Act and other applicable Federal statutes that govern our use and disclosure of the information that will be maintained in the proposed *IDMS* system. Therefore, we do not anticipate that the proposed *IDMS* system will have any unwarranted adverse effect on the privacy or other rights of individuals. Dated: October 26, 2006. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner. Social Security Administration; Notice of System of Records; Required by the Privacy Act of 1974 System number: 60-0361. System name: Identity Management System ( *IDMS* ). Security classification: None. System location: National Computer Center, Social Security Administration (SSA), 6201 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235. Some data covered by this system are at SSA locations, both Federal buildings and federally-leased space, where staffed guard stations have been established in facilities that have installed the Personal Identity Verification

(PIV)system, as well as the physical security office(s) or computer security office(s) of those locations. Contact the systems manager at the address below for the addresses of these locations. Categories of individuals covered by the system: Individuals who require regular, ongoing access to Agency facilities, information technology systems, or information classified in the interest of national security, including applicants for employment or contracts, Federal employees, contractors, students, interns, volunteers, affiliates, and individuals formerly in any of these positions. The system also includes individuals authorized to perform or use services provided in Agency facilities ( *e.g.* , Credit Union, Fitness Center, etc.) The system does not apply to occasional visitors or short-term guests to whom SSA will issue temporary identification and credentials. Categories of records in the system: Records maintained on individuals issued credentials by SSA include the following data fields: full name, Social Security number (SSN); date of birth; signature; image (photograph); fingerprints; hair color; eye color; height; weight; organization/office of assignment; company name; telephone number; copy of background investigation form; PIV card issue and expiration dates; personal identification number (PIN); results of background investigation; PIV request form; PIV registrar approval signature; PIV card serial number; emergency responder designation; copies of documents used to verify identification or information derived from those documents such as document title, document issuing authority, document number, document expiration date, document other information; level of national security clearance and expiration date; computer system user name; user access and permission rights, authentication certificates; and digital signature information. Records maintained on card holders entering SSA facilities or using SSA systems include: name, PIV Card serial number; date, time, and location of entry and exit; company name; level of national security clearance and expiration date; fingerprints; digital signature information; computer networks/applications/data accessed. Authority for maintenance of the system: 5 U.S.C. 301; Federal Information Security Act (Pub. L. 104-106, section 5113); Electronic Government Act (Pub. L. 104-347, section 203); the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501); and the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (P.L. 105-277, 44 U.S.C. 3504); Homeland Security Presidential Directive

(HSPD)12, Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors, August 27, 2004; Federal Property and Administrative Act of 1949, as amended. Purpose: The primary purposes of the system are:

(a)To ensure the safety and security of SSA facilities, systems, or information, and its'occupants and users;

(b)to verify that all persons entering Federal facilities, using Federal information resources, are authorized to do so; and

(c)to track and control PIV cards issued to persons entering and exiting the facilities or using systems. Note: Disclosures within SSA of data obtained from the *IDMS* that pertain to date and time of entry and exit of an agency employee working in the District of Columbia may not be made to supervisors, managers or any other persons (other than the individual to whom the information applies) to verify employee time and attendance records for personnel actions because 5 U.S.C. 6106 prohibits Federal Executive agencies (other than the Bureau of Engraving and Printing) from using a recording clock within the District of Columbia, unless used as a part of a flexible schedule program under 5 U.S.C. 6120 *et seq.* Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses: Information may be disclosed for routine uses as indicated below: 1. To the Office of the President for the purpose of responding to an individual pursuant to an inquiry received from that individual or from a third party on his or her behalf. 2. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that office made at the request of the subject of a record. 3. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), a court or other tribunal, or another party before such tribunal when:

(a)The Social Security Administration (SSA), or any component thereof; or

(b)any SSA employee in his/her official capacity; or

(c)any SSA employee in his/her individual capacity where DOJ (or SSA where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or

(a)To enable them to protect the safety of SSA employees and the public, the security of the SSA workplace, and the operation of SSA facilities; or

(b)to assist investigations or prosecutions with respect to activities that affect such safety and security or activities that disrupt the operation of SSA facilities. 14. To the National Archives and Records Administration or to the General Services Administration for records management inspections conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Records are stored in electronic media and in paper files. Retrievability: Records are retrievable by name, SSN, other ID number, PIV card serial number, image (photograph), fingerprint. Safeguards: Paper records are kept in locked cabinets in secure facilities and access to them is restricted to individuals whose role requires use of the records. The computer servers in which records are stored are located in a secure environment within SSA's National Computer Center and are secured by alarm systems and off-master key access. The computer servers themselves are password-protected. Access to individuals working at guard stations is password-protected; each person granted access to the system at guard stations must be individually authorized to use the system. A Privacy Act Warning Notice appears on the monitor screen when records containing information on individuals are first displayed. Data exchanged between the servers' and the clients' personal computers at the guard stations and badging office are encrypted. Backup tapes are stored in a locked and controlled room in a secure, off-site location. An audit trail is maintained and reviewed periodically to identify unauthorized access. Persons given roles in the PIV process must complete training specific to their roles to ensure they are knowledgeable about how to protect individually identifiable information. Retention and disposal: Records relating to persons' access covered by this system are retained in accordance with General Records Schedule

(GRS)18, Item 17 approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Records will be maintained indefinitely until NARA approves an Agency disposition schedule for these records. All other records relating to individuals under this system are retained and disposed of in accordance with GRS 18, item 22a, approved by NARA. Records are destroyed upon notification of death or not later than five years after separation or transfer of employee, whichever is applicable or no later than 5 years after a contractual relationship expires, whichever is applicable. In accordance with HSPD-12, PIV cards are deactivated within 18 hours of cardholder separation, loss of card, or expiration. The information on PIV cards is maintained in accordance with GRS 11, Item 4. PIV cards are destroyed by cross-cut shredding no later than 90 days after deactivation. System manager(s) and address: HSPD-12 Project Manager, SSA, Room 1300 Dunleavy Bldg., 1508 Woodlawn Drive, Baltimore, MD 21235. Notification procedures: An individual can determine if this system contains a record pertaining to him/her by sending a signed, written request to the system manager at the above address. When requesting notification of or access to records covered by this Notice, an individual should provide his/her full name, date of birth, Agency name, and work location. An individual requesting notification of records in person must provide identity documents sufficient to satisfy the custodian of the records that the requester is entitled to access, such as a government-issued photo ID. Individuals requesting notification via mail or telephone must furnish, at minimum, name, date of birth, SSN, and home address in order to establish identity. These procedures are in accordance with SSA Regulations (20 CFR 401.40(c)). Records access procedures: Same as notification procedures. Requesters should also reasonably specify the record contents being sought. These procedures are in accordance with SSA Regulations (20 CFR 401.40(c)). If additional information or assistance is required, contact the system manager at the above address. SSA may withhold from a record in this system of records from access by the subject of the record pursuant to subsection (d)(5) of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5)) in certain situations ( *e.g* , a record that may relate to a civil action or proceeding). Contesting record procedures: Same as notification procedures. Requesters should also reasonably identify the record, specify the information they are contesting, state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction along with supporting justification showing why the record is not accurate, timely, relevant, or complete. These procedures are in accordance with SSA Regulations (20 CFR 401.40(c)). If additional information or assistance is required, contact the system manager at the above address. Record source categories: Employee, contractor, or applicant; sponsoring agency; former sponsoring agency; other Federal agencies; contract employer; former employer. System exempted from certain provisions of the Privacy Act: None. [FR Doc. E6-18549 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [Docket No. FHWA-2006-26127] Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)approval for two new information collections, which are summarized below under Supplementary Information. We are required to publish this notice in the **Federal Register** by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Please submit comments by January 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FHWA-2006-26127 by any of the following methods: • *Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Petty, 202-366-6654, or Jody McCullough, 202-366-2825, Office of Planning, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program Grant Application. Transportation Planning Excellence Awards Nomination Form. *Background:* Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program Grant. *Application:* Section 1117 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) provides funding for the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation

(TCSP)Program. The TCSP Program is a comprehensive initiative of research and grants to investigate the relationships between transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices and identify sector-based initiatives to improve such relationships. States, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and tribal governments are eligible for discretionary grants to carry out eligible projects to integrate transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices that: • Improve the efficiency of the transportation system of the United States. • Reduce environmental impacts of transportation. • Reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments. • Ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. • Examine community development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns and investments that support these goals. The 2-page TCSP grant application is the tool used to collect the necessary information needed to successfully submit eligible TCSP Program projects to the Secretary of Transportation for approval and for the distribution of the funds to the States. The TCSP grant application includes three parts:

(A)Project Information—General contact and funding information,

(B)Project Abstract—Overview of the purpose and intent of project, and

(C)Project Narrative—Description of the project and the expected results. The TCSP Program is a discretionary program. However, beginning in FY 2000, the projects awarded TCSP Program funding have been designated by Congress. In order to comply with Congressional-designation, the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)Division offices will continue to be asked to identify the intended recipient of the TCSP designated grant. The specified grant recipient would then be asked to complete the grant application each fiscal year that they receive TCSP funding. The participants will have a choice of providing their information by means of the Internet or a printed application. *Transportation Planning Excellence Awards Nomination Form:* The Transportation Planning Excellence Awards

(TPEA)program is a biennial awards program developed by the FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration

(FTA)to recognize outstanding initiatives across the country to develop, plan and implement innovative transportation planning practices. The program is co-sponsored by the American Planning Association. The on-line TPEA nomination form is the tool for submitters to nominate a process, group, or individual involved in a project or process that has used the FHWA and/or the FTA funding sources to make an outstanding contribution to the field of transportation planning. The information about the process, group or individual provided by the submitter may be shared and published if that submission is selected for an award. The TPEA is a biennial awards program and individuals will be asked to submit nominations via the online form every two years. The participants will provide their information by means of the Internet. *Respondents:* For the TCSP Program, 100 participants annually. For the TPEA, 150 participants in the first and third year, because it is a biennial program. *Frequency:* For the TCSP Program, grant applications are solicited on an annual basis. For the TPEA, nominations are solicited every two years. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* For the TCSP Program, 90 minutes. For the TPEA Program, approximately 60 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* For the TCSP Program, 150 hours annually. For the TPEA, 150 hours in the first year and 150 hours in the third year. *Public Comments Invited:* You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including:

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

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burdens;

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

(4)ways that the burden could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48. Issued On: October 26, 2006. James R. Kabel, Chief, Management Programs and Analysis Division. [FR Doc. E6-18511 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [DOCKET NO: MARAD-2006-26228] Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration. ACTION: Notice of the intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)for the update of the Kahului Harbor, Maui County, HI Master Plan. SUMMARY: The purpose of this Notice is to announce the Maritime Administration's (MARAD) intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)for improvements to Kahului Harbor, Maui County, needed to address the community's needs for commercial harbor facilities through 2030. This notice is issued in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)and implementing regulations for the following purposes:

(1)To advise other agencies and the public of the Agency's intentions;

(2)to obtain suggestions and information on the issues related to the proposed project to be addressed in the EIS; and

(3)to announce a public scoping meeting. DATES: The public scoping meeting will be held on November 13, 2006, at Liihikai School, 335 South Papa Avenue, Kahului, HI 96732 from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. Written comments on environmental issues and concerns that should be addressed in the EIS are encouraged, and must be electronically submitted or postmarked by November 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number MARAD-2006-26228] by any of the following methods: • *Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number for this action. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie D. Blum, Associate Administrator for Port, Intermodal, and Environmental Activities, U.S. Maritime Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, e-mail *envmarad@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Hawaii State Department of Transportation (HI DOT) has previously conducted planning for Kahului Harbor, leading to a 2025 Master Plan and Environmental Assessment. However, demand for harbor facilities has been much greater than anticipated, and space for current operations is very tight. The 2025 Master Plan called for development of new pier and harbor space at the west breakwater of the harbor. HI DOT has begun a new master planning process, which will lead to a new set of alternatives to meet current and future harbor needs. The west breakwater expansion and other steps to help assure that the harbor supports the continuing prosperity and quality of life of Maui County are under consideration. The EIS will address the following issues:

(1)Demand for additional space and facilities at Kahului;

(2)organization of harbor space and facilities to promote and preserve orderly cargo operations, passenger operations, and recreational activity;

(3)environmental impacts of any proposed alternatives; and

(4)additional issues that may emerge from the scoping process. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket including comments are available at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Privacy Act Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* (Authority: 49 C.F.R. 1.66) Dated: October 27, 2006. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-18512 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2003-14628] Decision That Nonconforming 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe and Roadster Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of decision by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that nonconforming 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe and Roadster passenger cars are eligible for importation. SUMMARY: This notice announces the decision by NHTSA that 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe and Roadster passenger cars not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States. 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe passenger cars are eligible for importation because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS. 1996 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe and Roadster passenger cars, and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Roadster passenger cars, are eligible for importation because they are substantially similar to vehicles originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified versions of the 1996 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe and Roadster and the 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Roadster), and are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards. DATES: This decision was effective December 19, 2003. The agency notified the petitioner at that time that the subject vehicles are eligible for importation. This document provides public notice of the eligibility decision. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. Where there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) permits a nonconforming motor vehicle to be admitted into the United States if its safety features comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence that NHTSA decides to be adequate. Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the **Federal Register** of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the **Federal Register** . Northern California Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc. of Napa, California (“NCDL”) (Registered Importer 92-011), petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe and Roadster passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. NHTSA published a notice of the petition on March 12, 2003 (68 FR 11898) to afford an opportunity for public comment. The reader is referred to that notice for a thorough description of the petition. Comments responding to the notice of petition were received from Michael Jay Grossman, the designated agent for the vehicles' original manufacturer, Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini). In its comments, Lamborghini raised issues concerning the basis for the petition, and identified details it contended NCDL had overlooked in describing alterations needed to conform 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe and Roadster passenger cars to certain of the FMVSS. The agency accorded NCDL an opportunity to respond to Lamborghini's comments. After NCDL responded, Lamborghini submitted rebuttals to certain of those responses. The two companies then engaged in a protracted and increasingly contentious series of further responses and rebuttals. The comments, responses, and rebuttals are summarized below, together with NHTSA's analysis of each matter at issue. 1. *Model year of petitioned vehicle:* *Arguments raised:* In its initial comments, Lamborghini took issue with NCDL's attempt to establish import eligibility for a 1997 Lamborghini Diablo based on the vehicle's substantial similarity to a 1996 model vehicle. Lamborghini noted that to establish import eligibility for a nonconforming vehicle under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and 49 CFR 593.5(a)(1)(i), the vehicle must be substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its original manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, and be of “the same model year (as defined under regulations of the Secretary of Transportation) as the model of the motor vehicle it is being compared to” (citing 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A)(iii)). Lamborghini stated that it had designated the specific Lamborghini Diablo coupe that NCDL was seeking to conform as a 1997 model year vehicle and noted that it did not produce any 1997 Diablo coupes for sale in the United States or certify those vehicles to U.S. standards. NCDL responded that because it imported the vehicle in question, it can properly be regarded as the vehicle's “manufacturer,” as that term is defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5). That section states that “manufacturer” means “a person

(A)manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or

(B)importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.” NCDL asserted that as the vehicle's manufacturer, it reserved the right to declare the vehicle a 1996 model year vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR 593.4. That section defines the term “model year” as “the year used by a manufacturer to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced.” Moreover, as the “manufacturer,” NCDL declared that it planned to change the tenth digit of the vehicle's vehicle identification number

(VIN)to the character “T,” to reflect 1996 as the vehicle's model year designation. Addressing Lamborghini's observation that it did not certify any 1997 Diablo coupes for sale in the United States, NCDL observed that individual import eligibility decisions frequently encompass a range of body types and model years under a single eligibility number. Lamborghini countered these arguments by reiterating that it had designated the vehicle at issue as a 1997 model year vehicle and asserting that under the agency's regulations, the original manufacturer exercises sole responsibility for making a model year designation. Lamborghini observed that even though a registered importer may be considered a vehicle's manufacturer for certain purposes, such as providing notification and remedy for safety-related defects and noncompliances with safety standards under 49 CFR parts 573 and 477, the regulations at 49 CFR 565.5(b) that establish vehicle identification numbering requirements specify that importers are to use the “identification number assigned by the original manufacturer.” Lamborghini further observed that 18 U.S.C. 511(a) makes it a crime, punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to 5 years, to knowingly remove, obliterate, tamper with, or alter a VIN. Lamborghini also noted that the agency's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(k)(4)(i) require an RI, in certifying a vehicle, to use the model year “as reported by the manufacturer that produced or assembled the vehicle.” Lamborghini observed that NCDL's contention that a single eligibility decision can apply to multiple models and model years does not provide the means to obtain import eligibility for a 1997 model vehicle on the basis of substantial similarity when the original manufacturer did not produce the same model and model year vehicle for sale in the United States. Lamborghini noted that although a 1997 model year Lamborghini Roadster was produced for sale in the United States, NCDL did not identify this vehicle in its petition as substantially similar to the petitioned vehicle, but instead compared that vehicle to a model year 1996 Diablo Coupe. NCDL retorted that for the purpose of calculating a manufacturer's production for compliance with certain phase-in requirements of FMVSS No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection,* paragraph S4.1.5.2.1 of that standard states that a “passenger car that is imported into the United States shall be attributed to the importer” (citing 49 CFR 571.208). NCDL further observed that the petition vehicle was manufactured in December 1996 and that the year 1996 is imprinted on a door plate affixed to the vehicle. Lamborghini responded that the door plate simply identifies the production year of the vehicle, and not its model year designation. Lamborghini further noted that although the petition vehicle's VIN was not required to conform to 49 CFR part 565, Lamborghini has long used the International Standard Organization

(ISO)17-digit VIN coding scheme [ISO 3779], and that under that scheme, the vehicle was designated as a 1997 model year vehicle. NCDL contended that other than using the character “V” as the tenth digit of the vehicle's VIN, Lamborghini did nothing to designate the vehicle at issue as a 1997 model year vehicle. *Agency's Analysis:* NHTSA agrees with Lamborghini that under the agency's regulations at 49 CFR 567.4(k)(4)(i), an RI must utilize the model year “as reported by the manufacturer that produced or assembled the vehicle” in certifying a vehicle's compliance with applicable FMVSS, bumper, and theft prevention standards. As such, the RI is not free to assign the vehicle another model year designation, and, as noted by Lamborghini, would be in violation of NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 565.5(b), and risk a criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. 511(a) if, for the purpose of redesignating the vehicle's model year, the RI were to make any changes to the VIN originally assigned to the vehicle. Insofar as NHTSA's regulations are concerned, section 565.5 requires a registered importer to use the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer and to affix to the vehicle a plate or label visible through its glazing that shows the original manufacturer-assigned VIN. Addressing the issue that NCDL raised concerning a single eligibility decision encompassing multiple body styles, configurations, and model years, the agency notes that when these decisions are based on a petition, they are dependent on the petitioner identifying all body styles, configurations, and model years that it wishes to be included in the decision, as well as the extent to which those body styles, configurations, and model years are equally compliant with, or capable of compliance with, the FMVSS, and in the case of petitions filed under 49 U.S.C. § 30141(a)(1)(A), whether substantially similar models have been certified as conforming to all applicable FMVSS. Accordingly, NHTSA has limited petition grants to single body styles and model years, and has also granted eligibility to multiple model year series of body styles for single platform models. NCDL sought import eligibility for the 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe and Roadster based on their substantial similarity to a vehicle the petition identified as a “1996 Lamborghini Diablo imported by Lamborghini of North America.” Information subsequently provided by Lamborghini made it apparent that the 1997 coupe was not originally certified as conforming to the FMVSS. Notwithstanding this development, NCDL's attempt to obtain import eligibility for the 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe based on its substantial similarity to a U.S.-certified 1996 model did not prove fatal to its petition. NHTSA ultimately decided to process the petition, insofar as it sought import eligibility for the 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe, under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), on the theory that the vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of complying with, all applicable FMVSS on the basis of destructive test information or such other evidence the agency decides is adequate. Other evidence that NHTSA will accept includes information showing that the same model vehicle of an earlier model year was certified by its original manufacturer as complying with an applicable standard, provided the standard did not change between the earlier model year and the one in question and there are no differences in terms of structure, components, or equipment between the earlier model year vehicle and the one in issue that could influence the vehicle's compliance with the standard. Because there was a U.S.-certified version of the 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Roadster and of the 1996 Diablo Coupe, the agency was able to continue processing the petition, insofar as it pertained to those body configurations and model years, under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A). 2. *Vehicles' capability of being readily altered to comply with applicable standards:* Lamborghini asserted that NCDL had failed to make a showing that 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo passenger cars can be readily altered to comply with all applicable requirements of the FMVSS. Lamborghini contended that the cost of parts and labor to conform the vehicles to certain of the standards is great enough to preclude a finding that the vehicles are readily capable of being altered to comply with those standards. Lamborghini estimated that it would cost $850 for parts and labor to perform the modifications identified in the petition to conform the vehicles to FMVSS No. 101 Controls and Displays. As described in the petition, those modifications consist of the addition of unnamed dashboard controls and displays that conform to the requirements of the standard. Lamborghini estimated that it would cost $1,346 and require 18 hours of labor to perform the modifications identified in the petition to conform the vehicles to FMVSS No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.* As described in the petition, those modifications consist of the addition of unnamed lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment that meet the requirements of the standard. Lamborghini also estimated that it would cost $500 for parts, and require 3 hours of labor to perform modifications necessary to conform the vehicles to FMVSS No. 114 *Theft Protection;* that it would cost $1,900 for parts and require 12 hours of labor to conform the vehicles to FMVSS No. 201 *Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts;* that it would cost $14,500 for parts and require 60 hours of labor to conform the vehicles to FMVSS No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection* if the importer would have to install air bags or $1,900 for parts and 12 hours of labor if automatic seat belts could be installed; that it would cost $11,000 for parts and require 40 hours of labor to conform the vehicles to FMVSS No. 214 *Side Impact Protection;* that it would cost $1,900 for parts and require 5 hours of labor to conform the vehicles to FMVSS No. 301 *Fuel System Integrity;* and that it would cost in excess of $10,000 for parts and require 10 hours of labor to conform the vehicles to the Federal Bumper Standard, as found in 49 CFR part 581. NCDL responded with the observation that the time and costs associated with the tasks necessary to bring a nonconforming vehicle into compliance with applicable standards have no bearing on whether the vehicle can be deemed eligible for importation by NHTSA. *Agency Analysis:* Contrary to the assumption expressed by NCDL, the cost of performing modifications necessary to conform a motor vehicle to applicable FMVSS can be a factor in determining whether the vehicle is “capable of being readily altered to comply,” which is the standard for granting import eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) based on the vehicle's substantial similarity to a U.S.-certified vehicle. That being said, the agency recognizes that costs are a relative factor, and must be considered in the context of the vehicle that is the subject of the eligibility petition. In the case of a costly vehicle such as a Laborghini Diablo, the costs of parts and labor can be far greater than they are for a less expensive production vehicle. The agency further notes that the modifications identified by NCDL consist primarily of the replacement of non-U.S.-certified model components with U.S.-certified model components that can be accomplished without extensive redesign or refabrication of vehicle mountings and structure. With those considerations in mind, the agency has concluded that the cost and labor figures provided by Lamborghini would not preclude the vehicles at issue from being found readily capable of being modified to conform to applicable standards, and on that basis, eligible for importation. 3. *Other issues involving specific standards:* Aside from the cost factors discussed above, Lamborghini made comments regarding the capability of the vehicles to be modified to meet the requirements of certain standards. Set forth below is a discussion of these comments, in order of the standards to which the comments relate.

(a)*FMVSS No. 114 Theft Protection and 49 CFR part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard:* The petition stated the requirements of FMVSS No. 114 have been moved to 49 CFR part 541 and claimed that 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Coupes and Roadsters are not subject to this standard. Lamborghini responded by asserting that the vehicles are in fact subject to the standard. NCDL thereupon amended it's petition by substituting the original discussion of FMVSS No. 114 compliance issues with the following: FMVSS No. 114: Theft Protection: with the exception of the warning required by S4.5, this 6 speed manual transmission vehicle is equipped with a key locking system that conforms to the requirements of this section. A warning system to the driver will be installed which is activated pursuant to S4.5 whenever the key required by S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened. NCDL offered the further explanation that FMVSS No. 114 and 49 CFR part 541 are two mutually exclusive standards and that 49 CFR part 541 does not apply to the subject vehicles. *Agency Analysis:* Conformity packages submitted for vehicles imported under the decision must demonstrate that the vehicle is equipped with a warning system activated whenever the key has been left in the ignition locking system and the driver's door is opened. Any modification or replacement of components necessary to meet the requirements of the standard must be shown to bring the vehicle into compliance. Such proof must be submitted by an RI as part of any conformity package submitted for nonconforming 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo passenger cars. The agency further notes that compliance with CFR part 541 is not directly relevant to an import eligibility decision, as such a decision is to be based on the capability of a non-U.S. certified vehicle to be altered to conform to the FMVSS, and the Theft Prevention Standard at CFR part 541 is not an FMVSS. However, vehicles that are subject to the Theft Prevention Standard but do not comply with that standard at the time of entry cannot be lawfully imported into the United States. Unlike the situation for Federal motor vehicle safety and bumper standards, there is no authority under the statute governing the Theft Prevention Standard (49 U.S.C. Chapter 331) to permit a vehicle subject to that standard that does not conform to its requirements to be brought into conformity following importation.

(b)*FMVSS No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection:* The petition stated that U.S.-model automatic seat belts must be installed in the vehicles to meet the automatic crash protection requirements of this standard. Lamborghini countered that NCDL may be subject to the air bag phase-in requirements of the standard, and as such, would have to install air bags instead of automatic seat belts at the driver's and passenger's seating positions to comply with the standard. NCDL responded by expressing the belief that at least some of the U.S.-model 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablos were certified by their original manufacturer as conforming to all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 208 without the use of airbags. Lamborghini retorted that mid-year 1997 U.S.-certified Roadsters were equipped with air bags. Lamborghini expressed the further belief that NCDL could not shield itself from liability for failing to equip the vehicles with air bags by claiming that it had no reason to know, despite exercising due care, that such equipment was needed. *Agency Analysis:* NHTSA has long taken the position that RIs are not subject to the requirements of standards that are being phased in, but must comply with those requirements once they apply to 100 percent of a manufacturer's production. The requirement for air bags to be installed at the driver's and front outboard passenger's seating position applies to 100 percent of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1997. As a consequence, an RI can meet the automatic protection requirements of the standard by installing conforming automatic seat belts in passenger cars manufactured prior to that date. Therefore, NCDL or another RI could meet the standard by installing automatic seat belts in 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo passenger cars manufactured prior to September 1, 1997. Vehicles manufactured on or after that date would require the installation of U.S.-model air bag systems to meet the standard. The agency further notes that conformity packages submitted for vehicles imported under this decision must demonstrate that the vehicle is equipped with components that allow it to achieve compliance with the standard. Any modification or replacement of components necessary to meet the requirements of the standard must be shown to bring the vehicle into compliance. Such proof must be submitted by an RI as part of any conformity package submitted for nonconforming 1996 and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo passenger cars.

(c)*FMVSS No. 214 Side Impact Protection:* NCDL claimed in the petition that the vehicles, as originally manufactured, meet the requirements of this standard. Lamborghini disputed this in its response, and noted that it had been granted a temporary exemption from the dynamic requirements of the standard with respect to vehicles manufactured prior to September 1, 2006 (citing notice of grant at 59 FR 59458). Lamborghini further contended that the issue of whether NCDL is subject to the requirements covered by the exemption must be resolved before it submits a conformity package for any of the affected vehicles. NCDL countered with the observation that regardless of whether the vehicle is U.S. certified or not, the doors in all 1992 through 1996 and 1998 Lamborghini Diablo Coupes are equipped with door beams, and in fact, all have the same replacement part number. NCDL further contended that it should be accorded the same temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 214 as was granted to Lamborghini. In response, Lamborghini acknowledged that it was mistaken in stating that the doors on the non-U.S. certified vehicles differ from those on U.S.-certified models. Lamborghini noted, however, that modifications were needed to the fuel filler neck and gas tank to conform the vehicles not only to FMVSS No. 301 Fuel System Integrity (as discussed below), but to FMVSS Nos. 214 as well. *Agency Analysis:* In situations where the original manufacturer has been granted a temporary exemption from one or more requirements of applicable standards under 49 CFR part 555, an RI is still required to conform a vehicle covered by such an exemption to all applicable FMVSS, including requirements covered by the temporary exemption. This is because temporary exemptions under 49 CFR part 555 are granted only to the petitioning manufacturer, and cannot be exercised by any other party, including an RI. As a consequence, NCDL or other RIs must conform the subject non-U.S. certified Diablos to the dynamic impact requirements of the standard. Lamborghini's acknowledgment that non-U.S. certified Lamborghini Diablos of the model years in question were equipped with the same doors as those installed on U.S.-certified vehicles eliminates the need for the vehicles to be conformed to the static requirements of the standard. NHTSA notes that the other modifications described by Lamborghini would not prelude the vehicles from being modified to conform to FMVSS No. 214 in a manner sufficient to be deemed eligible for importation. Conformity packages submitted for vehicles imported under the decision must demonstrate that the vehicle is equipped with components that allow it to achieve compliance with the standard.

(d)*FMVSS No. 301 Fuel System Integrity:* NCDL stated in the petition that the vehicles, as originally manufactured, meet the requirements of this standard. Lamborghini countered that the vehicles do not conform and contended that modifications were needed to the fuel filler neck and gas tank to bring the vehicles into compliance with this standard as well as FMVSS Nos. 214 (as noted above). *Agency Analysis:* NHTSA concluded that non-U.S. certified Lamborghini Diablo passenger cars modified as described by Lamborghini will meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 301. The agency further notes that those modifications would not preclude the vehicles from being deemed eligible for importation. Conformity packages submitted for vehicles imported under the decision must demonstrate that the vehicle is equipped with components that allow it to achieve compliance with the standard.

(e)49 CFR Part 581 Bumper Standard: NCDL stated in the petition that U.S.-model bumper supports must be installed in the vehicles to meet the requirements of this standard. Lamborghini countered that Bumper Standard compliance issues are irrelevant to whether a vehicle can be deemed eligible for importation, as that decision must be predicated on the vehicle's capability of being modified to conform to the FMVSS alone, and the Bumper Standard is not an FMVSS. *Agency Analysis:* The agency agrees with Lamborghini that Bumper Standard compliance issues are not relevant to an import eligibility decision for the reasons given. The agency observes, however, that because a vehicle that is not originally manufactured to comply with the Bumper Standard must be modified to comply with the standard before it can be admitted permanently into the United States, conformance with the Bumper Standard must be shown in the conformity package submitted to NHTSA to allow release of the DOT conformance bond furnished at the time of vehicle importation. Conclusion In view of the above considerations, NHTSA decided to grant the petition. Vehicle Eligibility Number for Subject Vehicles The importer of a vehicle admissible under any final decision must indicate on the form HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is eligible for entry. VSP-416 is the vehicle eligibility number assigned to the 1996 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe and Roadster and the 1997 Roadster, and VCP-26 is the vehicle eligibility number assigned to the 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe admissible under this notice of final decision. Final Decision Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA decided that 1996 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe and Roadster passenger cars and 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Roadster passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS, are substantially similar to 1996 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe and Roadster passenger cars and 1997 Lamborghini Roadster passenger cars originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and are capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. In addition, the agency decided that 1997 Lamborghini Diablo Coupe passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable FMVSS are eligible for importation into the United States because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: October 26, 2006. Jeffrey Giuseppe, Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. E6-18518 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket Nos. NHTSA-2003-15470 and NHTSA-2003-16031] Denial of Petitions for Import Eligibility for Nonconforming 2001-2002 Mitsubishi Evolution VII and 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII Left Hand Drive Passenger Cars AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Denial of Petitions for Import Eligibility for nonconforming 2001-2002 Mitsubishi Evolution VII and 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII left hand drive passenger cars. SUMMARY: This document sets forth the reasons for denial of two petitions submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting the agency to decide that left-hand drive

(LHD)2001-2002 Mitsubishi Evolution VII and 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII LHD passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States. The petitions contended that 2001-2002 Mitsubishi Evolution VII LHD passenger cars are eligible for importation because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS, and that 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII LHD passenger cars are eligible for importation because they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and that were certified as complying with the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII LHD passenger cars), and are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards. DATES: These denials were effective December 21, 2004. The agency notified the petitioner at that time that the subject petitions were being denied under 49 CFR 593.7(e). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-3151). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. Where there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) permits a nonconforming motor vehicle to be admitted into the United States if its safety features comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence that NHTSA decides to be adequate. Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the **Federal Register** of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the **Federal Register** . On February 10, 2003, G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc., of Santa Ana, California (G&K) (Registered Importer 90-007) petitioned the agency to decide that 2001-2002 Mitsubishi Evolution VII LHD passenger cars are eligible for importation. On April 14, 2003, G&K petitioned NHTSA to decide that 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII LHD passenger cars are eligible for importation. NHTSA published a notice of the petition for the 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII LHD passenger cars on June 30, 2003 (68 FR 38750) and a notice of the petition for the 2001-2002 Mitsubishi Evolution VII LHD passenger cars on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52454). The notices thoroughly described the petitions and solicited public comments thereon. The agency received two comments in response to the notices. The first of these was from an anonymous source. The anonymous commenter expressed the belief that the petition for the 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII LHD passenger cars was defective in that it did not remotely demonstrate that the non-U.S. certified vehicles were substantially similar to any U.S. certified vehicles, and that the petition should therefore be denied. The second comment was from Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. (Mitsubishi), the U.S. representative of the vehicles' original manufacturer. In its comments, Mitsubishi raised issues concerning the basis for both petitions, and identified details it contended G&K had overlooked in describing alterations needed to conform the vehicles to certain of the FMVSS. The agency accorded G&K an opportunity to respond to Mitsubishi's comments, and also asked G&K to provide additional data, views, and arguments with regard to certain issues raised in the petitions. After G&K responded, the agency gave Mitsubishi an opportunity to rebut those responses. Mitsubishi requested, and was granted, confidentially under 49 CFR part 512 with regard to certain information that it submitted as part of its comments. The comments, responses, and rebuttals are summarized below, together with NHTSA's analysis of each matter at issue. 1. Attempted Reliance on Eligibility Decision Covering 2003 Mitsubishi Evolution VIII Passenger Cars To Establish Eligibility for 2001 and 2002 Mitsubishi Evolution VII LHD Passenger Cars Arguments Raised G&K informed NHTSA that it intended to make a showing that the Evolution VII passenger cars are eligible for importation without the need for providing crashworthiness or crash avoidance test data normally required to demonstrate eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B). To accomplish this, G&K stated that it would first show that the Evolution VIII passenger cars are eligible for importation through a petition filed under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), establishing that those vehicles are substantially similar to vehicles of the same make, model and model year that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States. G&K stated that it would then compare the Evolution VII passenger cars (which have no substantially similar U.S.-certified counterparts) to the Evolution VIII passenger cars determined eligible for importation, to establish that the Evolution VII passenger cars have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS, as is necessary to achieve import eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B). Agency's Analysis The approach proposed by G&K is similar in concept to how a vehicle can be determined eligible for importation under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) based on its substantial similarity to a vehicle of the same make, model, and model year that was certified by its manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS. However, because Mitsubishi never certified model year 2001 and 2002 Evolution VII passenger cars as conforming to all applicable FMVSS, the only basis for finding non-U.S. certified versions of those vehicles eligible for importation would be under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B). To establish import eligibility under that section, a petitioner must demonstrate that the vehicle has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence that NHTSA decides to be adequate. With respect to those FMVSS for which crash testing would otherwise be required, other evidence the agency will consider may include a comparison to a vehicle that has already been determined eligible for importation. To the extent that it is dependent on a finding that Evolution VIII passenger cars are eligible for importation, G&K's attempt to establish import eligibility for Evolution VII models cannot succeed, because, as set forth below, the agency has concluded that Evolution VIII are not eligible in their own right. 2. Whether the Non-U.S. Certified 2003 Evolution VIII Is Substantially Similar to the U.S.-Certified Model In its petition covering the 2003 Evolution VIII, G&K contended that the differences between the non-U.S. certified version of that vehicle and its U.S.-certified counterpart are mostly cosmetic. Mitsubishi disagreed. Both Mitsubishi and the anonymous commenter pointed out that the very press release announcing the introduction of the Evolution VIII into the U.S. market, which was included by G&K as attachment in support of its petition, states that there are significant structural differences between the non-U.S. certified 2003 Evolution VIII and its U.S.-certified counterpart, and further described the U.S.-certified version as having been developed exclusively for the U.S. market to meet crashworthiness and emissions requirements. Mitsubishi also stated that structural differences alone preclude a finding that the nonconforming 2003 Evolution VIII vehicles are readily capable of being altered to comply with all applicable FMVSS. Agency Analysis Based on its evaluation of the petition and the comments received, NHTSA concluded that there are significant structural differences between the U.S.-certified and the non-U.S. certified versions of the 2003 Evolution VIII, precluding the non-U.S. certified model from being found eligible for importation under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A). These differences are discussed in greater detail below with regard to FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 compliance issues. 3. Issues Involving Specific Standards Mitsubishi made specific comments regarding the capability of the non-U.S. certified 2003 Evolution VIII passenger cars to be modified to meet the requirements of certain standards. A discussion of these comments is set forth below, in the numerical order of the standards to which the comments relate.

(a)FMVSS No. 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems The petition states that the vehicles meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 118 as originally manufactured. Mitsubishi asserted that this is incorrect, and that the power window switch, door wiring, ECU, power window regulator, and other vehicle systems must be modified or replaced to meet the requirements of the standard. G&K responded by expressing the belief that the only modification needed to conform the non-U.S. certified vehicles to the standard was to reprogram the vehicle's microprocessor-operated Simplified Wiring System (SWS). Mitsubishi countered by explaining that the SWS system in the non-U.S. certified vehicles cannot be reprogrammed to comply with the standard, and that replacement of the Electronic Time & Alarm Control System and appropriate wiring harness were required instead. G&K disputed Mitsubishi's claim that the SWS system is not programmable by citing contrary evidence that it found in an unidentified “service manual”. Agency Analysis NHTSA was not persuaded by G&K's citation to the service manual that the power-operated window systems could be conformed to the standard by reprogramming alone. Instead, the agency concluded that replacement of the power window switches, power window regulators, Electronic Time & Alarm Control System and its software, and appropriate wiring harnesses would be required for the vehicles to conform to the standard.

(b)FMVSS No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact The petition states that no structural modifications to the dash area are necessary to achieve compliance with this standard. Mitsubishi asserted that this is incorrect because there are no energy absorbing materials in the headliners of non-U.S. certified vehicles as required by the standard. In response, G&K agreed that six pieces of energy absorbing material, which it identified by part number, would need to be installed in the headliner area to conform non-U.S. certified vehicles to the standard. Mitsubishi concurred that this modification would need to be made, but noted additional parts necessary to conform the vehicles to the standard that were omitted by G&K. Those additional parts are the headliner and center pillar upper trim. G&K stated that it is prepared to install the readily attachable headliner pieces of energy absorbing material, if necessary to achieve conformance to the standard. Agency Analysis In view of Mitsubishi's comments and G&K's responses, NHTSA concluded that six pieces of energy absorbing material would have to be installed in the headliner area, together with the headliner itself and the center pillar upper trim, for non-U.S. certified vehicles to be brought into conformity with the standard.

(c)FMVSS No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection The petition states that the non-U.S. certified vehicles meet the requirements of this standard as originally manufactured. Asserting that this is incorrect, Mitsubishi contended that there are differences in the body structure between U.S.-certified and non-U.S. certified Evolution VIII passenger cars that affect compliance with the standard. Mitsubishi also claimed that the non-U.S. certified vehicles are not fitted with knee protectors and have a different type of front deck cross-pipe, instrument panel undercover, and glove box, all of which have bearing on Standard 208 compliance. G&K countered by observing that three components in the area of the dashboard (the glovebox, cover dash under, and center compartment) have part numbers that are identical for both U.S.-certified and non-U.S. certified Evolution VIII passenger cars. In response, Mitsubishi reemphasized its contention that there are significant differences between U.S.-certified and non-U.S. certified Evolution VIII passenger cars with regard to the instrument panel undercover and glove box. Mitsubishi also noted that G&K failed to address its observation that the non-U.S. certified vehicles are lacking the knee protectors that are present in the U.S.-certified vehicles. Mitsubishi further noted that G&K failed to specify that the body structure of the U.S.-certified vehicles has to be strengthened to assure conformance with FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214. To comply with those standards, Mitsubishi contended that the U.S.-certified Evolution VIII is reinforced at the front left side member (A-pillar) by the addition of three stamped steel press plates that are not included in the body structure of the non-U.S. certified vehicle. Mitsubishi also contended that the left and right body side sills have four additional stamped steel reinforcement plates, and that both the left and right center pillars have two additional stamped steel plates in the floorboard area, all of which affect compliance with FMVSS No. 208 and are required to achieve compliance with FMVSS No. 214. Mitsubishi stated that the U.S.-certified vehicle also has a specially tuned ECU algorithm, because the vehicle has many reinforced components that are not included in non-U.S. certified versions of the Evolution VIII. To assure compliance with FMVSS No. 208 (as well as FMVSS No. 214), Mitsubishi postulated that G&K would have to reinforce the front left side member (A-pillar in the engine compartment area), the body side sill outer shell, as well as the inner portion of the center pillar (B-pillar). Once these reinforcements were completed, Mitsubishi contended that G&K would then have to perform technically complex ECU algorithm matching. Mitsubishi also asserted that G&K should be required to replace each of the above-described nonconforming vehicle parts with the corresponding parts that are equipped on U.S.-certified models. Mitsubishi added that because the installation of the reinforcements detailed above requires welding and involves structural changes necessary for conformance to FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214, G&K should be required to submit test or other data to demonstrate that its welded reinforcements actually are sufficient to meet the exacting requirements of those standards. Finally, because of the critical safety implications of the complex ECU algorithm matching, Mitsubishi asserted that G&K should be required to submit test data showing that its modifications to the ECU algorithm produce a vehicle that fully complies with FMVSS No. 208. G&K responded by simply restating that the glovebox, cover dash under, and center compartment have part numbers that are identical for both the U.S.-certified and the non-U.S. certified Evolution VIII passenger cars. G&K also cited maintenance manual diagrams and photographs that it claimed illustrate that the internal structure of the U.S.-certified and the non-U.S. certified Evolution VIII passenger cars are substantially similar. Agency Analysis NHTSA accorded G&K the opportunity to show that the body structures on the U.S.-certified and the non-U.S. certified vehicles that are pertinent to compliance with this standard are substantially similar by providing cutout sections or x-ray images for examination by NHTSA engineers. Although it stated it would do so, G&K never provided this material to the agency. Based on its review of the manufacturer's detailed drawings of both the U.S.-certified and the non-U.S. certified versions of Evolution VIII passenger cars, NHTSA has concluded that the relevant structures of the vehicles are not substantially similar and would not perform the same in FMVSS No. 208 crashworthiness testing.

(d)FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies The petition stated that the vehicles meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209 as originally manufactured. Mitsubishi asserted that this is incorrect and that the seat belt assemblies must be replaced with components that meet the requirement of the standard. G&K responded by admitting that the seat belts in the front outboard seating positions must be replaced and that each vehicle must be inspected individually to ascertain the need for other seat belts to be replaced to achieve compliance with this standard. In its next comment, Mitsubishi agreed that the front belt seat assemblies will have to be replaced, but observed that part numbers cited by G&K do not comprise the entirety of the seat belt assemblies. Mitsubishi also contended that G&K should be required to replace the entire front seat belt assemblies to conform the non-U.S. certified vehicle to the standard. G&K responded by reiterating its plan to simply replace the front seat belt assemblies based on the part numbers assigned to those components. G&K further asserted that the three rear seat belt assemblies in the non-U.S. certified Evolution VIII passenger cars meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209 as originally manufactured. Agency Analysis Based on the above exchange, NHTSA concluded that seat belt assembly components in all non-U.S. certified Evolution VIII passenger cars would have to be inspected, and any non-U.S.-model seat belt components would have to be replaced with U.S.-model components on vehicles not already so equipped.

(e)FMVSS No. 214 Side Impact Protection The petition stated that the vehicles meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 214 as originally manufactured. Mitsubishi asserted that this is incorrect and that non-U.S. certified vehicles lack chest protecting energy absorbing pads in the interior door trim and do not have side impact bars specifically reinforced to comply with the standard. G&K responded by stating that all vehicles must be inspected for the presence of U.S.-model door bars and chest protecting pads, and that vehicles without such components must have them installed to achieve compliance with this standard. Mitsubishi then observed that G&K did not identify the criteria that it will use for determining whether it is necessary to add the missing door bars. Mitsubishi also emphasized that G&K had omitted any reference to the fact that the non-conforming vehicles lack protecting pads in the rear door area and had neglected to mention any of the body structure modifications pertinent to compliance with both FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214. Mitsubishi stated in summation that “G&K should be required to add rear door area protecting pads, and should be required to install crossbars identical to the ones in U.S.-certified Evolution VIII vehicles in all nonconforming vehicles that do not have the same crossbars as are in US.-certified models. In addition, because these modifications are structural and require welding—as would the modifications pertinent to both FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 (which were discussed above in connection with FMVSS No. 208)—G&K should be required to submit test or other data that demonstrate that its modifications would meet the critical safety requirements of FMVSS No. 214.” G&K responded with the observation that NHTSA has allowed the installation of welded-in door bars in vehicles granted import eligibility under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) in many instances without the need for providing crashworthiness test reports. Agency Analysis NHTSA accorded G&K the opportunity to show that the body structures on the U.S.-certified and the non-U.S. certified vehicles that are pertinent to compliance with this standard are substantially similar by providing cutout sections or x-ray images for examination by NHTSA engineers. Although it stated it would do so, G&K never provided this material to the agency. Based on its review of the manufacturer's detailed drawings of both the U.S.-certified and the non-U.S. certified versions of Evolution VIII passenger cars, NHTSA has concluded that the relevant structures of the vehicles are not substantially similar and would not perform the same in FMVSS No. 214 crashworthiness testing.

(f)FMVSS No. 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems The petition stated that the vehicles must be modified to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 225, but provided no description of those modifications. Mitsubishi observed that by failing to provide that description, G&K had not met its burden for establishing that the vehicles are capable of being readily modified to meet the requirements of the standard. Agency Analysis G&K did not provide sufficient data, views, and arguments for NHTSA to conclude that non-U.S. certified Evolution VIII passenger cars are capable of being readily altered to conform to FMVSS No. 225.

(g)FMVSS No. 301 Fuel System Integrity The petition stated the vehicles must be modified to comply with requirements of FMVSS No. 301, but provided no description of those modifications. Mitsubishi responded that absent such a description, G&K had not met its burden for establishing that the vehicles are capable of being readily modified to meet the requirements of the standard. Agency Analysis G&K did not provide sufficient data, views, and arguments for NHTSA to conclude that non-U.S. certified Evolution VIII passenger cars are capable of being readily altered to conform to FMVSS No. 301. Decision Based on the foregoing, NHTSA concluded that the petitions do not clearly demonstrate that the subject vehicles are eligible for importation. The petitions were accordingly denied under 49 CFR 593.7(e). As provided in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA will not consider a new import eligibility petition covering the vehicles that are the subject of the petitions until at least three months from the date of this notice. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: October 27, 2006. Jeffrey Giuseppe, Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. E6-18520 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Senior Executive Service; Departmental Offices; FY 2006 Performance/Bonus Year Review Board AGENCY: Treasury Department. ACTION: Notice of membership of the Departmental Offices Performances Review Board. *Effective Date:* Membership is effective on the date of this notice. SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this notice announces the appointment of members of the Departmental Offices Performance Review Board. The purpose of this Board is to review and make recommendations concerning proposed Performance ratings, bonuses and other appropriate personnel actions for incumbents of SES positions. The Board shall consist of at least three members. In the case of an appraisal of a career appointee, more than half the members shall consist of career appointees. The names and titles of the Board members are attached. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Talavera, Supervisory Human Resources Specialist, Department of the Treasury, Office of Human Resources, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220, Telephone: 202-622-1044. Melissa Talavera, Director, Office of Human Resources. FY 2006 Performance Review Board [For Listing in Federal Register] Name Official title Carfine, Kenneth Edward DAS for Fiscal Operations and Policy. Carroll, Robert J DAS (Tax Analysis). Eddy, Lynn M Associate Chief Information Officer. Foster, Wesley T DAS (Management and Budget). Fuller, Reese H ACD Program Director. Gerardi, Geraldine A DIR for Business and Intl Taxation. Glaser, Daniel L DAS, Executive OFC of TERR FIN & FIN C. Granat, Rochelle F Deputy Asst SEC for HR and Chief Human. Grissom, Janan G White House Liaison. Hammerle, Barbara C Deputy Director, Office of Foreign Ass. Hastings, Charles R Deputy to Dep Asst SEC for HR. Hobbs, Ira L DAS & Chief Information Officer. Kieffer, Donald W Director, Office of Tax Analysis. Lee, Nancy DAS (Erasia & Middle East). Levitt, Matthew A DAS (Intelligence & Analysis). MacMillan, Kevin M DAS for Legis Affrs (Banking &FNAN). Mathiasen, Daren V Dir OFC of Fin Recon and Stab. McDonald, William L DAS (Technical Assistance Policy). Nason, David G Dept. Ast Sec for (Fin Inst & Gse Pol). Nunns, James R Dir for Individual Taxation. Peel, Kenneth L DAS Multilateral Dev Banks (IA). Reed, Kimberly A Counselor to the Secretary. Ryan, Anthony W Senior Advisor to the Secretary. Shaw, Mary Beth, Principal Advisor to Asst Sec for Mgmt. Sills, Gay H Dir, Ofc of International Investment. Skud, Timothy E DAS Tax, Trade and Tariff Policy. Tvardek, Steven F Director, Office of Trade Finance. Wilkinson, James R Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. 06-9041 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 26

Traces to 26 documents

U.S. Code