Notices. Notice of petitions for exemption received
13,221 words·~60 min read·
/register/2007/02/08/07-596A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Summary Notice No. PE-2007-05] Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received. SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption under part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR.
The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition. DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before February 28, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FAA-2005-22336] 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 20590-001. • *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 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Adams
(202)267-8033, Tyneka L. Thomas
(202)267-7626, or Frances Shaver
(202)267-9681, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. Petitions for Exemption *Docket No.:* FAA-2006-25902. *Petitioner:* Experimental Aircraft Association. *Section of 14 CFR Affected:* 14 CFR 61.3(a)(1), 61.31(i), and 61.325. *Description of Relief Sought:* To permit Experimental Aircraft Association to allow owners and operators of single-place ultralight vehicles to take their initial practical evaluations without being a pilot in command or having the endorsement required by §§ 61.31 or 61.325. [FR Doc. E7-2048 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [Docket No. FHWA-2007-20739] Notice of Request for Extension of Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)to renew an information collection. We published a **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day public comment period on this information collection on November 28, 2006. We are required to publish this notice in the **Federal Register** by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Please submit comments by March 12, 2007 ADDRESSES: You may send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention DOT Desk Officer. 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 burden;
(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. All comments should include the Docket number FHWA-2007-20739. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vickie Anderson, 202-366-1607, Office of Civil Rights, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Federal-Aid Highway Construction Equal Employment Opportunity. *OMB-Control #:* 2125-0019. *Background:* Title 23, Part 140(a), requires the FHWA to ensure equal opportunity regarding contractors' employment practices on Federal-aid highway projects. To carry out this requirement, the contractors must submit to the State Transportation Agencies
(STAs)on all work being performed on Federal-aid contracts during the month of July, a report on its employment workforce data. This report provides the employment workforce data on these contracts and includes the number of minorities, women, and non-minorities in specific highway construction job categories. This information is reported on Form PR-1391, Federal-Aid Highway Construction Contractors Summary of Employment Data. The statute also requires the STAs to submit a report to the FHWA summarizing the data entered on the PR-1391 forms. This summary data is provided on Form PR-1392, Federal-Aid Highway Construction Contractors Summary of Employment Data. The STAs and FHWA use this data to identify patterns and trends of employment in the highway construction industry, and to determine the adequacy and impact of the STA's and FHWA's contract compliance and on-the-job
(OJT)training programs. The STAs use this information to monitor the contractors-employment and training of minorities and women in the traditional highway construction crafts. Additionally, the data is used by FHWA to provide summarization, trend analyses to Congress, DOT, and FHWA officials as well as others who request information relating to the Federal-aid highway construction EEO program. The information is also used in making decisions regarding resource allocation, program emphasis, marketing and promotion activities, training, and compliance efforts. *Respondents:* 7,900 annual respondents for form PR-1391, and 52 STAs annual respondents for Form PR-1392, total of 7,952. *Frequency:* Annually. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* FHWA estimates it takes 30 minutes for Federal-aid contractors to complete and submit Form PR-1391 and 8 hours for STAs to complete and submit Form PR-1392. FHWA has recently established a 1391 Company Wide Reporting Data Collection Program that has significantly reduced the amount of paperwork associated with the reporting of Federal-aid highway employment data. This process enables contractors to submit one consolidated form PR-1391, inclusive of all Federal-aid projects rather than submitting multiple PR-1391 forms for each project. *Estimated Total Amount Burden Hours:* Form PR-1391—3,950 hours per year; Form PR-1392—416 hours per year, total of 4,366 hours annually. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48. Issued on: February 2, 2007. James R. Kabel, Chief, Management Programs and Analysis Division. [FR Doc. E7-2057 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway Project in Missouri AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review of actions by FHWA and other Federal agencies. SUMMARY: This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project, Interstate Route I-29/I-35/U.S. Route 71 Corridor, Paseo Missouri River Bridge, from approximately 0.5 miles north of Missouri Route 210/Armour Road south to the northwest corner of the central business district loop in downtown Kansas City, in the Counties of Jackson and Clay, State of Missouri. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project. DATES: By this notice the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before August 7, 2007. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 180 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FHWA: Ms. Peggy Casey, Environmental Projects Engineer, FHWA Missouri Division Office, 3220 West Edgewood, Suite H, Jefferson City, MO 65109, Telephone:
(573)638-2620, Office Hours 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Standard Time, e-mail: *peggy.casey@fhwa.dot.gov* . For Missouri Department of Transportation: Mr. Kevin Keith, Chief Engineer, Missouri Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 270, Jefferson City, MO 65102, Telephone:
(573)751-2803, Office Hours 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Central Standard Time, e-mail: *kevin.keith@modot.mo.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project in the State of Missouri. The project's selected alternative consists of reconstructing and widening the existing I-29/I-35 corridor roadway from the northern terminus approximately 0.5 miles north of Missouri Route 210/Armour Road to the southern terminus, a connection with the existing CBD freeway loop that encompasses downtown Kansas City. Included is the rehabilitation of the existing Paseo Bridge crossing which currently carries I-29/I-35/U.S. Route 71 over the Missouri River and constructing a new companion bridge or replacing the existing bridge with an entirely new structure or structures. This includes modifying the corridor's connection to the CBD loop and the connection of the Broadway Extension (U.S. Route 169) with the downtown street and freeway loop system. The northern side of the CBD loop designated as I-35/I-70/U.S. Routes 24/40 is included in the selected alternative. The actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS)for the project (FHWA-MO-EIS-06-01-F), approved on November 8, 2006; in the FHWA Record of Decision
(ROD)issued on January 12, 2007; and in other documents in the FHWA project records. The FEIS, ROD, and other project records are available by contacting FHWA or the Missouri Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above. The FHWA FEIS and ROD can be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site *http://www.modot.mo.gov/kansascity/major_projects/I-29,I-35%20EIS%20Location%20Study.htm* ; the FEIS can be viewed at public libraries in the project area. This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to: 1. *General:* National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4351; Federal-Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128. 2. *Air:* Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. 3. *Land:* Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. 303; Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers), 23 U.S.C. 319. 4. *Wildlife:* Endangered Species Act, 12 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661-667(d); Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703-712. 5. *Historic and Cultural Resources:* Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq; Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1977, 16 U.S.C. 470(aa)-470(ll); Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 469-469(c); Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 23 U.S.C. 3001-3013. 6. *Social and Economic:* Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 200(d)(1); American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 1966; Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), 7 U.S.C. 4201-4209. 7. *Wetlands and Water Resources:* Clean Water Act, Section 404, Section 401, Section 319, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1377; Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 16 U.S.C. 4601-4604; Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6); Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 401-406; Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931; Wetlands Mitigation, 23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(M) and 133(b)(11); Flood Disaster Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001-4128. 8. *Executive Orders:* E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O.12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1). Issued on: February 1, 2007. Peggy J. Casey, Environmental Project Engineer, Jefferson City. [FR Doc. E7-2074 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-RY-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Availability of Grant Program Funds for Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks Program AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: FMCSA announces the availability of Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) grant funding as authorized by Section 4126 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). This is a discretionary grant program that provides funding for States to deploy, operate, and maintain elements of their CVISN program, including commercial vehicle, commercial driver, and carrier-specific information systems and networks. The agency in each State designated as the primary agency responsible for the development, implementation, and maintenance of the CVISN-related systems is eligible to apply for grant funding. To apply for funding, applicants must register with the grants.gov Web site ( *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ) and submit an application in accordance with instructions provided. Applications for grant funding must be submitted electronically to FMCSA through the grants.gov Web site. Section 4126 of SAFETEA-LU distinguishes between two types of CVISN projects: Core and Expanded. To be eligible for funding of Core CVISN deployment project(s), a State must have its most current Core CVISN Program Plan and Top-Level Design approved by FMCSA and the proposed project(s) should be consistent with its approved Core CVISN Program Plan and Top-Level Design. A State may also apply for funds to prepare an Expanded CVISN Program Plan and Top-Level Design if FMCSA acknowledged the staff as having completed Core CVISN deployment. In order to be eligible for funding of any Expanded CVISN deployment project(s), a State must have its most current Expanded CVISN Program Plan and Top-Level Design approved by FMCSA and any proposed Expanded CVISN project(s) should be consistent with its Expanded CVISN Program Plan and Top-Level Design. DATES: FMCSA will initially consider funding for applications submitted by March 31, 2007 by qualified applicants. If additional funding remains available, applications submitted after March 31, 2007 will be considered on a case-by-case basis. A portion of the funds is available for allocation as limited by the Continuing Resolution (Pub. L. 109-383). The remainder of funds will be available when fiscal year 2007 appropriations legislation is passed and signed into law. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Visit grants.gov. Information on the grant, application process, and additional contact information is available at that Web site. General information about the CVISN grant is available in The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)which can be found on the Internet at *http://www.cfda.gov* . The CFDA number for CVISN is 20.237. You also may contact Mr. Quon Kwan, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Research and Analysis, Division of Technology, e-mail: *quon.kwan@dot.gov* , telephone: 202-385-2389, 400 Virginia Avenue, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Issued on: January 31, 2007. John H. Hill, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-2055 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Denial of Motor Vehicle Recall Petition AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Denial of a petition for an investigation into alleged defects in Firestone Steeltex tires. SUMMARY: This notice denies a petition submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162 by the Law Offices of Lisoni & Lisoni of Pasadena, California. The petition requests that the agency open a safety-related defect investigation into alleged defects in Firestone Steeltex tires manufactured from 1999 through 2005 in four Firestone plants located in Joliette, Canada; Aiken, South Carolina; Decatur, Illinois; and Cuernavaca, Mexico. After review of the information submitted by the petitioners and other pertinent information, NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of the agency's investigative resources on the issues raised by the petition does not appear warranted. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Derek Rinehardt, Safety Defects Engineer, Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202)366-3642. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Petition Review—DP06-001 1.0 Introduction On May 1, 2006, the Law Offices of Lisoni & Lisoni (petitioners) submitted a petition requesting that the Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI)open an investigation of Firestone Steeltex tires pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30162, and issue a recall order pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), 30119 and 30120. This petition was denominated as DP06-001. Petitioners submitted some additional information on June 23, 2006. Under 49 U.S.C. 30166, NHTSA has the authority to conduct an investigation to consider whether a motor vehicle or equipment contains a safety-related defect. 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) authorizes NHTSA to make a determination that a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If NHTSA makes such a determination, NHTSA issues an order directing the manufacturer of the vehicle or equipment to give notification of the defect to the owners, purchasers and dealers and to remedy the defect under 49 U.S.C. 30120. Collectively, the manufacturer's notice and provision of a remedy under section 30120 are known as a recall. ODI has an ongoing review process in which it reviews consumer complaints and data submitted by manufacturers in an effort to identify defect trends. If this ongoing review of information were to reveal possible defect trends in Steeltex or any other tires, ODI would open an investigation, as it does on scores of vehicle and equipment issues every year when the available evidence so warrants. In addition, any interested person may, under section 30162, file a petition requesting that NHTSA begin a proceeding to decide whether to issue an order under section 30118. As a practical matter, the granting of a petition under section 30162 begins an investigation. An investigation may or may not result in a recall. In determining whether to grant or deny a petition under 30162, NHTSA conducts a technical review of the petition. 49 CFR 552.6. The technical review may consist of an analysis of the material submitted together with the information already in the possession of the agency. It may also include the collection of additional information. NHTSA has discretion in deciding which matters are worthy of investigation and possible recall order. In addition to the technical merits of the petition, NHTSA may consider additional factors, such as the allocation of agency resources, agency priorities, and the likelihood of success in litigation that might arise from the order sought by the petitioner. 49 CFR 552.8. As noted above, if NHTSA grants the petition, an investigation is commenced to determine the existence of the defect. 49 CFR 552.9. Motor vehicle tires are items of equipment subject to a recall order under section 30118 if they contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. Were NHTSA to issue an order directing the recall of tires under that section, the agency would have the burden of demonstrating the existence of the defect and that the defect is safety-related. One possible indicator of a defective tire is an excessively high rate of failures compared to other, comparable tire lines. However, not every tire failure is the result of a defect in the tire. Tires may fail for a variety of reasons, such as improper maintenance and impact damage from road hazards. Moreover, because not all tires with the same broad label ( *e.g.* , “Steeltex”) are constructed in exactly the same way or designed for the same function, NHTSA often focuses on whether any specific grouping of similarly constructed tires (e.g., distinguished by tire line, tire size, and/ or date and location of manufacture) is defective. DP06-001 is a broad and sweeping petition that covers a number of different tires. NHTSA could not base a recall order merely on a generalized allegation that an enormous population of tires is defective. Instead, NHTSA must carefully review the details underlying such an allegation to determine whether the facts provide a basis for agency action. ODI began a technical review of DP06-001 on May 24, 2006. During the review, ODI: • Analyzed data within its own Vehicle Owners Questionnaire
(VOQ)database; • Analyzed early warning reporting
(EWR)data submitted by all tire manufacturers since December 2003; • Requested and analyzed data pertaining to Steeltex tire performance from Bridgestone-Firestone North American Tire, LLC (Firestone); • Analyzed the petition contents and additional data requested from the petitioners; • Reviewed prior petitions submitted by petitioners: DP02-011, DP04-004 and DP04-005. Based on this technical review, NHTSA has concluded that the petition should be denied. 2.0 Background DP06-001 is the fourth petition submitted by the petitioners asking the agency to open a defect investigation into Steeltex tires. In addition to the four petitions from the petitioners, the agency has reviewed Steeltex tire data in two other instances, as discussed in more detail below. The scope of the current petition involves over 23 and a half million Steeltex tires in three load ranges (C, D, and E), three tire lines (all terrain (A/T) and all season (R4S and R4SII)), and in twelve sizes 1 manufactured since 1999 at four plants (Joliette, Canada; Aiken, South Carolina; Decatur, Illinois and Cuernavaca, Mexico). Steeltex is a model name applied to the majority of light truck radial tires that Firestone sold beginning in about 1990. Steeltex tires have been the primary original equipment
(OE)tire on many of the largest passenger vans, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pickup trucks, and “cutaways” (including motor homes and ambulances) sold since 1990. However, they are no longer in production. 2 1 The twelve tire sizes are: 7.00R15LT, 7.50R16LT, 8.00R16.5LT, 8.75R16.5LT, 9.50R16.5LT, LT215/75R15, LT215/85R16, LT225/75R16, LT235/75R15, LT235/85R16, LT245/75R16, LT265/75R16. 2 Firestone phased out the production of the various Steeltex tire lines between 2004 and 2005. Load Range E
(LRE)tires represent the largest population of Steeltex tires manufactured from 1999 through 2005—accounting for approximately eighty-three percent of the Steeltex tires produced. LRE tires may be inflated up to 80 psi and can carry between 2,500 lbs and 3,400 lbs per tire. LRE tires have the highest load rating among the three load ranges of Steeltex tires. LRE tires are also used in more diverse applications and operate under more severe duty conditions and higher loads than the lesser load range tires (Load Range C and Load Range D). Steeltex tires are light truck radial
(LTR)tires comprised of two polyester body plies and two steel belts. LTR tires are distinguished from passenger radial
(PSR)tires by having heavier cord gauges, thicker rubber plies, deeper tread depths, and substantially higher inflation pressures. Within the population of Steeltex tires there exists a variety of designs that include obvious differences such as tread pattern, sidewall configuration, and tire size, as well as differences in internal construction such as cord configuration, cord gauge, cord angle, and mold shape. ODI initiated its first investigation (PE00-040) of Steeltex tires on September 9, 2000. PE00-040 was closed on April 9, 2002. This investigation revealed that Steeltex tires displayed failure rates comparable to and, in some instances, lower than those of LTR tires sold by other major manufacturers. ODI also noted that the vehicle type had the largest influence on the likelihood of a tire failure causing a vehicle crash. ODI revisited the issue of Steeltex tire failures during its review of the petitioners' November 2002 petition (DP02-011). Petitioners alleged that all Steeltex tires manufactured since 1990 were defective, that ODI had undercounted VOQs in its database, and that Firestone had deliberately understated its failure figures. ODI denied DP02-011after finding that VOQ and Firestone data had changed little since the closing of PE00-040 and that no specific defect trend was identified. *See* 68 FR 35941 (June 17, 2003). Based in part on EWR data, Firestone announced on February 26, 2004, that it would recall 3 approximately 487,000 LT265/75R16 Load Range D Steeltex A/T tires manufactured primarily for OE fitment on MY 2000-2003 Ford Excursion SUVs. At that time, EWR and other data did not indicate a defect trend in Steeltex tires outside of this recalled population. 3 NHTSA Recall # 04T-003. ODI again revisited the subject of Steeltex tire failures in May of 2004 after petitioners filed two more defect petitions (DP04-004 and DP04-005). The petitions alleged that all Steeltex tires manufactured since 1995 were defective (DP04-004) and that Steeltex tires installed as OE on ambulances pose an unacceptable safety risk to Emergency Medical Service
(EMS)operators (DP04-005). NHTSA issued a notice denying both petitions on September 29, 2004. *See* 69 FR 58221. NHTSA concluded that no defect trend existed as the Steeltex tires' failure rates did not stand out from those of their peers. 3.0 Petition Allegations—DP06-001 Overall, petitioners' allegations in DP06-001 are not new—they primarily restate assertions from DP04-004 and DP04-005. As in those prior petitions, the petitioners do not point to a particular defect or failure mode. Rather, they contend that various failures lead to the conclusion that the entire population of subject tires is generally defective. Further, petitioners devote nearly the entire May 2006 petition attempting to rebut particular points made in NHTSA's September 29, 2004 notice denying their prior petitions (DP04-004 and DP04-005). One noticeable difference between their prior petitions and DP06-001 is that petitioners have narrowed the scope of DP06-001. Petitioners now ask the agency to open a defect investigation into Steeltex R4S, R4S II and A/T tires manufactured from 1999 to 2005 in Firestone's Decatur, Aiken, Joliette and Mexico manufacturing plants, excluding tires previously recalled under recall 04T-003. Even with this limitation, there are more than 23 million tires within the scope of the petition. The petitioners provide limited information in support of DP06-001. 4 The petition includes a list of 57 fatalities and 161 injuries allegedly resulting from “serious” design and manufacturing defects in the subject tires. The total includes a composite number of fatalities and injuries from a list of incidents compiled by the petitioners (non-VOQ incidents) and those that petitioners identified from VOQs submitted to NHTSA. As explained below, ODI's review of these allegations revealed numerous inconsistencies and indicated that the vast majority of the alleged deaths and injuries were not within the scope of this petition. 4 Petitioners provided two submissions to the agency. First, on May 1, 2006, they submitted materials with their petition. Second, on June 23, 2006, they submitted a response to ODI's request for more information. On May 25, 2006, ODI requested more information detailing the specific failure modes and specific descriptions of all defect conditions alleged by the petitioners. The petitioners' June 23, 2006 response noted that an earlier list of supposedly relevant incidents submitted in March 2003 should be disregarded. However, the June 23, 2006 letter largely restated the information provided in the March 2003 letter, which was a supplement to their initial petition, DP02-011. A limited number of new alleged incidents were reported by the petitioners in their June 23, 2006 letter, but several did not fall within the scope of the current petition. 5 Petitioners said in that letter that they would provide additional documentation of several of the deaths and injuries but, as of this writing, have not done so. 5 For example, the petitioners list an incident from June 30, 2002, involving 5 individuals (three fatalities and two injuries). The incident was determined to involve Michelin tires, not Firestone tires. As in prior petitions, the petitioners refer to Firestone's mid-1990s C95 cost reduction program 6 to support their contention that tire quality degraded, causing numerous defects with Steeltex tires. Petitioners did not provide any new evidence supporting their contention that implementation of the C95 program degraded manufacturing quality at the four Firestone plants identified in their petition. Firestone contends that many of the recommendations in the C95 program were never implemented and that the changes that were implemented did not have any adverse effect on tire performance. ODI did not find any evidence that would link the C95 cost reduction program to any defect in Steeltex tires. 6 The C95 program was a Firestone program designed to improve manufacturing efficiencies and productivity at its manufacturing plants, as noted in detail in prior petitions (DP04-004 and DP04-005). Information concerning C95 was submitted by the petitioners to ODI in April 2003 during ODI's technical review of DP02-011. The documents submitted included a list of 153 potential cost-reduction recommendations. 4.0 DP06-001 Analysis 4.1 Information Submitted by Petitioners Petitioners' central allegation in DP06-001 is that Steeltex tires have caused 57 deaths and 161 injuries since 1999. ODI has carefully reviewed the list to verify the petitioners' allegations and to determine which of the alleged deaths and injuries are actually relevant to the tires that are the subject of the petition and, of those, which had not previously been considered by NHTSA in connection with the petitioners' previous petitions. Only by sorting out which allegations are within the scope of the present petition can we determine whether that petition provides a basis for the requested action. The petitioners' list of deaths and injuries includes multiple duplicate incidents 7 , incidents that did not involve a tire failure 8 , incidents involving tires not manufactured by Firestone 9 , incidents involving tires manufactured prior to 1999 10 , incidents involving tires that have been previously recalled under recall number 04T-003 11 , and incidents allegedly involving injuries that were determined to in fact not involve any injuries. 12 7 For example, the petitioners counted separately three VOQs (10095168, 10090258 and 10098938) that were related to the same incident alleging an injury. In addition, the subject tire was manufactured in 1997, which is outside the scope of the petition. Also, the petitioners list VOQ 555477 as a unique incident but that was a duplicate of VOQ 10002751. 8 For example, five firefighters were counted in the fifty-seven fatalities alleged by the petitioners to be a result of a Steeltex tire failure. However, published reports indicate that the incident was caused by driver error (the driver was found guilty of careless driving), not a tire failure. Also, petitioners count an injury reported through VOQ 8000804, which cites engine stall, not a tire failure. 9 For example:
(a)the petitioners included four injuries associated with VOQ 560738, although the subject tire of the incident was determined to be a Goodyear Wrangler Radial LT245/75R16, and
(b)one incident from the petitioners' list involving three fatalities and two injuries was determined to involve a Michelin tire. 10 For example, petitioners included:
(a)four alleged injuries associated with VOQ 865772, which references a tire manufactured in 1997; and
(b)one injury alleged in VOQ 868962 that references an incident with a date (February 12, 1994) that is not within the scope of the petition. 11 For example:
(a)an incident from the petitioners' list involving a 2000 Ford Excursion alleging five serious injuries was determined to involve a tire that fell within the scope of recall 04T-003; and
(b)the petitioners counted four injuries associated with VOQ 10060714, although the tires fell within the scope of the recall 04T-003. 12 For example:
(a)the petitioners counted five injuries associated with VOQ 748712, although the VOQ's narrative states “luckily, no one was injured”; and
(b)the petitioners counted one injury associated with VOQ 10146790, although the VOQ notes “0 injuries and 0 fatalities”. Additionally, petitioners overstate the number of relevant complaints and related deaths and injuries in ODI's VOQ database. They cite to one VOQ (10007251) that allegedly documents 18 fatalities and 27 injuries associated with Steeltex tire failures. In a press release submitted to the agency on May 2, 2006, the petitioners state that this VOQ is “perhaps the most shocking” of the complaints to NHTSA and that it “documents a tire tread belt failure resulting in eighteen deaths and twenty-seven injuries”. Actually this VOQ does not document an incident where a single tread belt failure resulted in eighteen deaths and twenty-seven injuries. The VOQ was previously submitted by petitioners in March 2003 and consists of a compilation of deaths and injuries alleged by the petitioners to have occurred in several different incidents. ODI's analysis of the incidents listed in this VOQ found that many of the incidents could not be validated, including some incidents that involved vehicles that would not normally be fitted with light truck radial tires as well as some that involved Steeltex tires outside the scope of the petition ( *i.e.* , prior to 1999). ODI confirmed that only three incidents (three injuries) alleged by VOQ 10007251 were within the scope of DP06-001. When ODI requested additional information about the March 2003 submission, the petitioners indicated that it should be ignored because it was superseded by DP06-001. When all of the unrelated incidents and incidents associated with tires that are not within the scope of the petition are removed from the list submitted by petitioners, what remains are allegations of 6 fatalities and 43 injuries occurring over a period of six years. When, based on ODI's own research, data from Firestone and ODI were added, the totals were 19 fatalities and 209 injuries involving the approximately 23 million tires within the scope of DP06-001. As discussed above, these data include all tire-related crashes resulting in death or injury irrespective of whether a defect was identified in the tire. Contrary to the petition's assertion of an increasing trend in such severe crashes, the data show that the trend of crashes involving deaths and injuries involving Steeltex tires is actually declining, with 82 percent fewer in 2005 than in 2003. Just 5 of the fatalities and 23 of the injuries occurred in the two years since ODI denied DP04-004 and DP04-005 from the petitioners in 2004. 4.2 VOQs Since the Denial of DP04-004 and DP04-005 In order to appropriately analyze DP06-001, ODI conducted a broad search of its VOQ database for any Steeltex tire-related complaints received since the September 29, 2004 denial of DP04-004 and DP04-005. Since the denial of those petitions, ODI has received 131 VOQs alleging a failure of a Steeltex tire. Forty-two VOQs were associated with tires that did not fall within the scope of DP06-001. Fifty-two VOQs alleged Steeltex tire failures, but did not provide sufficient information in the VOQ to determine whether the tire fell within the scope of this petition. 13 13 For some of the VOQs submitted by petitioners, ODI was unable determine if the tire reported fell within the scope of DP06-001. ODI made attempts to contact the consumers to obtain accurate DOT numbers of the reported tires. ODI could not determine if the reported tires fell within the scope of DP06-001 due to one or more of the following reasons: invalid or unknown tire information (DOT numbers) or incorrect or inadequate consumer contact information to obtain the correct DOT number. Thirty-seven VOQs received since the closure of DP04-004 and DP04-005 appeared to be within the scope of the present petition. However, of the 37 VOQs, 14 involved tires that were within the population of Steeltex tires recalled in 04T-003. Those previously recalled tires are not within the scope of this petition. Eliminating the 14 complaints for tires that have been recalled leaves 23 complaints that ODI has verified as within the scope this petition. Of the remaining 23 complaints, two involved alleged crashes that resulted in two minor injuries. While ODI is always concerned when a crash is alleged to have occurred, examination of the complaint data, particularly in light of the large population of Steeltex tires, again demonstrates that the complaint rates for Steeltex tires are comparable to other tires. These rates do not indicate that a defect trend exists. 4.3 EWR Data ODI began receiving EWR data from all major tire manufacturers in December of 2003. This includes data on production, death and injury claims and notices, property damage claims, and warranty adjustments. ODI used two approaches to analyze EWR data. First, it analyzed the data in a manner similar to how the petitioners suggest a review of Steeltex tires should be conducted: By performing an analysis of Steeltex tire data in their entirety and comparing them to data on other major tire brands manufactured by other major light truck tire manufacturers. Second, ODI performed an analysis of Steeltex tires by specific tire line, tire size, and production years. Neither analysis identified a trend indicating a safety related issue. In fact, both analyses show downward trends since the third quarter of 2003, as previously noted. ODI analyzed data on claims and notices involving a death or injury. Based on EWR data through the second quarter of 2006, the fatality and injury rates are showing a downward trend. Our analysis revealed that Steeltex tires within the scope of DP06-001 were below the industry average for the rate of claims and notices of death for light truck tires. Other major light truck tire manufacturers had higher fatality rates. With respect to rates for claims and notices involving an injury, Steeltex tire rates were slightly above the industry average; however, they did not stand out when compared to peer manufacturers (i.e. those with the largest volumes). Other major light truck tire manufacturers had higher rates for injuries. In addition, the trends of crashes involving Steeltex tires and resulting in death or injury have declined significantly in recent years, dropping by 82 percent from 2003 to 2005. Analysis of severe crash (injurious and fatal) rates by tire line, tire size, and production years found that no Steeltex tire that ranked among the top 30 highest rates for light truck radial tires for the production years within the scope of the petition. In contrast to the tires recalled under 04T-003, the tires analyzed in DP06-001 with the highest fatality and injury rates where six times lower and four times lower, respectively, than the tires that were subject of the recall. ODI's analysis of EWR data through the second quarter of 2006 revealed that the property damage claim rate for Steeltex tires as a whole is very close to and in many cases below the light truck radial
(LTR)tire class average. An analysis of property damage and warranty adjustment rates by tire line, tire size and production year found no single Steeltex tire ranked among the top 20 highest rates for light truck radial tires for production years within the scope of the petition. Several other major light truck tire manufacturers have higher rates of property damage claims than Steeltex tires. Also, overall, property damage claims have shown a downward trend since calendar year 2003 for Steeltex tires. The data do not support a defect trend. 4.4 Firestone Data ODI reviewed data on thousands of property damage and warranty adjustment claims, as well as lawsuits, injury and fatality claims and notices related to Steeltex tires produced between 1999 and 2005 submitted by Firestone. As with the prior petitions, LRE tires account for the vast majority of the Firestone claims. This reflects the large population of LRE tires in use, which exceeds the populations of the other load ranges identified by petitioners. In addition to such a large population, higher claims result from the severe duty conditions under which LRE tires typically operate. When compared to similar tires manufactured by other light truck tire manufacturers, Steeltex tires do not stand out. In fact, ODI's analysis of data submitted by Firestone and peer data from EWR indicate that the Steeltex tires perform at rates similar to those of the rest of the industry and compare favorably to at least two other major light truck tire manufacturers. 5.0 Discussion This is the fourth petition filed by the petitioners requesting that NHTSA re-open its investigation into Steeltex tires. In response to the petitioners' last two petitions, the agency conducted a thorough assessment that included, among other things, the physical examination of Steeltex tires and the hiring of an independent expert to examine Steeltex tires. *See* 69 FR 58221, 58222. During the course of that technical review, the agency expended considerable resources to decide whether to open a new investigation on Steeltex tires. After the review, the agency did not identify a potential safety-related defect trend and, therefore, denied the petitions. In the present petition, DP06-001, petitioners provided NHTSA with very little new data. Instead, they relied generally upon their past assertions that the totality of the complaints supports the finding of a defect trend. Petitioners' list of documented incidents of fatalities and injuries was marked by inconsistencies between what petitioners alleged and the actual facts of the incidents. Once the incidents that were not actually within the scope of the petition were removed, only three fatal crashes and 21 injurious crashes remained that were unknown to NHTSA at the time the agency issued its decisions on the previous petitions in September 2004. Other than this small number of incidents alleging a defect in Steeltex tires, the petitioners did not offer any further support that was not previously addressed by NHTSA in prior defect petitions. This small number of incidents, in such a large population of over 23 and a half million tires, does not evidence a defect trend. Additionally, petitioners did not provide evidence of or identify a particular failure mode that would be indicative of performance issues that ODI could analyze and potentially confirm through its analysis of the available data. Contrary to the petitioners' broad assertion of a defect trend based upon various failure modes, the analysis of the available data does not identify a discrete failure mode that amounts to a potential safety-related trend. The agency once again has spent considerable resources considering whether to re-open a defects investigation into Steeltex tires. ODI analyzed the available data for evidence of a possible source and mode of failure of the subject tires, including data submitted by the petitioners, VOQ and EWR data, Firestone's claim and adjustment data for the subject tires, owner complaints to ODI since the close of the prior petitions, and data available from the agency's prior technical reviews of Steeltex tire petitions. The Steeltex tires within the scope of DP06-001 represent an immense and diverse population of tires totaling over 23 million tires distributed over 63 different tire line, size and manufacturing plant combinations that are used in the harshest light truck tire applications. ODI's analysis of VOQ and EWR data, and Firestone's property damage and warranty adjustment claim data by individual tire line, size, production year and manufacturing plant, indicate that, as in prior technical reviews, the failure rates for the subject population of Steeltex tires are within the range of rates observed in peer tires of similar size, age and application. Similarly, when the Steeltex tire data are analyzed as a whole, the data again show failure rates that are similar to, and in some cases lower than, peer tires of the same size and load rating. In addition to examining property damage and warranty adjustment claim data, ODI also examined fatality and injury claims to determine if a defect trend in the subject tires could be identified based on those data. Our analysis of data involving tires within the scope of petition DP06-001 revealed a total of 19 fatalities in 12 crashes and 209 injuries in 121 crashes. ODI analyzed the data to determine if commonalities exist that would yield evidence of a defect trend. The tires on vehicles in these incidents were distributed over multiple tire lines, tire sizes, manufacturing plants and production years. In the case of fatal crashes, the Steeltex tires were distributed over all three tire lines, three different tire sizes, two assembly plants and four of the six production years. In the case of incidents resulting in injuries, the Steeltex tires were distributed over all three tire lines, four tire sizes, all four manufacturing plants and four of the six production years. Although a few of the incidents involved common tires, the failure rates of these tires did not reveal a defect trend. The tires studied by ODI with the highest rate of involvement in crashes involving death or injury were the Steeltex Radial A/T LT265/75R16 Load Range D tires recalled by Firestone in 04T-003. These tires comprised approximately 2 percent of all Steeltex tires produced by Firestone from 1999 through 2005, but were involved in 20 percent of fatal crashes and 21 percent of all crashes resulting in death or injury. ODI's analysis of the Steeltex tires within the scope of DP06-001 found that the overall rate of such crashes per tires produced is 92 percent lower than the tires recalled in 04T-003. When analyzed by individual tire line and plant, the tire with the next highest rate of crashes resulting in death or injury had a rate 82 percent lower than the recalled tires. Of the alleged 19 fatalities and 209 injuries, 14 of the alleged fatalities 14 and 186 of the alleged injuries occurred before or during our previous defect petitions. Although there have been a few additional crash incidents that have occurred since denial of the last two petitions, DP04-004 and DP04-005, these do not demonstrate a defect trend and no other new evidence has been provided to ODI to support the petitioners' allegations of safety defects in the subject Steeltex tires. Additionally, as was the case at the denial of DP04-004 and DP04-005, we do not have a basis for determining that these incidents, or any significant portion of them, are attributable to identifiable defects in a specific line and size of Steeltex tire. 14 One of the 14 fatalities occurred in 2003; however ODI was unaware of the incident when DP04-004 and DP04-005 were denied on September 28, 2004. ODI is aware of three fatal crashes (six total fatalities) involving vehicles equipped with Steeltex tires that the agency had not previously considered when denying the earlier petitions (including the one crash that occurred in 2003 but did not come to the agency's attention until after those denials in 2004). Each crash involved a different line and size of Steeltex tire. ODI's analysis of available data sources 15 did not identify a defect trend with respect to either of the three different Steeltex tire lines or sizes involved in these crashes. 15 EWR, Firestone, VOQs, and Petitioners' List. Additionally, ODI is also aware of twenty-one alleged crashes (twenty-three total injuries) occurring since the denial of DP04-004 and DP04-005. The tires involved in these incidents were of varying Steeltex tire lines, sizes, production years, and originated from three of the four manufacturing plants noted in the petition. Again, ODI's analysis of the various Steeltex tire lines and sizes involved in these incidents did not identify a defect trend. 6.0 Conclusion ODI has now conducted four technical reviews of Firestone Steeltex tires at the petitioners' request. After review of the data available to the agency, and in consideration of factors such as application, usage, the number of failures, failure rates, peer comparisons, severity of injury, and examination of potential failure modes, the agency has not found evidence of a defect trend in a particular sub-category of Steeltex tires that has not been recalled or in the broad population of over 23 million Steeltex tires within the scope of the petition. Based on ODI's analysis of the information submitted in support of the petition, information in ODI's internal databases, information provided by Firestone, and information gathered through prior technical reviews of Steeltex tires, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order for the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect in the subject tires at the conclusion of the investigation requested by the petitioners. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, petition DP06-001 is denied. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: February 2, 2007. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-2103 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Pipeline Safety: Requests for Waivers of Compliance (Special Permits) AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The federal pipeline safety laws allow a pipeline operator to request PHMSA to waive compliance with any part of the federal pipeline safety regulations. We are publishing this notice to provide a list of requests we have received from pipeline operators seeking relief from compliance with certain pipeline safety regulations. This notice seeks public comment on these requests, including comments on any environmental impacts. In addition, this notice informs the public that we are changing what we will call a decision granting such a request to a special permit. At the conclusion of the comment period, PHMSA will evaluate each request individually to determine whether to grant a special permit or deny the request. DATES: Submit any comments regarding any of these requests for special permit by March 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for the request and may be submitted in the following ways: • *DOT Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov* . To submit comments on the DOT electronic docket site, click “Comment/Submissions,” click “Continue,” fill in the requested information, click “Continue,” enter your comment, then click “Submit.” • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* DOT Docket Management System; 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. • *E-Gov Web Site: http://www.Regulations.gov* . This site allows the public to enter comments on any **Federal Register** notice issued by any agency. *Instructions:* You should identify the docket number for the request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, you should submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, you should include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit comments at *http://www.Regulations.gov* , and may access all comments received by DOT at *http://dms.dot.gov* by performing a simple search for the docket number. Note: All comments will be posted without changes or edits to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information provided. *Privacy Act Statement:* Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lemoi by telephone at
(404)832-1160; or, e-mail at *wayne.lemoi@dot.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Change in Nomenclature PHMSA is changing the name of a decision we make granting a request for waiver of compliance from “decision granting waiver” to “special permit” to reflect that granting the request will not reduce safety. We commonly add safety conditions to decisions granting waivers to ensure that waiving compliance with an existing pipeline safety standard is consistent with pipeline safety. This is simply a name change for a decision granting waiver under 49 U.S.C. 60118(c)(1). To avoid confusion, we will continue to process requests for waiver on which we have already begun work under the old nomenclature. Comments Invited on Requests for Waiver PHMSA has filed in DOT's Docket Management System
(DMS)requests for waiver we have received from pipeline operators seeking relief from compliance with certain pipeline safety regulations. Each request has been assigned a separate docket number in the DMS. We invite interested persons to participate by reviewing these requests and by submitting written comments, data or other views. Please include any comments on environmental impacts granting the requests may have. Before acting on any request, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing date. We will consider comments received after this date if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. We may grant or deny these requests based on the comments we receive. PHMSA has received the following requests for waivers of compliance with pipeline safety regulations. Docket Number Requester Regulation(s) Nature of Waiver PHMSA-2006-25802 CenterPoint Energy as Transmission 49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR 192.201, 49 CFR 192.619 To authorize operation of a 172-mile gas transmission pipeline from Carthage, TX to Perryville, LA at a maximum allowable operating pressure
(MAOP)of 80% of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS). PHMSA-2006-26533 Gulf South Pipeline 49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR 192.201, 49 CFR 192.619 To authorize operation of certain segments of a proposed gas transmission pipeline from Carthage, TX to Harrisville, MS at a MAOP of 80% of SMYS. PHMSA-2006-26616 Ozark Gas Transmission 49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR 192.201, 49 CFR 192.619 To authorize operation of certain segments of a 233-mile gas transmission pipeline (East End Expansion Project) in Arkansas and Mississippi at a MAOP of 80% of SMYS. PHMSA-2007-27121 Transwestern Pipeline Company, L.L.C 49 CFR 192.111, 49 CFR 192.201, 49 CFR 192.505, 49 CFR 192.619 To authorize operation of a 205-mile gas transmission pipeline from La Plata, CO to Gallup, NM at a MAOP of 80% of SMYS. PHMSA-2006-26530 Alyeska Pipeline Service Company 49 CFR 192.463, 192.465 & Appendix D of Part 192 To authorize operation of a 148-mile gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, AK to a pump station in the Brooks Mountain range, AK without applying and monitoring external cathodic protection. PHMSA-2006-26528 Dominion Transmission, Inc 49 CFR 192.611 To authorize operation of 5,722 ft of a gas transmission pipeline between Loudon and Quantico, VA without reducing operating pressure as a result of a change from a Class 1 to a Class 3 location. PHMSA-2007-27122 Spectra Energy Transmission (formerly Duke Energy Gas Transmission) 49 CFR 192.611 To authorize operation of 2 parallel gas lines in Westmoreland County, PA without reducing operating pressure as a result of changes from Class 1 to Class 2 locations. PHMSA-2006-26612 Tennessee Gas Pipeline 49 CFR 192.611 To authorize operation of 2 parallel gas lines in Jasper and Lowndes Counties, MS without reducing operating pressure as a result of changes from Class 2 to Class 3 locations. PHMSA-2006-26618 Tennessee Gas Pipeline 49 CFR 192.611 To authorize operation of one pipeline valve section on the Niagara Spur Loop Line, a gas transmission pipeline in upstate New York, without reducing operating pressure required as a result of a change from a Class 1 to a Class 3 location. PHMSA-2006-26611 Texas Gas Transmission, LLC 49 CFR 192.611 To authorize operation of 3 parallel gas lines near Lafayette, LA and 2 parallel gas lines near Louisville, KY without reducing operating pressure as a result of changes from Class 1 to Class 3 locations. PHMSA-2006-26531 Williams Gas Pipeline 49 CFR 192.611 To authorize operation of 2 segments of gas pipelines in Coweta, Fayette and Oconee Counties Georgia without reducing operating pressure as a result of changes from Class 2 to Class 3 locations. PHMSA-2006-26615 Texas Gas Transmission, LLC 49 CFR 192.612 To extend the required completion date of repairs to 5 areas of gas transmission pipeline with depths-of-cover less than 12-inches in Terrebonne Parish, LA and federal offshore waters from November 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007. PHMSA-2006-26532 Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. (formerly Columbia Natural Resources) 49 CFR 192.619 To authorize Chesapeake to establish the MAOP of various segments of its gas gathering pipeline system in Kentucky and West Virginia using a 5 year operating history. PHMSA-2006-26614 Northern Natural Gas Company 49 CFR 192.625 To authorize operation of the St. Joseph, MN distribution pipeline without injecting odorant into the gas stream. PHMSA-2006-26617 TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP 49 CFR 195.106, 49 CFR 195.406 To authorize operation of a 1,369-mile crude oil pipeline from the Canadian border near Cavalier County, ND to Payne County, OK at a MAOP of 80% of SMYS. PHMSA-2006-26613 BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc 49 CFR 195.424 To authorize movement of certain above ground hazardous liquid pipeline sections during routine inspection and maintenance activities without reducing the operating pressure on approximately 150 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines in the North Slope of Alaska. PHMSA-2006-26529 ConocoPhillips Alaska Pipeline 49 CFR 195.424 To authorize movement of certain above ground hazardous liquid pipeline sections during routine inspection and maintenance activities without reducing the operating pressure on approximately 100 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines in the North Slope of Alaska. PHMSA-2007-27120 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company 49 CFR 195.452(h) To authorize operation of a 36.3-mile crude oil pipeline from South Bend to New Iberia, LA at a reduced operating pressure in lieu of repairing certain anomalies discovered during an in-line inspection. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60118 (c)(1) and 49 CFR 1.53. Issued in Washington, DC on February 2, 2007. Jeffrey D. Wiese, Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. E7-2094 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8734 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8734, Support Schedule for Advance Ruling Period. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 9, 2007 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at
(202)622-6665, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at *Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Support Schedule for Advance Ruling Period. *OMB Number:* 1545-1836. *Form Number:* 8734. *Abstract:* Form 8734 is used by charities to furnish financial information that Exempt Organization Determinations of IRS can use to classify a charity as a public charity. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the form at this time. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 16,000. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 34 hours, 19 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 549,120. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: February 2, 2007. Glenn P. Kirkland, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2047 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 8865 AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8865, Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 9, 2007 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at
(202)622-6665, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at *Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Return of U.S. Persons With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships. *OMB Number:* 1545-1668. *Form Number:* 8865. *Abstract:* The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 significantly modified the information reporting requirements with respect to foreign partnerships. The Act made the following three changes:
(1)Expanded Code section 6038B to require U.S. persons transferring property to foreign partnerships in certain transactions to report those transfers;
(2)expanded Code section 6038 to require certain U.S. partners of controlled foreign partnerships to report information about the partnerships, and
(3)modified the reporting required under Code section 6046A with respect to acquisitions and dispositions of foreign partnership interests. Form 8865 is used by U.S. persons to fulfill their reporting obligations under Code sections 6038B, 6038, and 6046A. *Current Actions:* We have added 3 line items to the Schedule K. *Type of Review:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals, and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 3,300. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 89 hours, 44 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 296,124. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: February 1, 2007. Glenn P, Kirkland, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2049 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service [RP-155431-05] Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Revenue Procedure AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning RP-155431-05, Revenue Procedure Regarding 6707/6707A Rescission Request Procedures. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 9, 2007 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the revenue procedure should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at
(202)622-6688, or through the Internet at *Carolyn.N.Brown@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Revenue Procedure Regarding 6707/6707A Rescission Request Procedures. *OMB Number:* 1545-2047. *Revenue Procedure Number:* 155431-05. *Abstract:* This revenue procedure provides guidance to persons who are assessed a penalty under section 6707A or 6707 of the Internal Revenue Code, and who may request rescission of those penalties from the Commissioner. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to this revenue procedure. *Type of Review:* New collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households, business or other for-profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 859. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 0.5 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 429.50. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: January 31, 2007. Glenn P. Kirkland, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2050 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service [(REG-108639-99); (NOTICE 2000-3)] Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Qualified Retirement Plans Under Sections 401(k) and 401(m) and Guidance on Cash or Deferred Arrangements AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning REG-108639-99
(NPRM)Sections 401(k) and 401(m); Notice 2000-3 Guidance on Cash or Deferred Arrangements. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 9, 2007 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to Carolyn N. Brown at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or at
(202)622-6688, or through the Internet at *Carolyn.N.Brown@irs.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* REG-108639-99
(NPRM)Sections 401(k) and 401(m); Notice 2000-3 Guidance on Cash or Deferred Arrangements. *OMB Number:* 1545-1669. *Regulation/Notice Number:* REG-108639-99/Notice 2000-3. *Abstract:* The final regulations provide guidance for qualified retirement plans containing cash or deferred arrangements under section 401(k) and providing matching contributions or employee contributions under section 401(m). The IRS needs this information to insure compliance with sections 401(k) and 401(m). *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to this regulation. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions and State, Local or Tribal Government. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 22,500. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* 1 hour. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 26,500. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: February 1, 2007. Glenn P. Kirkland, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2052 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Open Meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted via teleconference. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 1 p.m., Eastern Time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Toy at 1-888-912-1227, or
(414)231-2360. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.
(1988)that an open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel
(TAP)will be held Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 1 p.m. Eastern Time via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the Joint Committee of TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or
(414)231-2360, or write Barbara Toy, TAP Office, MS-1006-MIL, PO Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI 53201-2105, or FAX to
(414)231-2363, or you can contact us at *http://www.improveirs.org.* Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Barbara Toy. The agenda will include the following: discussion of issues and responses brought to the Joint Committee, office report, and discussion of next meeting. Dated: January 31, 2007. John Fay, Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. [FR Doc. E7-2051 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Open Meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the States of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas) AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 13, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. Central Time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227, or
(414)231-2365. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.
(1988)that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, March 13, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. Central Time via a telephone conference call. You can submit written comments to the Panel by faxing to
(414)231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop1006MIL, PO Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3205, or you can contact us at *http://www.improveirs.org.* This meeting is not required to be open to the public, but because we are always interested in community input, we will accept public comments. Please contact Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227 or
(414)231-2365 for additional information. The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. Dated: January 31, 2007. John Fay, Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. [FR Doc. E7-2054 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Open Meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the States of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 20, 2007, at 10 a.m., Central Time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227, or
(414)231-2360. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.
(1988)that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, March 20, 2007, at 10 a.m., Central Time via a telephone conference call. You can submit written comments to the Panel by faxing the comments to
(414)231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop 1006MIL, PO Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3205, or you can contact us at *http://www.improveirs.org.* This meeting is not required to be open to the public, but because we are always interested in community input we will accept public comments. Please contact Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227 or
(414)231-2360 for dial-in information. The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. Dated: January 31, 2007. John Fay, Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. [FR Doc. E7-2056 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax Assistance
(VITA)Issue Committee AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service,
(IRS)Treasury. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel VITA Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 6, 2007, at Noon Eastern Time. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Toy at 1-888-912-1227, or
(414)231-2360. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.
(1988)that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel VITA Issue Committee will be held Tuesday, March 6, 2007, at Noon, Eastern Time via a telephone conference call. You can submit written comments to the Panel by faxing to
(414)231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop 1006MIL, P.O. Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3205, or you can contact us at *http://www.improveirs.org.* Public comments will also be welcome during the meeting. Please contact Barbara Toy at 1-888-912-1227 or
(414)231-2360 for additional information. The agenda will include the following: Various VITA Issues. Dated: January 31, 2007. John Fay, Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. [FR Doc. E7-2059 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Open Meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden (Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden (Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday, March 1, 2007 from 11 a.m. ET. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227, or 954-423-7979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10
(2)of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.
(1988)that an open meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden (Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, March 1, 2007 from 11 a.m. ET via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write Sallie Chavez, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Sallie Chavez. Ms. Chavez can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or post comments to the Web site: *http://www.improveirs.org.* The agenda will include: Various IRS issues. Dated: January 31, 2007. John Fay, Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. [FR Doc. E7-2065 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P 72 26 Thursday, February 8, 2007 Presidential Documents Title 3— The President Proclamation 8105 of February 2, 2007 National Consumer Protection Week, 2007 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation During National Consumer Protection Week, citizens are urged to learn more about the risks of fraud and identity theft and take precautions to protect themselves from these crimes. Americans can help prevent fraud and identity theft by becoming informed consumers. The Federal Trade Commission suggests that individuals safeguard personal information such as Social Security and account numbers, closely monitor their financial accounts, and report any problems or suspicious activity. When doing business through the Internet, it is especially important to protect personal data with appropriate software and commonsense security practices. Consumers and businesses can find resources on how to avoid identity theft and fraud by visiting the Federal Government's consumer protection website, www.consumer.gov. My Administration is committed to protecting consumers from fraud, deception, and unfair business practices. In May 2006, I signed an Executive Order creating the Nation's first Identity Theft Task Force, comprised of the heads of executive departments and agencies. This Task Force is implementing a comprehensive strategy to prevent identity theft, prosecute those who commit fraud, and help victims. Through these and other efforts, we are helping to ensure that consumers have the tools they need to secure their personal information, monitor their financial accounts, maintain their privacy, and make responsible decisions to guard against fraud. Consumer fraud takes advantage of the trust and integrity that characterizes our country's marketplace. By remaining vigilant and defending against fraud, Americans can protect their financial security and help our Nation's economy remain strong. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim February 4 through February 10, 2007, as National Consumer Protection Week. I call upon Government officials, industry leaders, and consumer advocates to provide citizens with information about how they can prevent fraud and identity theft, and I encourage all citizens to be responsible consumers and take an active role in protecting their personal information. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first. GWBOLD.EPS [FR Doc. 07-596 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 19
Traces to 19 documents
CFR
U.S. Code
- Efficient environmental reviews for project decisionmaking and One Federal Decision§ 139
- Standards§ 109
- Public hearings§ 128
- Policy on lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites§ 303
- Landscaping and scenic enhancement§ 319
- Transferred or Omitted§ 470
- Project grants and contracts for family planning services§ 300
- National wetlands priority conservation plan§ 3921
- National Highway System§ 103
- Petitions by interested persons for standards and enforcement§ 30162
- Notification of defects and noncompliance§ 30118
- Inspections, investigations, and records§ 30166
- Remedies for defects and noncompliance§ 30120
- Compliance and waivers§ 60118
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information§ 6103
register
33 references not yet in our index
- 49 CFR 1.48
- 42 USC 4321-4351
- 42 USC 7401-7671q
- 12 USC 1531-1544
- 16 USC 661-667(d)
- 16 USC 703-712
- 16 USC 469-469(c)
- 23 USC 3001-3013
- 42 USC 200(d)(1)
- 42 USC 1966
- 7 USC 4201-4209
- 33 USC 1251-1377
- 16 USC 4601-4604
- 33 USC 401-406
- 42 USC 4001-4128
- Pub. L. 109-383
- 49 CFR 552.6
- 49 CFR 552.8
- 49 CFR 552.9
- 49 CFR 192.111
- 49 CFR 192.201
- 49 CFR 192.619
- 49 CFR 192.505
- 49 CFR 192.463
- 49 CFR 192.611
- 49 CFR 192.612
- 49 CFR 192.625
- 49 CFR 195.106
- 49 CFR 195.406
- 49 CFR 195.424
- 49 CFR 195.452(h)
- 49 CFR 1.53
- Pub. L. 104-13
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of petitions for exemption received
Cite49 CFR 1.48
Cite42 USC 4321-4351
Cite42 USC 7401-7671q
Cites 52 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources