Notices. Notice

23,889 words·~109 min read·/register/2007/02/12/07-609

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

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55245; File No. SR-NASD-2007-009] Self-Regulatory Organizations: National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Extension of NASD's Short Sale Rule Contained in Rule 5100 and Short Sale Standard Contained in IM-5100 February 5, 2007. 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 January 26, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

(“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting accelerated approval of the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change NASD is proposing to extend retroactively to December 16, 2006, and prospectively through December 15, 2007, the pilot effectiveness of Rule 5100 (Short Sale Rule).

NASD is also seeking to extend the pilot effectiveness of the penny ($0.01) legal short sale standard contained in Interpretive Material

(IM)5100. Without such extension, these pilots would have expired on December 15, 2006. NASD does not propose any substantive changes to the pilots; the only changes are making the pilots effective on a retroactive basis to December 16, 2006 and extending the pilots' expiration dates to December 15, 2007. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets. 3 3 There are no proposed changes to the text of IM-5100. 5100. Short Sale Rule

(a)through

(k)No Change.

(l)This section shall be in effect until December 15, 200[6] *7* . II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NASD 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. NASD 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 *Proposal to Extend Penny Short Sale Rule.* Section 10(a) of the Act gives the Commission plenary authority to regulate short sales 4 of securities registered on a national securities exchange, as needed to protect investors. Rule 10a-1(a)(1) provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a listed security may be sold short

(A)at a price above the price at which the immediately preceding sale was effected (plus tick), or

(B)at the last sale price if it is higher than the last different price (zero-plus tick). 5 4 A short sale is a sale of a security that the seller does not own or any sale that is consummated by the delivery of a security borrowed by, or for the account of, the seller. *See* Rule 200(a) of Regulation SHO under the Act. 5 *See* 17 CFR 240.10a-1(a)(1). On June 29 1994, the Commission granted temporary approval to NASD's short sale rule, Rule 5100 (formerly Rule 3350), 6 applicable to Nasdaq Global Market (“NGM”) securities 7 on a pilot basis. 8 Rule 5100 applies to short sales of OTC transactions reported to the Alternative Display Facility (“ADF”) or a Trade Reporting Facility (“TRF”). Rule 5100 provides that, with respect to trades reported to the ADF or the TRF, no member shall effect a short sale in a NGM security otherwise than on an exchange at or below the current national best (inside) bid when the current national best (inside) bid is below the preceding national best (inside) bid (referred to as the “bid test”). 6 NASD has renumbered Rule 3350 and IM-3350 as Rule 5100 and IM-5100, respectively. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54084 (June 30, 2006), 71 FR 38935 (July 10, 2006) (File No. SR-NASD-2005-087). 7 Nasdaq Global Market securities were formerly known as Nasdaq National Market securities. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54084 (June 30, 2006), 71 FR 38935 (July 10, 2006). 8 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34277 (June 29, 1994), 59 FR 34885 (July 7, 1994) (“Short Sale Rule Approval Order”). Since approval, NASD proposed, and the Commission approved, numerous extensions of NASD's short sale rule and it continues to operate on a pilot basis. 9 NASD has determined to seek an extension of the pilot until December 15, 2007 and to make it effective on a retroactive basis to December 16, 2006. NASD believes that such an extension provides an appropriate continuation of NASD's short sale price test contained in Rule 5100 while the Commission considers whether changes to short sale price tests are necessary in light of current market practices and the purposes underlying short sale regulation. 10 9 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53093 (January 10, 2006), 71 FR 2966 (January 18, 2006) (Notice of Immediate Effectiveness of SR-NASD-2005-149 extending the Short Sale Rule and continued suspension of Primary Market Maker standards). 10 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54891 (December 7, 2006), 71 FR 75067 (December 13, 2006) (proposed amendments to Regulation SHO and Rule 10a-1 under the Act). *Proposal to Extend Penny Short Sale Standard.* On March 2, 2001, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, 11 the proposal to establish a $0.01 above the bid standard for legal short sales in NGM securities as part of the Decimals Implementation Plan for the Equities and Options Markets. This pilot program has been continuously extended since that date and expired on December 15, 2006. 12 NASD now proposes to extend retroactively to December 16, 2006, and prospectively through December 15, 2007, the penny short sale pilot program. Extension of the pilot will allow NASD and the Commission to maintain the status quo until the Commission takes further action on short sale price tests. 11 * See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44030 (March 2, 2001), 66 FR 14235 (March 9, 2001) (SR-NASD-2001-09). 12 *See* supra note 9. If approved, NASD will continue during the pilot period to require NASD members seeking to effect “legal” short sales when the current national best (inside) bid is lower than the preceding national best (inside) bid, to execute those short sales at a price that is at least $0.01 above the current national best (inside) bid in that security. NASD believes that such an extension provides for an appropriate continuation of the current penny short sale standards while the Commission continues to consider the effectiveness of short sale price tests. NASD is not proposing any other changes to the pilot at this time. NASD is requesting that the Commission accelerate the effectiveness of the proposed rule change and is seeking to make the proposed rule change effective on a retroactive basis to December 16, 2006. 2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, 13 which requires, among other things, that NASD rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NASD believes it is in the best interest of investors and the public to extend the short sale regulation pilot program. NASD also believes that it is important to continue the pilot while the Commission continues to consider the effectiveness of short sale price tests. 14 13 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6). 14 *See* supra note 10. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action NASD has requested that the Commission find good cause pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 15 for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after publication in the **Federal Register** . The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to NASD and, in particular, the requirements of Section 15A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. 16 The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in that accelerated approval will allow the short sale pilot program to operate without interruption. 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 16 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 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-NASD-2007-009 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-009. 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 NASD. 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-NASD-2007-009 and should be submitted on or before March 5, 2007. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2007-009) is approved on an accelerated basis. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-2303 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-55211; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-79] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to an Amendment to the Generic Listing Standards for Trust Shares January 31, 2007. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on November 29, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. On January 29, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons, and is granting accelerated approval to the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange supplemented the rationale for its request for accelerated approval and made technical changes to the proposed rule text. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 803—Criteria for Listing—Tier 1, regarding generic listing standards for Trust Shares. The text of the proposed Phlx Rule is set forth below, with new text *italicized* and deleted text [bracketed]. Rule 803 Criteria for Listing—Tier I (a)-(h) No Change.

(i)Trust Shares (1)-(10) No Change.

(11)The Exchange may approve a series of Trust Shares for trading, whether by listing or pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provided each of the following criteria is satisfied:

(a)Eligibility Criteria for Index Components. Upon the initial listing of a series of Trust Shares on the Exchange, the component stocks of an index or portfolio underlying such series of Trust Shares shall meet the following criteria as of the date of the initial deposit of cash and securities into the trust: (i)-(ii) No Change.

(iii)The most heavily weighted component stock cannot exceed [25] *30%* of the weight of the index or portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted component stocks cannot exceed 65% of the weight of the index or portfolio; (iv)-(v) No Change. (b)-(h) No Change. (j)-(m) No Change. 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 Exchange 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 III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, substantially 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to conform Phlx's generic listing standards for Trust Shares, specifically Rule 803(i)(11)(a)(iii), to the standards of other exchanges. Phlx Rule 803 provides generic listing standards for Trust Shares to permit listing and trading of these securities pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. 4 Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing and trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory organization shall not be deemed a proposed rule change, pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 19b-4, 5 if the Commission has approved, pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act, 6 the self-regulatory organization's trading rules, procedures and listing standards for the product class that would include the new derivative securities product, and the self-regulatory organization has a surveillance program for the product class. 7 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). 5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(c)(1). 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40761 (December 8, 1998), 63 FR 70952 (December 22, 1998). These generic listing standards are intended to ensure that stocks with substantial market capitalization and trading volume account for a substantial portion of the weight of an index or portfolio. Phlx Rule 803 provides that, upon the initial listing of a series of Trust Shares under Rule 19b-4(e), component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least 90 percent of the weight of the index or portfolio must have a minimum market value of at least $75 million. In addition, the component stocks in the index must have a minimum monthly trading volume during each of the last six months of at least 250,000 shares for stocks representing at least 90 percent of the weight of the index or portfolio. Currently, Rule 803(i)(11)(a)(iii) provides that the most heavily weighted component stock in an underlying index cannot exceed 25 percent of the weight of the index or portfolio, and the five most heavily weighted component stocks cannot exceed 65 percent of the weight of the index or portfolio. The Exchange proposes to increase from 25 percent to 30 percent the permissible weight of the most heavily weighted component stock in an underlying index. The Exchange is not amending the existing requirement that the five most heavily weighted stocks cannot exceed 65 percent of the weight of the index or portfolio. According to the Exchange, this change will provide additional flexibility to unit investment trusts to be listed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) in structuring their products and will help reduce possible concerns associated with a single stock exceeding the 25 percent threshold immediately prior to initial listing and trading due to a spike in the price of the most heavily weighted index stock. The Exchange notes that, notwithstanding this change, unit investment trusts (including Trust Shares) are subject to Internal Revenue Code Subchapter M requirements applicable to regulated investment companies. In order to maintain regulated investment company status, these entities would be required to rebalance their portfolios quarterly to avoid any one stock exceeding a 25 percent weighting in the trust's portfolio. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 8 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 9 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange 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. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange states that written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. 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 No. SR-Phlx-2006-79 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-79. 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 Exchange. 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-Phlx-2006-79 and should be submitted on or before March 5, 2007. IV. Commission Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 10 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, 11 which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is reasonably designed to provide additional flexibility in the listing of Trust Shares under the Exchange's generic listing standards. Further, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change will serve to protect investors and the public interest by maintaining the size and liquidity requirements applicable to the securities underlying the relevant index or portfolio. 10 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* U.S.C. 78c(f). 11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of filing thereof in the **Federal Register** . The Commission has previously approved similar proposals by the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”) and New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”). 12 Therefore, the proposed rule change does not raise any new issues. 12 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 44532 (July 10, 2001), 66 FR 37078 (July 16, 2001) (SR-Amex-2001-25) (approving an increase for indexes underlying Portfolio Depositary Receipts and Index Fund Shares listed on the Amex); 44908 (October 4, 2001), 66 FR 52161 (October 12, 2001) (SR-CBOE-2001-38) (approving an increase for indexes underlying Index Portfolio Receipts and Index Portfolio Shares listed on the CBOE); 53934 (June 1, 2006), 71 FR 33326 (June 8, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-39) (approving an increase for indexes underlying Investment Company Units). V. Conclusion It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 13 that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2006-79), as modified by Amendment No. 1, is approved on an accelerated basis. 13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 14 14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-2248 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 10797 and # 10798] Florida Disaster # FL-00019 AGENCY: Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA—1679—DR), dated 02/03/2007. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:* 02/01/2007 through 02/02/2007. DATES: *Effective Date:* 02/03/2007. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/04/2007. *Economic Injury

(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 11/05/2007. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/03/2007, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans* ): Lake; Seminole; Sumter; Volusia Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only): Florida: Brevard; Citrus; Flagler; Hernando; Marion; Orange; Osceola; Pasco; Polk; Putnam. The Interest Rates are: Percent For Physical Damage Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.750 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.875 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere 8.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 For Economic Injury Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10797C and for economic injury is 107980. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-2296 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Region 1—Maine District Advisory Council; Public Meeting The U.S. Small Business Administration Maine District Advisory Council, located in the geographical area of Augusta, Maine will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, February 21, 2007, starting at 10 a.m. The meeting will be held at Mainely Trusses, Inc., 7 Truss Lane, Fairfield, ME. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss such matters as may be presented by members, staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others present. For further information, write or call Mary McAleney, District Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, Maine District Office, 68 Sewall Street, Room 512, Augusta, Maine 04330, telephone

(207)622-8386; fax

(207)622-8277. Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2226 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Public Federal Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Hearing; Region IV Regulatory Fairness Board The U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA)Region IV Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a public hearing on Thursday, February 22, 2007, at 10 a.m. The meeting will take place at the Auburn Avenue Research Library, 101 Auburn Avenue, NE., Atlanta, GA 30303. The purpose of the meeting is to receive comments and testimony from small business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions taken by Federal agencies. Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact James Hightower, in writing or by fax, in order to be placed on the agenda. James Hightower, Public Information Officer, SBA, Georgia District Office, 233 Peachtree Street, NE., Suite 1900, Atlanta, GA 30303, phone

(404)331-0100, Ext. 215 and fax

(202)481-2313, e-mail: *James.hightower@sba.gov.* For more information, see our Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman.* Matthew Teague, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-2228 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5666] U.S. Advisory Panel to the U.S. Section of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission; (Notice of Renewal) The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the U.S. Advisory Panel to the U.S. Section of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) for another two years, effective February 1, 2007. The NPAFC was established by the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean, signed on February 12, 1992, by Canada, Japan, the Russian Federation, and the United States, and entered into force on February 16, 1993. The U.S. Advisory Panel will continue to work with the U.S. Section to promote the conservation of anadromous fish stocks, particularly salmon, throughout their migratory range in the North Pacific Ocean, as well as ecologically related species. The U.S. Section of the Commission is composed of three Commissioners who are appointed by the President. Each Commissioner is appointed for a term not to exceed 4 years, but is eligible for reappointment. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, may designate alternate Commissioners. The Advisory Panel to the U.S. Section is composed of 14 members, 11 of whom are appointed by the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. Advisory Panel members serve for a term not to exceed 4 years, and may not serve more than two consecutive terms. The Advisory Panel will continue to follow the procedures prescribed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Meetings will continue to be open to the public unless a determination is made in accordance with Section 10 of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)

(1)and (4), that a meeting or a portion of the meeting should be closed to the public. Notice of each meeting will continue to be provided for publication in the **Federal Register** as far in advance as possible prior to the meeting. For further information on the renewal of the Advisory Panel, please contact Cynthia

(Kate)Von Holle, Office of Marine Conservation in the Department of State,

(202)647-3464. Dated: January 11, 2007. Margaret F. Hayes, Acting, Deputy Assistant Secretary, for Oceans and Fisheries, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-2346 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-09-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5689] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; Determinations: “Barcelona and Modernity: Gaudi to Dali ” *Summary:* Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the additional objects to be included in the exhibition “Barcelona and Modernity: Gaudi to Dali ”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the additional exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about March 5, 2007, until on or about June 3, 2007, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . *For Further Information Contact:* For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone:

(202)453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: February 5, 2007. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-2343 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5690] Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition; Determinations: “Central European Galleries” *Summary:* Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the object to be included in the exhibition “Central European Galleries,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about February 28, 2007, until on or about February 28, 2009, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . *For Further Information Contact:* For further information, including a list of the exhibit object, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone:

(ITAC)to prepare advice on U.S. positions for the OAS CITEL Permanent Consultative Committee II (Radiocommunication), the International Telecommunication Union's Telecommunication Development Advisory Group

(TDAG)and various Telecommunication Standardization Study Groups. The ITAC will meet on March 13, 2007 2-4 p.m. to prepare advice for the meeting of PCC.II (Radiocommunication, including Broadcasting) of the Organization of American States Inter-American Telecommunications Commission (CITEL). Location of this meeting may be obtained by calling the Secretariat below. The ITAC will meet on Thursday March 15, 2007 from 2-4 p.m. to prepare advice on U.S. positions to be taken at ITU-T Study Group 3 at the AT&T Innovation Center, 1133 21st Street, NW., Suite 210, Washington, DC. This meeting replaces one scheduled for March 8, 2007. The ITAC will meet on March 15, 22, and 29, 2007 all 2-4 p.m. all in Room 2533A of the Harry S Truman Building to prepare advice for the meeting of the Telecommunication Development Advisory Group (TDAG). The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee

(ITAC)will meet by conference call to prepare for ITU-T Study Groups 11, 13, and 19 on March 30, 2007. People desiring to participate in this call should contact the Secretariat at *minardje@state.gov* or 202 647-3234 for directions. The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee

(ITAC)will meet to prepare for ITU-T Study Group 15 on May 18, 2007 directly following the meetings of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions

(ATIS)committees OPTXS and NIPP in Minneapolis, MN. The location of this meeting will be available from the Secretariat at *minardje@state.gov.* The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee

(ITAC)will meet to prepare for ITU-T Study Group 16 on June 7, 2007 9:30 a.m. to noon, at the offices of Communications Technologies Inc, 14151 Newbrook Drive, Suite 400, Chantilly, VA 20151. These meetings are open to the public. Further information may be obtained from the Secretariat at *minardje@state.gov,* telephone 202 647-3234. Dated: February 5, 2007. Marian R. Gordon, Director Telecommunication & Information Standardization, International Communications & Information Policy, Multilateral Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E7-2344 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-07-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary; Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending February 2, 2007 The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 *et. seq.* ). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings. *Docket Number:* OST-2007-27184. *Date Filed:* February 1, 2007. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* February 22, 2007. *Description:* Application of Bellview Airlines Ltd., requesting a foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transport of persons, property, and mail from a point or points in Nigeria via intermediate points, to a point or points in the United States and beyond, as well as other charter authority. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E7-2337 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting. SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a meeting of the Federal Aviation Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee (ATPAC) will be held to review present air traffic control procedures and practices for standardization, clarification, and upgrading of terminology and procedures. DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Wednesday, April 11, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and Thursday, April 12, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the CGH Technologies Inc. Office, Eighth Floor, Training Conference Room, 600 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nancy B. Kalinowski, Executive Director, ATPAC, System Operations Airspace and Aeronautical Information Management, Room 400E, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone

(202)267-9205. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the ATPAC to be held Tuesday, April 10, 2007 from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; Wednesday, April 11, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and Thursday, April 12, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The agenda for this meeting will cover a continuation of the ATPAC's review of present air traffic control procedures and practices for standardization, clarification, and upgrading of terminology and procedures. It will also include: 1. Approval of Minutes; 2. Submission and Discussion of Areas of Concern; 3. Discussion of Potential Safety Items; 4. Report from Executive Director; 5. Items of Interest; and 6. Discussion and agreement of location and dates for subsequent meetings. Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space available. With the approval of the Chairperson, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons desiring to attend and persons desiring to present oral statement should notify Ms. Nancy B. Kalinowski no later than April 6, 2007. The next quarterly meeting of the FAA ATPAC is scheduled for July 24-26, 2007, in Washington, DC. Any member of the public may present a written statement to the ATPAC at any time at the address given above. Issued in Washington, DC, on February 5, 2007. Nancy B. Kalinowski, Executive Director, Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee. [FR Doc. E7-2233 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Federal Presumed to Conform Actions Under General Conformity AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Draft notice; request for comment. SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act

(CAA)section 176(c), 42 U.S.C. 7506(c) and Amendments of 1990 1 require that all Federal actions conform to an applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)has established criteria and procedures for Federal agencies to use in demonstrating conformity with an applicable SIP that can be found at 40 CFR 93.150 *et.seq.* (“The Rule”). 1 Clean Air Act Title I Air Pollution Prevention and Control, Part D, Subpart 1, Section 176 Limitation on Certain Federal Assistance. The Rule allows Federal agencies to develop a list of actions that are presumed to conform to a SIP 2 for the criteria pollutants and their precursors that are identified in 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1) and (b)(2) and in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under 40 CFR 50.4-50.12. 3 The criteria pollutants of concern for local airport air quality are ozone (O 3 ) and its two major precursors (volatile organic compounds

(VOC)and nitrogen oxides (NO X )), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), 4 and particulate matter consisting of small particulates with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM 2.5 ) and larger particulates with a diameter of up to 10 micrometers (PM 10 ). 5 2 40 CFR Part 93, § 93.153(f). 3 NAAQS established by the EPA represent maximum concentration standards for criteria pollutants to protect human health (primary standards) and to protect property and aesthetics (secondary standards). 4 FAA calculated SO X is considered equal to SO 2 . 5 Smaller PM 2.5 particulate matter is a subset of PM 10 . Levels for PM 2.5 are included in the NAAQS but not yet established for purposes of general conformity (no de minimis threshold or SIPs). Therefore, references in this Notice to PM 10 also apply to PM 2.5 for purposes of presumed to conform actions. According to the Rule, 6 Federal agencies must meet the criteria for establishing activities that are presumed to conform by either: 6 40 CFR Part 93, § 93.153(g).

(1)Clearly demonstrating that the total of direct and indirect emissions from the type of activities that would be presumed to conform would not:

(i)Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area;

(ii)Interfere with provisions in the applicable SIP for maintenance of any standard;

(iii)Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or

(iv)Delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area including emission levels specified in the applicable SIP; 7 or 7 40 CFR Part 93, § 93.153(g)(1).

(2)Providing documentation that emissions from the types of actions that would be presumed to conform are below the applicable de minimis levels established in 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1) and (b)(2). 8 This documentation may be based on similar actions that the agency has taken over recent years. 9 Besides documenting the basis for presumed to conform activities, Federal agencies must fulfill procedural requirements under the Rule relating to publication in the **Federal Register** , notification to Federal/State/local agencies, opportunity for public comment, and availability of responses to public comments. 10 8 Title 40 CFR Part 93, 93.153(g)(2). 9 Ibid. 10 Title 40 CFR Part 93, 93.153(h). In this Notice, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)is proposing categories of actions involving agency approval and financial assistance for airport projects that would be presumed to conform. The benefits of this process include the elimination of unnecessary agency costs associated with evaluating actions with few if any emissions. As a result, the agency will be able to streamline the environmental process by applying more of its resources to actions that have the potential to reach regulated emission levels or adversely impact air quality. Addressing the need for efficiency and streamlining, the EPA states that the provisions allowing Federal agencies to establish categories of actions that are presumed to conform are “intended to assure that these Rules are not overly burdensome and Federal agencies would not spend undue time assessing actions that have little or no impact on air quality.” 11 Furthermore, the EPA states that “Federal actions which are de minimis should not be required by this Rule to make an applicability analysis. A different interpretation could result in an extremely wasteful process which generates vast numbers of useless conformity statements.” 12 Consequently, the Rule allows individual Federal agencies to present categories of actions that have been documented to be de minimis and, therefore should be “presumed to conform” to the Rule under 40 CFR 93.153(f). 11 58 FR 63228 (Nov. 30, 1993). 12 12 58 FR 63229 (Nov. 30, 1993). This Notice contains a summary of documentation and analysis which demonstrates that actions described below will not exceed the applicable de minimis emission levels for nonattainment and maintenance areas, as specified under 40 CFR 93.153(b). In relation to the agency's demonstration of presumed to conform actions, the EPA has defined broad categories of actions in 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2) that are exempt from the Rule because the actions result in no emissions increase or an increase in emissions that is clearly de minimis. In this Notice, the FAA distinguishes various airport-related actions that are exempt under the Rule from those that the FAA proposes to be presumed to conform. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before 45 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the individual identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jake A. Plante, Planning and Environmental Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, APP-400, SW., Room 616, Office of Airports, Washington, DC 20591, *jake.plante@faa.gov* , phone

(202)493-4875, fax

(202)267-8821. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA invites comments on the following descriptions and justifications of agency actions that would be presumed to conform. We will accept comments, data, views, or arguments by letter, fax, or e-mail. Send your comments to the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Mark your comments, “Federal Presumed to Conform Actions under General Conformity.” Use the following format when preparing comments: —Organize your comments issue-by-issue. —For each issue, state what specific change you are requesting to the proposed policy. —Include justification, reasons, or data for each change you are requesting. The FAA will consider all communications received on or before the closing date for comments. We will respond by e-mail or other appropriate means to all comments received. Our responses to public comments will be documented and made available to the public upon request through the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . *Table of Contents:* The major sections of this document are as follows: I. Background II. Existing Exemptions III. Presumed to Conform Project Descriptions and Justifications IV. How to Apply Presumed to Conform Actions I. Background Under the Rule (40 CFR 93.153(g)(h)), the FAA and other agencies are entitled to develop a list of proposed actions that are presumed to conform. The process of establishing presumed to conform classifications is predicated on the concept of conformity. Conformity assures that an activity that is presumed to conform does not cause or contribute to any new violation of the NAAQS or interfere with provisions contained in applicable SIPS. The administration and enforcement of conformity regulations are delegated by the EPA to the individual States through provisions in each SIP. A SIP is the written plan submitted to the EPA detailing each State's strategy to control air emissions to meet and maintain the NAAQS in geographic areas that are designated as nonattainment areas. The EPA requires each State to devise such a plan for each criteria pollutant causing violations or the EPA will impose a Federal implementation plan (“FIP”) for the State. When a nonattainment area achieves compliance with the NAAQS, it becomes a maintenance area for at least 10 years with ongoing State responsibility to ensure continued attainment. 13 13 CAA, § 175A, 42 U.S.C. § 7505a. General conformity. General conformity refers to the process of demonstrating that a general Federal action conforms to the applicable SIP. A general Federal action is defined more by what it is not, rather than by what it is. A general Federal action is any Federal action that is not a Federal “transportation” action and consequently not subject to the conformity requirements established for Federal highway or transit actions, referred to as “transportation conformity.” A Federal transportation action is an action related to transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved under Title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) or the Federal Transit Act (FTA). 14 Since FAA actions do not meet the definition of a transportation action, they are general actions by default and thus subject to the General Conformity Rule. 14 49 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq.* The FAA and other Federal agencies subject to general conformity must make a determination that the Federal action conforms to the SIP's purpose to meet and maintain the NAAQS before the action is taken. If the proposed actions are not specifically exempt or classified as presumed to conform, it is necessary to conduct an applicability analysis to determine if emissions are likely to equal or exceed the established screening criteria emission rates known as the de minimis thresholds. A general conformity determination is required for each pollutant identified as nonattainment or maintenance when the total of direct and indirect emissions caused by a Federal action equals or exceeds any of the applicable de minimis thresholds. 15 15 40 CFR Part 93, § 93.153(b). FAA airport development actions subject to general conformity. The FAA is responsible for deciding whether its actions involving an airport located in a nonattainment or maintenance area require a general conformity evaluation. 16 FAA actions that require a conformity evaluation include unconditional approval of any or all parts of an airport layout plan (ALP), final Airport Improvement Program

(AIP)grant approvals, and approvals for use of Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs). Other FAA actions that may require a conformity evaluation include proposed actions for which an environmental assessment

(EA)or environmental impact statement

(EIS)is prepared under the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. 16 “Conformity evaluation” refers to the overall process of assessing whether an action/project is subject to general conformity requirements, which may include an applicability analysis needed to make a conformity determination. See Question #1, EPA and FAA General Conformity Guidance for Airports: Questions and Answers, September 25, 2002. Notification requirements for establishing a list of presumed to conform actions. Under procedures prescribed in the Rule, the FAA must notify the appropriate EPA regional offices, State and local air quality agencies, and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO). 17 In addition, the FAA must publish the proposed list in the **Federal Register** , allowing a minimum of 30 days for public comment. 18 The FAA is required to document its response to all comments received and to make these comments and responses available to the public upon request. 19 Finally, the FAA must publish its final list of presumed to conform actions in the **Federal Register** to complete the process. 20 17 40 CFR Part 93, § 93.153(h)(2). 18 40 CFR Part 93, §§ 93.153(h)(1)-(2). 19 40 CFR Part 93, § 93.153(h)(3). 20 40 CFR Part 93, § 93.153(h)(4). II. Existing Exemptions For the FAA to provide the proper context and baseline for identifying and proposing a list of presumed to conform Federal actions, it is important to consider the extent to which FAA airport-related actions and activities may qualify for exemption from general conformity requirements. The EPA has defined broad categories of exempt actions under 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2) that result in no emissions increase or increases in emissions that are clearly de minimis. These actions are not subject to further analysis for applicability, conformity, or regional significance under the Rule. As part of this **Federal Register** Notice, the FAA has interpreted how the exemptions in the Rule apply to FAA actions associated with airport facilities and aviation planning. The following discussion addresses the most relevant examples of these exemptions regarding FAA actions for airport development.

(1)Rulemaking and Policy Development [40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(iii)] The FAA develops rules and policies to address issues of safety, aviation noise abatement, and systematic improvements to efficiency. This includes issuance of airport policy and planning documents for the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), the Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP), and Advisory Circulars on planning, design, and development programs. These documents provide administrative and technical guidance to the airport community and the public and are not intended for direct implementation. The actual process of rulemaking or policy development is typically administrative in nature and does not cause an increase in air emissions.

(2)Routine Maintenance and Repair Activities [40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(iv)] In conformance with FAA standards and regulations, the airport sponsor must maintain airport facilities and the airfield in a manner that ensures the safe operation of the airport. These activities constitute Federal actions when Federal funding from the FAA is involved. Airport maintenance, repair, removal, replacement, and installation work that matches the characteristics, size, and function of a facility as it existed before the replacement or repair activity typically qualifies as routine maintenance and repair for purposes of general conformity. Such activity does not increase the capacity of the airport or change the operational environment of the airport. The FAA does not consider major runway reconstruction to qualify as exempt under the Rule if the reconstruction results in a runway that is hardened, lengthened, or widened to support a larger class of aircraft. Proposed funding for such a project would require analysis of emission levels to determine the applicability of general conformity requirements. Routine maintenance for existing runways, taxiways, aprons, ramps, fillets, and airport roadways includes in-kind resurfacing, 21 re-marking of existing runways, taxiways, apron areas, etc., and runway grooving and rubber removal projects. Other areas of routine replacement, maintenance, and repair work that may be considered exempt from the Rule include: 21 Depending on numerous factors affecting surface conditions, airports will generally resurface asphalt runways every 7-10 years. • Existing signage. • Existing lighting systems. • Existing pavement markings. • Wind or landing direction indicators. • Existing airport security access control. • Existing buildings and structures. • Existing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

(HVAC)systems. • Existing infrastructure such as sanitary sewer or electrical systems. • General landscaping, erosion control, and grading.

(3)The Routine, Recurring Transportation of Materiel and Personnel [40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(vii)] The transport of materiel and personnel both within airport environs and to facilities affiliated with the routine operation of airports may be considered exempt under the Rule.

(4)Routine Movement of Mobile Assets, Such As * * * Aircraft * * * for Repair or Overhaul [40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(viii)] The movement of aircraft to/from airports with maintenance and test facilities for repair and overhaul may be considered exempt from the Rule.

(5)Planning, Studies, and Provisions of Technical Assistance [40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(xii)] Planning and information-related actions do not represent implementation of operational changes at the airport and therefore do not result in emission increases. Consequently, actions such as those listed below may be considered exempt from the Rule: • FAA funding and acceptance of Master Plans and Updates • FAA funding of System Planning Studies • FAA acceptance of noise exposure maps and approval of noise compatibility programs pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 47501 *et seq.* , as implemented by 14 CFR Part 150 • FAA approval of noise and access restrictions on operations by Stage 3 aircraft under 49 U.S.C. 47524, as implemented by 14 CFR Part 161

(6)Routine Operation of Facilities, Mobile Assets and Equipment [40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(xiii)] Normal day-to-day activities that occur at airports, such as vehicle movements, building operations, and aircraft movements that do not increase the capacity of the airport or change the operational environment of the airport may be considered exempt from the Rule.

(7)Transfers of Ownership, Interests, and Titles in Land, Facilities, and Real and Personal Properties, Regardless of the Form or Method of the Transfer [40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(xiv)] and

(8)Actions (or Portions Thereof) Associated With Transfers of Land, Facilities, Title, and Real Properties Through an Enforceable Contract or Lease Agreement Where the Delivery of the Deed Is Required To Occur Promptly After a Specific, Reasonable Condition Is Met, Such as Promptly After the Land Is Certified as Meeting the Requirements of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and Where the Federal Agency Does Not Retain Continuing Authority To Control Emissions Associated With the Lands, Facilities, Title, or Real Properties [40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(xix)] Actions by the FAA to transfer or acquire land or equipment do not increase the capacity of the airport or change the operational environment affecting air emissions. Such actions include funding or approving transfers, acquisitions, or releases by airport sponsors, 22 or preparing and executing related contracts or written agreements. Related actions that may be considered exempt from the Rule are: 22 Airport “sponsors” are planning agencies, public agencies, or private airport owners/operators that have the legal and financial ability to carry out the program requirements for FAA financial assistance. • Facilities and equipment purchases. • Land acquisition and relocation assistance. • Land releases for which there is no reasonable expectation of a change in land use. • Avigation easement acquisition. • Acquisition of an existing privately owned airport involving only change of ownership.

(9)Alterations and Additions of Existing Structures as Specifically Required By New or Existing Applicable Environmental Legislation or Environmental Regulations (e.g., Hush Houses for Aircraft Engines* * *) [40 CFR 93.153(d)(4)] Actions that are initiated in response to specific environmental laws and regulations (e.g., energy efficiency, noise abatement structures and equipment) may be considered exempt from the Rule. These actions include: • Equipment purchases. • Protective noise barriers. • Required noise mitigation actions including the installation and operation of hush houses for aircraft and engine maintenance.

(10)Federal Actions Which Are Part of a Continuing Response to an Emergency or Disaster [40 CFR 93.153(d)(2) and (e)] Actions in response to emergencies, natural disasters, etc., that involve overriding concerns for public health and welfare, national security interests, or foreign policy commitments may be exempt from general conformity requirements for six months and possibly longer if justified in writing by the agency. 23 23 Airports located in nonattainment or maintenance areas with small regional emission budgets may need to check whether a proposed exempt action might be regionally significant under 40 CFR Part 93, § 93.153(i). III. Presumed to Conform Project Descriptions and Justifications The FAA began the process of developing and documenting presumed to conform actions with a detailed environmental survey of airport projects. The survey was conducted by all FAA regional offices, which identified approved airport projects over a recent two-year period that received a categorical exclusion (CATEX) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 24 This information was requested only for airports included in areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance by the EPA. Information compiled from these surveys described about 600 completed projects at over 100 airports. 24 FAA Order 1050.1E, Chapter 3 (CATEX) and Chapter 4, section 406 (FONSI), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The survey information was processed by assigning each airport planning and development project into one of two categories:

(1)Projects that are exempt from the requirements of the Rule as defined by 40 CFR 93.153(e); or

(2)projects that require an applicability analysis before being defined as *de minimis* (i.e., presumed to conform), according to 40 CFR 93.153(c)(1). Specific information on the application of these two project categories is presented in Section II and Section III of this document, respectively. In the analysis of the survey results, any airport project that exceeded *de minimis* levels even once was considered ineligible for the presumed to conform list. Follow-up communications with airports and FAA regional representatives helped to clarify terminology and confirm the reliability of the presumptions. In addition, the FAA performed detailed worst-case analyses where practicable in areas where project size and implementation could conceivably result in the exceedance of *de minimis* levels. The airport project survey data and other agency experience in implementing similar actions taken over recent years provide the fundamental basis for all of the presumed to conform classifications. The FAA conducted additional quantitative analyses for specific project areas, as practicable. These analyses are summarized in Section III, and include the following: Pavement markings; terminal upgrades; commercial vehicle staging areas; non-runway paving; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

(HVAC)systems; and low-emission technology and alternative fuel vehicles. Based on the survey of airport projects, the additional evaluations, and quantitative analyses, only those project categories that were proven to be reliably and consistently *de minimis* were classified as presumed to conform. In general, FAA presumed to conform actions involve maintenance, navigation, construction, safety, security activities, and new technology and vehicle systems that do not modify or increase airport capacity or change the operational environment of the airport in such a way as to increase air emissions above *de minimis* thresholds. Presented below are the airport project descriptions and justifications for FAA actions that are presumed to conform. There are fifteen project categories, which are discussed in the following order: 1. Pavement Markings. 2. Pavement Monitoring Systems. 3. Non-Runway Pavement Work. 4. Aircraft Gate Areas on Airside. 5. Lighting Systems. 6. Terminal and Concourse Upgrades. 7. New HVAC Systems, Upgrades, and Expansions. 8. Airport Security. 9. Airport Safety. 10. Airport Maintenance Facilities. 11. Airport Signage. 12. Commercial Vehicle Staging Areas. 13. Low-Emission Technology and Alternative Fuel Vehicles. 14. Air Traffic Control Activities and Adopting Approach, Departure and Enroute Procedures for Air Operations. 15. Routine Installation and Operation of Aviation Navigation Aids. 1. Pavement Markings Airport sponsors apply paint on paved surfaces, such as runways, taxiways, apron areas, cargo areas, and parking lots to ensure the safe operation of aircraft during approach and landing and to provide safe direction for surface vehicles. Most pavement marking projects are considered routine maintenance activities, qualifying as exempt from the Rule (see Section II, number 2 of this Notice). These actions are designed to restore and improve painted surfaces that have deteriorated due to time, use, and weather. Federal actions that alter airport use through new pavement markings are not routine maintenance but are presumed to conform if such actions do not increase airport capacity or introduce a larger class of aircraft at the airport. For example, new runway markings for improved flight procedures from visual flight rules

(VFR)to instrument flight rules

(IFR)are presumed to conform if normal traffic flow is maintained. Pollutant emissions due to the paint application process are primarily composed of VOC from the paint, and NO X emitted from the trucks and application compressors required to prepare the surface and apply the paint. Emissions of both VOC and NO X are considered precursors to the development of ozone in the atmosphere. Therefore, emissions from the application of painted pavement markings pertain most importantly to ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas. A worst-case calculation of emissions was performed based on equipment and types of paint required to mark a Category III 13,000-foot runway with an instrument lighting system

(ILS)to FAA specifications. The calculation of emissions included the removal of existing markings using water pressure through a compressor mounted on a diesel truck, a pavement sweeper truck to remove debris, the application of the paint using an air compressor mounted on a diesel truck, and a small hand sprayer for detailed markings, such as squared corners. A total of 2,492 gallons of paint (a combination of white, yellow, and black) were applied to the representative runway at a rate of 115 square feet per gallon of paint. The trucks transporting the paint and compressors were assumed to be similar to a single axle, Class 7 diesel pickup truck. 25 The sweeper was assumed to be a regenerative diesel air power model, using a chassis engine and an auxiliary engine to power the brushes. Manufacturers' Material Safety Data Sheets were referenced for the VOC emissions factors for the three colors of latex paint. Emissions factors for the criteria and precursor pollutants were obtained from the EPA Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study-Report. 26 Load factors and horsepower ratings were obtained from the EPA Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study-Report and Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling. 27 25 The Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

(GVWR)system defines a Class 7 diesel truck as one that can carry 26,001 to 33,000 pounds of weight on two axles. 26 EPA Report 460/3-91-02, November 1991, Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study—Report. 27 EPA Report NR-005A, December 9, 1997, revised June 15, 1998, Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling. The maximum volume of paint that could be applied without equaling or exceeding the *de minimis* thresholds for any nonattainment and maintenance classification was calculated. 28 For instance, an airport located within an extreme nonattainment area for ozone is limited to net project emissions of 10 tons of VOC per year. This translates into an annual application of 21,890 gallons of paint, which also causes 0.21 tons 29 of NO X emissions. For example, this volume of paint would mark eight Category III 13,000-foot ILS runways. A volume of paint on the order of one million gallons is required to cause emissions of NO X to equal 10 tons per year. Likewise, a volume of paint on the order of five million to 176 million gallons is required in order to be sufficient to exceed the *de minimis* thresholds for CO, SO 2 , or PM 10 . Therefore, VOCs are the limiting pollutant 30 for the application of paint at airports and emissions of NO X , CO, SO 2 , and PM 10 are considerably less. Table III-1 provides the gallon application limits, which include the use of construction equipment for pavement markings in nonattainment and maintenance areas. 28 Calculations of maximum paint volume include consideration of construction equipment. 29 Short tons, where one ton equals 2,000 lbs. 30 The limiting pollutant is defined as the criteria pollutant that first exceeds *de minimis* levels for a given project. BILLING CODE 4910-13-P EN12FE07.000 BILLING CODE 4910-13-C 2. Pavement Monitoring Systems Airports have the option of installing a pavement monitoring system to indicate when the durability and strength of the pavement needs to be reinforced. These systems are implemented for safety reasons to ensure that an airport's runway, taxiway, and apron network are sufficiently able to support the weight of aircraft. Minor construction work is required for the installation of the monitoring system. Assuming the installation requires the use of a pickup truck, a utility truck, an excavator, an asphalt paver, a compactor, and a small generator, construction would have to proceed continuously (eight hours per day, 20 days per month) for more than a year (1.1 years) in order to produce emissions near the level of 10 tons of NO X . For the remaining criteria pollutants and precursors, construction on the order of several years would be required to approach the *de minimis* thresholds. Pavement monitoring systems are installed in less than a week; therefore, project construction emissions are well below *de minimis* and presumed to conform. 3. Non-Runway Pavement Work Airfield pavement must be constructed to withstand the weight of aircraft and to produce a firm, stable, smooth, year-round, all-weather surface. The pavement must be of such quality and thickness that it will not fail under the weight of aircraft and it must possess sufficient inherent stability to withstand, without damage, the abrasive action of aircraft traffic and adverse weather conditions. 31 These pavement specifications apply to non-runway areas of the airfield where aircraft operate, including taxiways, apron areas, and gate areas. The specific pavement requirements are satisfied by applying rigid pavement consisting of layers of crushed stone bound and pressed into a smooth surface. Airfield construction projects considered to be presumed to conform are limited to areas of the airfield intended to accommodate aircraft for purposes of loading or unloading passengers or cargo, refueling, or aircraft parking, and are generally referred to as apron areas. These types of airfield projects do not include projects intended to increase airport capacity or those that are otherwise defined as routine maintenance for existing apron areas. Pollutant emissions due to airfield construction are solely from the use of construction equipment and are primarily comprised of NO X , a precursor to ozone development, and CO resulting from the trucks operated to haul the large amounts of stone and gravel that must be used to form the support layers for the paving material. The evaluation of emissions from airfield paving was based on a representative project in the FAA Eastern Region. The project required equipment and materials to construct approximately 600,000 square feet of airfield and concrete shoulder area with an assumed surface design life of 20 years. 32 The conservative calculation of emissions included the preparation of the site allowing for a four-inch geotextile layer of subgrade soil, a four-inch frost protection layer of crushed stone, a four-inch sub base layer of finely crushed stone, an eight-inch base layer of gravel mixed with a stabilizer such as cement, 33 and the application of a six-inch layer of Portland cement concrete. 34 This type of construction design allows for a total pavement thickness of 26 inches; the minimum total pavement thickness for the accommodation of jet aircraft weighing 100,000 pounds or more is 20 inches. 35 Also included in the construction emissions inventory is the installation of a drainage system. 31 FAA AC 150/5320-6D, September 7, 1995, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation. 32 As recommended under FAA AC 150/5320-16, October 22, 1995, Airport Pavement Design for the Boeing 777 Airplane. 33 Stabilized base layers as necessary for new pavements designed to accommodate jet aircraft weighting 100,000 pounds or more. FAA AC 150/5320-6D, September 7, 1995, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation. 34 Portland cement is a hydraulic cement made by heating a mixture of limestone and clay in a kiln and pulverizing the resulting material. 35 FAA AC 150/5320-6D, September 7, 1995, Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation. Emissions factors for construction equipment were obtained from the EPA's 1991 Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study—Report. 36 Load factors and horsepower ratings for the construction equipment were obtained from the EPA's 1991 Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study—Report and the EPA's 1997 Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling. 37 36 EPA Report 460/3-91-02, November 1991, Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study—Report. Table 2-07 Emission Factors. 37 EPA Report NR-005A, December 9, 1997, revised June 15, 1998, Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling. The maximum allowable square footage of airfield construction was calculated for each nonattainment and maintenance category. The analysis showed that NO X was the limiting pollutant for airfield paving projects and that emissions of VOC, CO, SO 2 , and PM 10 are considerably less in comparison with NO X . Table III-1 provides the area limits for non-runway airfield construction in nonattainment and maintenance areas. For instance, an airport located within an area designed as extreme nonattainment for ozone, which limits net project emissions to the rate of 10 tons per year of NO X , is limited to constructing 219,368 square feet (5.04 acres) of apron area, which also causes 0.93 tons of VOC emissions. As a reference, four acres is generally sufficient to provide remote or “hardstand” (non-gate) parking for three narrow-body aircraft. Construction of an airfield/apron area on the order of 2.38 million square feet (54.7 acres) causes emissions of VOC up to 10 tons per project, creating emissions of NO X of approximately 109 tons. New airfield construction on the order of 150 to 600 acres would be required to exceed the *de minimis* thresholds for CO, SO 2 and PM 10 . Generally speaking, emissions of NO X are on the order of three times the emissions of CO for these types of projects and are more than 10 times the emissions of the remaining criteria pollutants. 4. Aircraft Gate Areas on Airside Aircraft gate areas refer to the area outside of the terminals and concourses where jetways are used to link parked aircraft to the terminal building. Federal actions to improve aircraft gate areas can be part of airport modernization efforts involving new airline tenants or the introduction of newer and more efficient technology. Aircraft gate areas involve a wide range of activities from aircraft loading and unloading of passengers and cargo to the servicing of aircraft by lavatory, food supply, and maintenance vehicles. Upgrades to the aircraft gate area are often needed to accommodate changing flight schedules and daily activity. The addition or modification of jetways to existing terminal buildings is typically done to adjust to changes in air travel demand and airline requirements. Such projects are intended to improve passenger terminal service by reducing passenger queuing and waiting times. Actions to approve or fund the upgrading of aircraft gate areas are presumed to conform provided such actions do not increase aircraft operations or introduce a larger class of aircraft at the airport. 5. Lighting Systems Airport sponsors may need to install new lighting systems to maintain proper illumination of roadways, taxiways, runways, and parking areas. The data from the FAA surveys indicated that airport upgrading and installing of new lighting systems is done on an as-needed basis. Minor mechanical work is required for the installation effort, followed by electrical work that does not require large off-road construction equipment. Assuming the installation requires the use of a pickup truck, a utility truck, an excavator, and a small generator, the construction will have to proceed continuously (eight hours a day, 20 days a month) for more than 17 months (1.4 years) in order to produce emissions near the level of 10 tons of NO X . For the remaining criteria pollutants and precursors, construction on the order of several years would be required to approach the de minimis thresholds. Runway and other lighting systems can be installed in less than two weeks; therefore, project construction emissions are well below de minimis and presumed to conform. 6. Terminal and Concourse Upgrades The opportunity to expand or upgrade terminals and/or concourses for the purpose of improving passenger convenience typically involves increasing the interior terminal space in areas such as hold rooms, concessions, restrooms, and gate areas. Qualifying projects in this category do not have the effect of attracting more passengers. Nor do they have the effect of increasing the airport's ability to accommodate additional numbers or types of aircraft or to increase passenger loading on scheduled flights. Major terminal and/or concourse expansion projects that are designed to increase passenger usage or to support increased airfield capacity through new aircraft gates, runways, taxiways, etc. require an inventory of direct and indirect emissions to determine the applicability of general conformity. Construction vehicles and equipment are the only source of emissions when expanding or upgrading terminals. A conservative approach to quantifying construction emissions was used to determine the appropriate limits for this type of activity. The emission limits are presented in Table III-1 under “Terminal Upgrades” according to the de minimis thresholds. A proposed terminal expansion project located in the FAA's Southern Region was used as the representative project. The terminal was proposed to have an additional footprint of 381,000 square feet. This proposed project was purposely selected to provide a conservative estimate of construction emissions normally released from this type airport improvement activity, even though this presumed to conform activity is limited to non-capacity enhancing projects. Emissions were quantified in this case from construction activities, including soil cement preparation, subgrade preparation, light and heavy demolition, cement base treatment, installation of the grade aggregate base, construction of the terminal, light and heavy utility work, and light and heavy earthwork. In addition, the proposed terminal expansion was assumed to occur within the same calendar year instead of the proposed schedule of seven years. Construction emissions were calculated using prescribed EPA methodology incorporating the projected construction activity level, the number of construction vehicles and equipment, and industry-wide utilization rates. Emission factors for construction vehicles and equipment were taken from EPA databases for nonroad vehicles and engines, 38 and their updates. 39 38 EPA Report 460/3-91-02, November 1991, Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study—Report. 39 EPA Report NR-005A, December 9, 1997, revised June 15, 1998, Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling. A proposed terminal/concourse expansion project is presumed to conform up to the square foot additions (footprint) of the project as determined by the most limiting pollutant (see Table III-1). The prescribed build-out limits per calendar year apply to all components of the terminal/concourse upgrade project according to the air quality status of the area in which the project is located. 7. New HVAC Systems, Upgrades, and Expansions Upgrading and expanding heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

(HVAC)systems are presumed to conform because any emission increases associated with improvements to airport heating and cooling systems are generally minor and well below de minimis thresholds. Heating for airport terminal buildings is typically provided through a boiler system. 40 Boilers may be fueled by natural gas, coal (bituminous, sub-bituminous, or anthracite), No. 5 and No. 6 fuel oil (residual), No. 2 fuel oil (diesel), culm fuel, and liquefied petroleum gas (propane or butane). Pollutant emissions due to the operation of boilers vary with the fuel used. The emission factors for the various fuels are presented in Table III-2 below. 40 A boiler is an encased vessel that provides a means for combustion heat to be transferred into water until it becomes steam. The steam is then used to heat the building through a network of pipes. When water is boiled into steam its volume increases about 1,600 times, which is an efficient means for transferring heat for a process. HVACWebTech, Inc. A new, upgraded, or expanded boiler system involves the installation of new equipment to replace or expand the capacity of existing boiler systems. Boilers can be very large and are sometimes delivered on flatbed semi-tractor trailer trucks and set in place by a crane. Table III-3 presents the construction emissions, primarily NO X and CO, associated with the installation of a large boiler as described. BILLING CODE 4910-13-P EN12FE07.001 BILLING CODE 4910-13-C Airport terminals consume energy for heat at a higher rate than most public buildings. The reasons for this include the open areas surrounding many airports, heat loss from the movement of people and baggage in and out of buildings, and the usual 24-hour operation of facilities. The consumption of energy to generate heat is also dependent upon the design of the terminal building. For instance, many airport terminals are designed with exterior glass walls or incorporate design, art, and architectural treatments that reflect local customs and community history. 41 The many variations of airport terminal design, including geographical location, make it impractical to identify the “typical terminal building” for purposes of determining total emissions. Therefore, the presumption of conformity could not be based on the characteristics of the building, but rather on the volume of fuel consumed. 41 FAA AC 150/5360-13, April 22, 1988, Planning and Design Guidelines for Airport Terminal Facilities. As discussed, emissions resulting from the operation of boilers depend on the type of fuel powering the boiler system. Emissions from the use of propane, butane, and natural gas are of concern in ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas since the primary pollutant from combustion of these fuels is NO X , a precursor to ozone formation. Hydrocarbons

(HCs)are another precursor to ozone but they are relatively low for these fuel types in comparison to NO X emissions. The primary pollutant from the combustion of fuel oil (No. 2 diesel, and No. 5 and No. 6 residual) is SO 2 , while particulate matter is the primary pollutant from the combustion of coal, including culm fuel). Therefore, NO X , SO 2 , and PM 10 are the most likely limiting pollutants for the operation of boiler systems at airports. Table III-4 below presents maximum annual fuel throughput for heating systems and boilers by fuel type at levels that do not equal or exceed the de minimis thresholds. The FAA Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System

(EDMS)was used to perform the calculations. EDMS emission factors are conservatively based on EPA's AP-42 emissions quantification methodology. 42 42 FAA, 2005, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System EDMS Version 4.2. The analysis shows, for example, that an airport located in a severe nonattainment area for ozone, with a de minimis NO X threshold of 25 tons per year, could operate new or improved boilers using up to 5.05 million cubic meters of natural gas annually, which is sufficient to heat a building of approximately 210,000 square feet. 43 NO X emissions in a severe ozone nonattainment area would be limited to 3,434 kiloliters

(kl)of No. 6 fuel oil (residual), 7,816 kl of No. 2 fuel oil (diesel), 9,855 kl of propane, 1,374 metric tons of bituminous coal, or 2,519 metric tons of anthracite coal on an annual basis. 43 Assuming a 100,000 sq. ft. one-floor building would require approximately 2.4 million cubic meters of natural gas to heat the building, annually; based on the industry standard heat value, 1,000 BTU per cubic foot of natural gas, annually [Airtron Heating and Air Conditioning, Columbus, Ohio]. The installation, upgrade, or expansion of an airport HVAC system that requires a permit under new source review

(NSR)or prevention of significant deterioration programs is exempt from a general conformity determination. 44 The inclusion of airport boiler installations/modifications as a presumed to conform activity does not affect existing or future requirements of Federal, State or local air quality operating permit programs. Proper compliance with all applicable environmental regulations must be maintained. 44 40 CFR Part 93, 93.153(d)(1). BILLING CODE 4910-13-P EN12FE07.002 EN12FE07.003 BILLING CODE 4910-13-C 8. Airport Security Based on collected project information and additional agency experience with airport security actions following the events of September 11, 2001, the FAA has determined that dedicated security-related airport projects qualify as presumed to conform actions, including modification of existing terminals with luggage and passenger scanning devices, addition of camera surveillance, bolstering of airport security fencing, and reinforcement of airport access control. In most cases, the installation of security equipment and upgraded operations in existing facilities will not result in the generation of air emissions. If the construction and installation of some dedicated security projects do cause emissions, these emissions will be minor and well below the *de minimis* thresholds. Security requirements also may dictate that parking spaces close to terminal buildings be eliminated. 45 As a result, FAA actions associated with the expansion of parking facilities to compensate for lost close-in parking are presumed to conform provided these actions are limited to a one-for-one replacement of parking capacity. Generally, the relocation of parking spaces away from the terminal building will reduce vehicle miles traveled

(VMT)on airport property, resulting in an emissions decrease. 45 FAA Aviation Security Directive issued February 2002. It is important to note that this category of presumed to conform actions is separate from exempt Federal actions under the Rule that are part of a continuing response to an emergency or disaster. 46 Agency use of the emergency exemption is limited in time and must involve overriding concerns for public health and welfare, national security interests, and foreign policy commitments. 47 46 40 CFR Part 93, 93.153(e). 47 Ibid. 9. Airport Safety Airport projects relating to airport safety include actions specific to the Runway Safety Area (RSA). FAA regulations specify the requirements for a RSA, which is defined as the surface area that surrounds and extends beyond the runway ends that is required for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway. 48 RSA improvements are presumed to conform unless a new road or the relocation of a road is required. 48 FAA AC 150/5300-13, September 29, 1989, Airport Design. In addition to a safe airfield, airport projects to build, expand, replace, upgrade, or equip a required Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Facility

(ARFF)are presumed to conform. These facilities are relatively small airport projects and must be provided by the airport to ensure airport and passenger safety. Airports must meet ARFF requirements as specified under 14 CFR 139.317, and are responsible for upgrading an ARFF if there is an increase in the average daily departures or the length of an air carrier aircraft. 49 49 Per index under 14 CFR Part 139, 139.319(a). 10. Airport Maintenance Facilities Airport maintenance facilities house the equipment necessary to run, service, and maintain the airport environs. These facilities can include vehicle service centers, fueling stations, and storage areas for snow removal and maintenance equipment. FAA actions associated with upgrading airport-owned maintenance facilities are presumed to conform based on the fact that these facilities typically require only minor construction. However, the installation or upgrading of aircraft maintenance facilities (typically owned by an airline or charter company) that are used to paint or maintain aircraft at an airport are not considered presumed to conform because aircraft maintenance facilities may cause an increase in flights to meet maintenance schedules. 11. Airport Signage Airport sponsors place signs throughout the airport property to direct passengers, employees, and vendors to terminals, parking lots, rental car areas, maintenance areas, etc. In addition, airports provide a network of signs to direct aircraft and vehicles on the airfield. Airport signage is often electrified for illumination at night and for other times of limited visibility. In general, airport signage installation can be completed in a matter of days or weeks. It would require more than a year of continuous installation to exceed the 25-ton threshold for NO X . Therefore, airport signage installation projects are presumed to conformed. 12. Commercial Vehicle Staging Areas Commercial vehicle staging areas at airports serve as temporary holding areas for taxicabs, limousines, and other commercial vehicles. Such areas reduce the need to idle at the terminal curb front and help to decongest the terminal roadways. Airports that employ commercial vehicle staging areas may enforce specific idling restrictions or engine-off mandates to further reduce air quality impacts. Generally, the use of commercial vehicle staging areas is an emissions reduction strategy because the alternative inherently creates more emissions from increased traffic and congestion at the terminal. A Federal action to develop a commercial vehicle staging area for purposes of relieving airport traffic congestion is presumed to conform based on the criteria provided in Table III-1 for a “Commercial Vehicle Staging Area.” Providing a commercial vehicle staging area does not cause an increase in the volume of vehicles on regional roadways and impacts air quality only through the use of construction equipment to pave the staging area. Construction emissions are primarily comprised of NO X and CO. The quantity of emissions associated with the construction of an asphalt taxicab staging area was based on a construction design for a regional asphalt roadway. The calculation of emissions included activities such as excavation, preparation of the subgrade, adding a base layer of stone, fine grading, and paving. The paving process included the application of a tack coat, wearing course, and the final seal coat. The type and use of construction equipment was determined based on information obtained from the R.S. Means' Means Building Construction Cost Data, and the State of Ohio Department of Transportation's Manual of Procedures for Flexible Pavement Construction and Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual. Rated horsepower and load factors for each construction unit was obtained from the EPA's Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study-Report and Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling, and the Caterpillar Performance Handbook. Emission factors were obtained from the EPA's Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study-Report. The acreage that could be paved without equaling or exceeding the de minimis thresholds for each applicable nonattainment or maintenance category was calculated and summarized in Table III-1. For instance, an airport located within an area designated as severe nonattainment for ozone, which limits net project emissions to an annual rate of 25 tons of NO X , is limited to a commercial vehicle staging area of about 13 acres, or 561,584 square feet, which results in 2.35 tons of VOC emissions. Paving of approximately 137 acres is required to cause emissions of VOC of nearly 25 tons, as established for a severe nonattainment area for ozone. In order to approach the 100 ton de minimis thresholds for other criteria pollutants, paving areas of approximately 140 acres would be required for CO, 556 acres for SO 2 , and more than 595 acres for PM 10 . Therefore, NO X is the limiting pollutant for paving projects at airports and emissions of VOC, CO, SO 2 , and PM 10 are considerably less in comparison to NO X . 13. Low-Emission Technology and Alternative Fuel Vehicles A growing number of airports are interested in new technology and vehicle systems to reduce stationary and mobile emissions. Based on agency and airport low-emission programs over the past several years, which provide extensive data and documentation to verify the emission reduction benefits of new low-emission technology, these activities are presumed to conform. Activities that are presumed to conform include the replacement, substitution, or conversion of conventional fuel vehicles (gasoline, diesel) to vehicles using alternative or clean conventional fuel technology. Qualified activities also encompass airport low-emission infrastructure improvements and the use of refueling or recharging stations needed to service airport low-emission vehicles. All low-emission activities funded through the FAA Voluntary Airport Low Emission Program

(VALE)or that are required as part of environmental mitigation are presumed to conform. 50 The VALE program requires that vehicles purchased under the program meet specific low-emission standards and that these vehicles and other program equipment remain at the airport for their useful life. 50 FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport Improvement Program Handbook, June 2005, §§ 580, 585. 14. Air Traffic Control Activities and Adopting Approach, Departure and Enroute Procedures for Air Operations The preamble to the General Conformity Rule 51 states that: 51 58 FR 63229 (Nov. 30, 1993). “In order to illustrate and clarify that the de minimis levels exempt certain types of Federal actions, several de minimis exemptions are listed in § 51.853(c)(2). There are too many Federal actions that are de minimis to completely list in either the rule or this preamble.” As an illustration of exempt actions, EPA states in the preamble that “Air traffic control activities and adopting approach, departure and enroute procedures for air operations” are among other actions that are de minimis (preamble, p. 63229, I(2)) and should be exempt from the Rule. The FAA concurs with the EPA determination that air traffic control activities are de minimis. However, because these activities are cited in the preamble but not in the Rule itself, the FAA believes that it is prudent to document these activities as presumed to conform. Air traffic control activities are defined as actions that promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of aircraft traffic, including airport, approach, departure, and enroute air traffic control. 52 Airspace and air traffic actions (e.g., changes in routes, flight patterns, and arrival and departure procedures) are implemented to enhance safety and increase the efficient use of airspace by reducing congestion, balancing controller workload, and improving coordination between controllers handling existing air traffic, among other things. Although increased efficiency and delay reduction would allow traffic volume to increase, in FAA's experience such actions do not lead to increased annual aircraft operations or changes to the operational level of airports in the vicinity of the air traffic changes. In today's deregulated environment, market forces determine where airlines fly and how often. 52 14 CFR Part 170, § 170.3. Emissions released into the atmosphere above the inversion base for pollutant containment, commonly referred to as the “mixing height,” (generally 3,000 ft. above ground level) do not have an effect on pollution concentrations at ground level. 53 54 Therefore, air traffic control actions above the mixing height are presumed to conform. 53 EPA Report, Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources [420-R-92-009], section 5.2.2., 1992. 54 Realistic Mixing Depths for Above Ground Aircraft Emissions, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 25, No. 10, Howard M. Segal, Boeing, 1975. In addition, the results of FAA research on mixing heights indicated that changes in air traffic procedures above 1,500 ft. AGL and below the mixing height would have little if any effect on emissions and ground concentrations. 55 Such actions in the vicinity of the airport are tightly constrained by runway alignment, safety, aircraft performance, weather conditions, terrain, and vertical obstructions. 56 Accordingly, air traffic actions below the mixing height are also presumed to conform when modifications to routes and procedures are designed to increase safety, enhance fuel efficiency, or reduce community noise impacts by means of engine thrust reductions. Other air traffic procedures and system enhancements that are presumed to conform include actions that have no effect on air emissions or result in air quality improvements, such as gate hold procedures which reduce queuing, idling, and flight delays. 55 Report on “Consideration of Air Quality Impacts by Airplane Operations At or Above 3,000 feet AGL,” FAA-AEE-00-01, September 2000, p. 5. 56 FAA Advisory Circulars No. 25-13 and No. 91-53A describe requirements that must be met when using reduced power for takeoff. 15. Routine Installation and Operation of Airport Navigation Aids Aviation navigation aids represent the facilities and equipment used for communications, navigation, and surveillance

(CNS)systems. 57 The use and maintenance of CNS systems is essential to safe air commerce and national security. 58 Airports are required to establish adequate maintenance systems for navigational aid facilities to the level of performance achieved at original commission. 59 57 14 CFR 171.1-171.51. 58 14 CFR 169.1(a) 59 14 CFR Part 171. Similar to the previous presumed to conform action for air traffic control activities, EPA states in the preamble that “routine installation and operation of aviation (and maritime) navigation aids” are below de minimis and should be considered exempt actions. 60 The FAA concurs with EPA in this determination. However, because the stated activities are cited in the preamble but not in the Rule itself, the FAA believes that it is prudent to document these activities as presumed to conform. 60 58 FR 63229, I(6) (Nov. 30, 1993). The routine installation, in-kind replacement, and maintenance of navigational aids (e.g., Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCT), Instrument Landing Systems (ILS), Approach Light Systems (ALS)) are presumed to conform because these activities will not generate emissions that exceed de minimis levels. Moreover, emissions generated by construction equipment and maintenance vehicles used to transport workers and equipment to CNS system sites are negligible considering the temporary nature of construction and maintenance activities and the limited number of vehicles involved. If the installation of new or upgraded navigational aids for improved safety and efficiency also increases the capacity of the airport or changes the operational environment of the airport, these CNS activities are not presumed to conform. 61 61 Consistent with FAA Order 1050.1E, Section 401 “Actions Normally Requiring an Environmental Assessment” Also presumed to conform are CNS emergency or standby generators powered by natural gas or LPG. These generators provide electric power in case of primary power failure and are operated intermittently, with an estimated total time of operation of less than 100 hours per year. Because of the infrequent use and small size (135 kilowatts or less) of the engine generators and the use of clean-burning fuels, the engine generators produce negligible air emissions. IV. How To Apply Presumed To Conform Actions The qualifying project categories discussed in the preceding section may be referred to as the FAA “presumed to conform list.” As authorized under the CAA, the list provides an additional way for the FAA to improve its environmental program management while still ensuring that agency air quality goals and requirements are met. Use of the list will reduce review times, eliminate unnecessary paperwork, clarify analytical requirements for all project actions, and insure that the proper level of documentation is applied in each case. Moreover, in some instances, the presumed to conform list can provide another method that the FAA and airport sponsors can use to demonstrate conformity with an applicable SIP. When applying the presumed to conform list, the FAA must determine whether a proposed presumed to conform action has independent utility under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)62 or whether such action is part of a combined or larger action that might result in cumulative air quality impacts. 63 62 40 CFR 1506.1(c)(1), Council on Environmental Quality, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA. 63 40 CFR 1508.25(1) The proposed project has independent utility. If a presumed to conform project has independent utility, no general conformity evaluation or applicability analysis is required and agency officials may simply document that the project action is considered presumed to conform on the basis of this Notice and the applicable project category. This allowance meets a major intent of presumed to conform—namely to reduce the analysis burden for actions that have little or no direct or indirect emissions. In its separate analysis of each project category in the presumed to conform list, the FAA has shown that the resulting emissions from any presumed to conform action would always be below the applicable de minimis thresholds. 64 64 The FAA did no evaluate combined emissions from two or more presumed to conform categories. The proposed project is a combined action. If a presumed to conform action is part of a combined action (e.g., an EIS or large EA generally), agency officials may exclude the emissions of one presumed to conform action from the calculation of total direct and indirect emissions in the applicability analysis and, if required, a general conformity determination. In combined actions, however, emissions from the presumed to conform action must be analyzed, quantified, and clearly documented in the applicability analysis or general conformity determination if required. Further discussion of this allowance is provided below. Combined actions are considered connected actions under NEPA, which the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ)defines as actions that are closely related and that: —Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements —Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously —Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification 65 65 40 CFR 1508.25(1). Effective implementation of the presumed to conform list requires a balance between NEPA considerations on connected actions and the permitted exclusion of presumed to conform emissions under the Rule. As stated in § 93.152 under Definitions: “The portion of emissions which are exempt or presumed to conform under Section 93.153(c), (d), (e), or

(f)are not included in the “total of direct and indirect emissions.” Similarly, the preamble (58 FR 63233) states: “The final rule requires the inclusion of the total direct and indirect emissions in the applicability and conformity determinations, except the portion of emissions which are exempt or presumed to conform * * *” The approach adopted herein for the presumed to conform list is consistent with the Rule and places a conservative limit on the permitted exclusion of presumed to conform emissions. Moreover, based on interagency communications with the EPA, the agency's approach conforms to the EPA's belief that a Federal agency may exclude the emissions of one presumed to conform action from the applicability analysis of total direct and indirect emissions that are not otherwise exempt and from a conformity determination if required. As a result, even if a combined action includes multiple presumed to conform actions, the FAA and airport sponsors may only exclude the emissions from one presumed to conform action vis-à-vis the project's total direct and indirect emissions. Agency officials maintain the right to select the specific presumed to conform action to exclude if more than one is present in the combined action. By being able to exclude emissions from a presumed to conform action, the agency may show that the project's total direct and indirect emissions that are not otherwise exempt do not equal or exceed any of the de minimis thresholds in the Rule. The presumed to conform action could therefore make a difference as to whether or not a general conformity determination is required. Specifically, the applicability analysis of total direct and indirect emissions, plus emissions calculated separately for the presumed to conform action, could show that the combined action would equal or exceed the de minimis thresholds if not for the allowable subtraction of emissions from the presumed to conform action. In a combined action, the presumed to conform action must be evaluated similarly and at the same level as other elements in the overall project. This assessment typically involves the quantification of direct and indirect emissions on a calendar year basis. The estimated annual emissions from the presumed to conform action must be identified as a separate line item in the applicability analysis and clearly explained and presented in the study documentation. Regional Significance Under 40 CFR 93.153(j) of the Rule, a Federal action that is presumed to conform action may still be subject to a general conformity determination if the action is shown to be regionally significant. 66 The purpose of the regionally significant requirement is to capture those Federal actions that fall below de minimis threshold levels but still have the potential to impact the air quality of a region. 66 A regionally significant Federal Acton is an action that has total emissions (the sum of direct and indirect emissions) that represent 10 percent or more of a nonattainment or maintenance area's total emissions of that pollutant [40 CFR Part 93, § 93.153(i) and (j)]. By definition, if the total of direct and indirect emissions of any pollutant from a Federal action represent 10 percent or more of a maintenance or nonattainment area's total emissions of that pollutant, the action is considered to be a regionally significant activity and the General Conformity Rule applies. If an action in a nonattainment area is below the thresholds or is otherwise presumed to conform and is not regionally significant, then the General Conformity Rules does not apply and no official reporting is required under Section 176(c) of the CAA. The FAA Air Quality Handbook states that an airport project that is presumed to conform is unlikely to have emission levels that are regionally significant. 67 This is because, based on the highest de minimis threshold level (100 tons per year), in order for an action's net emissions to represent 10 percent or more of a maintenance or nonattainment area's total emissions of a particular pollutant, the area's total emissions inventory for any pollutant must be less than 1,000 tons, which is unlikely. Based on this rationale, the presumed to conform activities in this Notice are not considered to be regionally significant. 67 FAA and USAF, April 1997, Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports & Air Force Bases. Issued in Washington, DC on February 5, 2007. Charles R. Everett, Jr., Manager, Planning and Environmental Division, Office of the Associate Administrator for Airports. [FR Doc. E7-2241 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [Docket No. FHWA-2007-27203] 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 a new information collection, which is 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 April 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FHWA-2007-27203 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 5p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Neathery, 202-366-1257 or Martin Weiss, 202-366-5010, Office of Interstate and Border Planning, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Rural Transportation Research. *Background:* Section 5513(f) of The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU) provides a grant to the New England Transportation Institute (hence “the Institute”) in White River Junction, Vermont, to conduct rural transportation research. The Institute will undertake research and analysis in support of two research issues:

(1)Rural Transportation Issues Definition and Refinement; and

(2)Rural Transportation Safety and Health. The research includes a 2-part survey to develop information that will help support a “portrait” of present rural transportation patterns. Applying the concepts of both “mobility” and “accessibility” to the rural Northeast, the Institute's surveys will explore the issues of “rural isolation” and driver travel behavior. The survey will address these questions: • How serious a problem is rural isolation and perceptions of access (or lack thereof)? • How are the economic forces acting on the rural areas affecting the manner, and length of trips in the rural Northeast? • How are demographics going to change and/or influence the demands made on the transportation system? and • What would be the transportation implications of different settlement patterns? *Respondents:* Approximately 800 respondents for survey 1 and 600 respondents for survey 2. *Frequency:* one time. *Estimated Average Burden per Response:* 30 minutes per survey. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* Approximately 700 hours. *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: February 6, 2007. James R. Kabel, Chief, Management Programs and Analysis Division. [FR Doc. E7-2224 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)hereby announces that it is seeking renewal of the following currently approved information collection activities. Before submitting these information collection requirements for clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified below. DATES: Comments must be received no later than April 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on any or all of the following proposed activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. Gina Christodoulou, Office of Support Systems Staff, RAD-43, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating, “Comments on OMB control number ___.” Alternatively, comments may be transmitted via facsimile to

(202)493-6230 or

(202)493-6170, or via e-mail to Mr. Brogan at *robert.brogan@dot.gov,* or to Ms. Christodoulou at *gina.christodoulou@dot.gov.* Please refer to the assigned OMB control number in any correspondence submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in response to this notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its information collection submission to OMB for approval. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6292) or Ms. Gina Christodoulou, Office of Support Systems Staff, RAD-43, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6139). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, section 2, 109 Stat. 163

(1995)(codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days notice to the public for comment on information collection activities before seeking approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA invites interested respondents to comment on the following summary of proposed information collection activities regarding

(i)Whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the activities will have practical utility;

(ii)the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates;

(iii)ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and

(iv)ways for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public by automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology ( *e.g.,* permitting electronic submission of responses). *See* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)(i)-(iv); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)(i)-(iv). FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information mandated by Federal regulations. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives:

(i)Reduce reporting burdens;

(ii)ensure that it organizes information collection requirements in a “user friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and

(iii)accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested. *See* 44 U.S.C. 3501. Below are brief summaries of the two currently approved information collection activities that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA: *Title:* Foreign Railroads' Foreign-Based

(FRFB)Employees Who Perform Train or Dispatching Service in the United States. *OMB Control Number:* 2130-0555. *Abstract:* The collection of information is used by FRA to determine compliance of FRFB train and dispatching service employees and their employers with the prohibition against the abuse of alcohol and controlled substances. Because of the increase in cross-border train operations and the increased risk posed to the safety of train operations in the United States, FRA seeks to apply all of the requirements of 49 CFR part 219 to FRFB train and dispatching service employees. The basic information—evidence of unauthorized use of drugs and alcohol—is used by FRA to help prevent accidents/incidents by screening FRFB who perform safety-sensitive functions for unauthorized drug or alcohol use. FRFB train and dispatching service employees testing positive for unauthorized use of alcohol and drugs are removed from service, thereby enhancing safety and serving as a deterrent to other FRFB train and dispatching service employees who might be tempted to engage in the unauthorized use of drugs or alcohol. *Form Number(s):* None. *Respondent Universe:* 2 Railroads. *Frequency of Submission:* On occasion. *Affected Public:* Foreign-based railroads and their employees. *Reporting Burden:* CFR section Respondent universe Total annual responses Average time per response Total annual burden hours Total annual burden cost 219.4—Recognition of Foreign Railroads' Workplace Testing Programs: Petitions to Agency—Comments on Petition 2 railroads 2 railroads/public 1 petition 2 comments + 2 comment copies 10 hours 2 hours 10 4 $370 148 219.401/403/405—Voluntary referral and Co-worker Report Policies 2 railroads 2 policies 30 hours 60 2,364 219.403/405—Evaluation by Substance Abuse Professional 2 railroads 3 reports/referrals 2 hours 6 900 219.405(c)(1)—Report by a Co-worker 2 railroads 1 report 5 minutes .08 3 219. 601(a)—Railroad Random Drug Testing Programs—Amendments to Programs 2 railroads 2 railroads 2 programs 1 amendment 16 hours 1 hour 32 1 1,184 37 219.601(b)(1)—Random Selection Procedures—Drugs 2 railroads 24 documents 4 hours 96 1,440 219.601(b)(4), 219.601(d)—Notice to Employees of Random Drug Testing Program—Notice to Employees of Selection for Testing 2 railroads 2 railroads 2 notices 20 notices 10 hours 1 minute 20 .333 740 12 219.603(a)—Notice by Employee Asking to be Excused from Urine Testing 200 employees 2 excuses 15 minutes .5 22 219.607(a)—Railroad Random Alcohol Testing Programs: Amendments 2 railroads 1 amendment 1 hour 1 37 219.609—Notice by Employee Asking to be Excused from Random Alcohol Testing 200 employees 2 excuses 15 minutes .5 22 219.903—Retention of Urine Drug Testing Records 2 railroads 80 records 5 minutes 7 105 *Total Responses:* 145. *Total Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 238 hours. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Title:* Special Notice For Repairs. *OMB Control Number:* 2130-0504. *Abstract:* The Special Notice For Repairs is issued to notify the carrier in writing of an unsafe condition involving a locomotive, car, or track. The carrier must return the form after repairs have been made. The collection of information is used by State and Federal inspectors to remove freight cars or locomotives until they can be restored to a serviceable condition. It is also used by State and Federal inspectors to reduce the maximum authorized speed on a section of track until repairs can be made. *Form Number(s):* FRA F 6180.8; FRA F 6180.8a. *Affected Public:* Businesses. *Respondent Universe:* 685 railroads. *Frequency of Submission:* On occasion. *Total Responses:* 57. *Total Estimated Annual Burden:* 6 hours. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Issued in Washington, DC on February 6, 2007. D.J. Stadtler, Director, Office of Budget, Federal Railroad Administration. [FR Doc. E7-2225 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice and Request For Comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this notice announces that the Information Collection Requirements

(ICRs)abstracted below have been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and comment. The ICRs describe the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The **Federal Register** notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collections of information was published on December 5, 2006 (71 FR 70581). DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 14, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 17, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6292) or Ms. Gina Christodoulou, Office of Support Systems Staff, RAD-43, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 35, Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone:

(202)493-6139). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, section 2, 109 Stat. 163

(1995)(codified as revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On December 5, 2006, FRA published a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** soliciting comment on ICRs that the agency was seeking OMB approval. See 71 FR 70581. FRA received no comments after issuing this notice. Accordingly, DOT announces that these information collection activities have been re-evaluated and certified under 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and forwarded to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12(c). Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. The summaries below describe the nature of the information collection requirements

(ICRs)and the expected burden. The revised requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA. *Title:* Control of Alcohol and Drug Use in Railroad Operations. *OMB Control Number:* 2130-0526. *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Railroads. *Form(s):* FRA F 6180.73; 6180.74. *Abstract:* The information collection requirements contained in pre-employment and “for cause” testing regulations are intended to ensure a sense of fairness and accuracy for railroads and their employees. The principal information—evidence of unauthorized alcohol or drug use—is used to prevent accidents by screening personnel who perform safety-sensitive service. FRA uses the information to measure the level of compliance with regulations governing the use of alcohol or controlled substances. Elimination of this problem is necessary to prevent accidents, injuries, and fatalities of the nature already experienced and further reduce the risk of a truly catastrophic accident. *Annual Estimated Burden Hours:* 31,797 hours. *Addressee:* Send comments regarding this information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503; Attention: FRA Desk Officer. *Comments are invited on the following:* Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Issued in Washington, DC on February 6, 2007. D.J. Stadtler, Director, Office of Budget, Federal Railroad Administration. [FR Doc. E7-2293 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Berkeley/Albany Ferry Terminal Project in the Cities of Berkeley and Albany, California AGENCY: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Transit Administration (FTA). ACTION: Notice of Intent

(NOI)to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration and the San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority

(WTA)are planning to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)for the proposed construction of a ferry terminal along the Berkeley/Albany waterfront that would link the San Francisco Ferry Terminal with communities in the East Bay. The project would serve commuters, visitors, and recreational users who desire an alternative way to cross San Francisco Bay to access nearby employment, entertainment, and recreational destinations. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with section 102(2)C of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)and pursuant to the Council on the Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-08) as well as provisions of the recently enacted Safe, Accountable, Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. (SAFETEA-LU). The purpose of this Notice of Intent

(NOI)is to alert interested parties regarding the plan to prepare an EIS, to provide information on the proposed transit project, to invite participation in the EIS process, including comments on the scope of the EIS proposed in this notice, and to announce public scoping meetings will be conducted. DATES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS should be sent to John Sindzinski, WTA Project Manager, by March 30, 2007. Public scoping meetings will be held on March 8, 2007, and March 15, 2007, from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at locations indicated under the heading ADDRESSES below. An interagency scoping meeting for agencies with interest in the project will be held on March 7 from 1:30 pm to 3:30 pm at the South Berkeley Senior Center, 2939 Ellis Street, Berkeley, California. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS should be sent to John Sindzinski, Project Manager, San Francisco Bay Water Transit Authority, Pier 9, Suite 111, The Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA 94111. Comments may also be offered at the public scoping meetings. The addresses for the public scoping meetings are as follows: Albany Location (March 15) Albany City Hall, 1000 San Pablo Avenue, Albany, California. Berkeley Location (March 8) North Berkeley Senior Center, 1901 Hearst Avenue, Berkeley, California. The meeting will be accessible to persons with disabilities. If special translation or signing services or other special accommodations are needed, please contact Delphine Henri at

(415)274-1821 at least 48 hours before the meeting. A scoping information packet is available on the Water Transit Authority Web site at *http://www.watertransit.org* or by calling Delphine Henri

(415)274-1821. Copies will also be available at the scoping meetings. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Smith, Community Planner, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco Regional Office at

(415)744-2599. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *The Proposed Project:* The project would initiate ferry service between the East Bay communities of Berkeley/Albany and the San Francisco Ferry Terminal administered by the WTA. Service would operate during the day and evenings, including Saturdays and Sundays, at headways that would reflect the travel demand for commute and non-commute periods. Depending on the Berkeley/Albany terminal site selected, one-way travel times would range from approximately 30 and 45 minutes. The project would involve constructing a new ferry docking facility; passenger ticketing and sheltered waiting area on the pier; car and bike parking; bus boarding; and provision for pedestrian, bicycle and traffic circulation at a location along the Berkeley/Albany waterfront. Dredging would be conducted to allow ferry vessels access to the terminal site. In San Francisco, existing San Francisco Ferry Terminal facilities would be utilized for this new service and would not require modification. *Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project:* In July 2003, the WTA finalized the Implementation and Operations Plan

(IOP)to expand ferry service throughout San Francisco Bay. The IOP included ferry service between San Francisco and Berkeley/Albany as an element of a regional ferry network. Regional Measure 2, approved by local voters in March 2, 2004, earmarked funds for developing a comprehensive strategy to address congestion on Transbay corridors. The San Francisco to Berkeley/Albany ferry service was designated as a priority transportation project in carrying out this strategy. The project would: • Provide an alternative mode of transportation that would encourage automobile users to forego traveling by car across the Bay Bridge, thus reducing congestion on the Bay Bridge • Provide additional Transbay capacity to existing BART and AC Transit services • Provide an alternative way of crossing the Bay during regional emergencies • Provide direct access for San Francisco residents to the Eastshore State Park and other activity centers in the Berkeley/Albany area • Provide direct access for East Bay residents to employment and activity centers along and near the San Francisco waterfront *Alternatives:* A study of potential ferry terminal sites in the Berkeley/Albany area was completed by the WTA in July 2006. The Berkeley/Albany Ferry Terminal Study is available on the Water Transit Authority Web site at *http://www.watertransit.org.* On July 27, 2006, four sites were approved by the WTA Board to be carried forward as alternatives for further review and environmental analysis in the EIS. In addition to the No Build alternative, four Build alternatives are being considered in the EIS as described below. 1. *No Build Alternative:* This alternative would continue the existing transit services connecting the East Bay communities of Berkeley/Albany with San Francisco without implementing ferry service. Programmed bus and rail transit improvements between the East Bay and San Francisco identified in the Regional Transportation Plan would be implemented as part of the No Build alternative. This alternative serves as the baseline against which the environmental effects of the other alternatives are measured. 2. *Alternative A—Berkeley Marina Site.* This alternative would include a new terminal and docking facilities at the Doubletree Hotel along the eastern end of the Berkeley Marina for a WTA ferry terminal site. Hornblower operation, currently using the existing dock, also would be accommodated in the design. Access to the site would be provided via the western extension of University Avenue and Marina Boulevard. Parking, passenger drop-off and bus boarding would be accommodated in the existing parking areas surrounding the Doubletree Hotel. 3. *Alternative B—Berkeley Fishing Pier Site.* This alternative would include a new ferry terminal located south of the existing fishing pier near Hs Lordships restaurant. Access to the site would be provided via the western extension of University Avenue. The existing parking areas in the vicinity of Hs Lordships and Skates would be designed to accommodate ferry parking, passenger drop-off, and bus boarding. 4. *Alternative C—Gilman Street Site* . This alternative would locate a new ferry terminal in the general vicinity of the western end of Gilman Street adjacent to the existing Golden Gate horse facilities, which would need to be relocated to accommodate ferry parking, passenger drop-off and bus boarding. Access to the site would be provided via Gilman Street and would avoid conflicting with the City of Berkeley's Gilman Street Recreation facilities, currently under construction immediately west of I-80. 5. *Alternative D—Buchanan Street site.* This alternative would locate a new ferry terminal south of the Albany Bulb and at the northern end of Golden Gate Field near the old pier. Access to the site would be provided via Buchanan Street. A portion of the existing Golden Gate Field parking area would be used for ferry parking, passenger drop-off and bus boarding. *The EIS Process and the Role of Participating Agencies and the Public:* The purpose of the EIS process is to explore in a public setting potentially significant effects of implementing the proposed action and alternatives on the physical, human, and natural environment. Areas of investigation include, but are not limited to, land use, environmental justice, historic resources, visual and aesthetic qualities, air quality, noise and vibration, energy use, traffic, safety and security, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and hazardous materials. Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any significant adverse impacts will be identified. Regulations implementing NEPA, as well as provisions of the recently enacted Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), call for public involvement in the EIS process. Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU requires that FTA and PCJPB do the following:

(1)Extend an invitation to other Federal and non-Federal agencies and Indian tribes that may have an interest in the proposed project to become “participating agencies”,

(2)Provide an opportunity for involvement by participating agencies and the public in helping to define the purpose and need for a proposed project, as well as the range of alternatives for consideration in the impact statement, and

(3)Establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation in and comment on the environmental review process. An invitation to become a participating agency, with the scoping information packet appended, will be extended to other Federal and non-Federal agencies and Indian tribes that may have an interest in the proposed project. It is possible that we may not be able to identify all Federal and non-Federal agencies and Indian tribes that may have such an interest. Any Federal or non-Federal agency or Indian tribe interested in the proposed project that does not receive an invitation to become a participating agency should notify, at the earliest opportunity, the Environmental Manager identified above under ADDRESSES . A comprehensive public involvement program has been developed. The program includes a public scoping process, public hearings on release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), development of project newsletters and their distribution and posting on the project Web site ( *http://www.watertransit.org* ). We invite the public and participating agencies to consider the preliminary statement of purposes of and need for the proposed project, as well as the alternatives proposed for consideration, and the public is welcome to use the public scoping process to further define the issues of concern among all parties interested in the project. Comments on potential significant environmental impacts that may be associated with the proposed project are also welcomed. All comments and suggestions will be given serious consideration. The purposes of and need for the proposed project have been preliminarily identified in this notice. We invite the public and participating agencies to consider the preliminary statement of purposes of and need for the proposed project, as well as the alternatives proposed for consideration. Suggestions for modifications to the statement of purposes of and need for the proposed project and any other alternatives that meet the purposes of and need for the proposed project are welcomed and will be given serious consideration. Comments on potentially significant environmental impacts that may be associated with the proposed project and alternatives are also welcomed. There will be additional opportunities to participate in the scoping process at the public meetings announced in this notice. In accordance with 23 CFR 771.105(a) and 771.133, FTA will comply with all Federal environmental laws, regulations and executive orders applicable to the proposed project during the environmental review process to the maximum extent practicable. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508 and 23 CFR part 771), the project-level air quality conformity regulation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)(40 CFR part 93), section 404(b)(1) guidelines of EPA (40 CFR part 230), Executive Orders 11988, 11990 and 12898 regarding floodplains, wetlands, and environmental justice, respectively, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR part 402), and section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (23 CFR 771.135). Issued On: February 5, 2007. Leslie T. Rogers, Regional Administrator, FTA, Region 9. [FR Doc. E7-2246 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Exposition Corridor Light Rail Transit Project Phase 2 AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration

(FTA)and the Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (Authority), in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), intend to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)on the proposed Phase 2 of the Exposition Corridor Light Rail Transit Project. Phase 2 would extend from the current planned terminus of the Exposition Corridor Light Rail Transit Project Phase 1 in Culver City, California, approximately 6 to 8 miles to an end-of-line station near 5th Street and Colorado Boulevard in Santa Monica, California. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)and its implementing regulations. The purpose of this notice is to alert interested parties regarding the intent to prepare the EIS, to provide information on the nature of the proposed project and possible alternatives, to invite public participation in the EIS process, including comments on the scope of the EIS proposed in this notice, to announce that public scoping meetings will be conducted, and to identify participating agency contacts. DATES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS, including the alternatives to be considered and the impacts to be assessed, should be sent to the Authority on or before April 2, 2007. See ADDRESSES below for the address to which written comments may be sent. Public scoping meetings to accept comments on the scope of the EIS will be held on the following dates: • Tuesday, February 27, 2007, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Culver City Senior Center, Room B45, 4095 Overland Avenue, Culver City, CA 90232. • Wednesday, February 28, 2007, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Hamilton High School Cafeteria, 2955 South Robertson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90034. • Tuesday, March 6, 2007, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, East Wing Meeting Room, 1855 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. The project's purpose and need and the initial set of alternatives proposed for study will be presented at these meetings. The buildings used for the scoping meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. Any individual who requires special assistance, such as a sign language interpreter, to participate in a scoping meeting should contact Ms. Genetha Eddins, Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority at

(213)243-5506 or *geddins@exporail.net* . Scoping materials will be available at the meetings and are available by clicking on the Phase 2 tab on the project's Web site at *http://www.buildexpo.org* . Hard copies of the scoping materials are available from Mr. Joel Sandberg whose contact information is given in ADDRESSES below. An interagency scoping meeting or conference call will be scheduled after agencies with an interest in the proposed project have been identified. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Mr. Joel Sandberg, P.E., Project Manager, Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3400, Los Angeles, California 90017, phone

(213)922-3976, fax

(213)243-5553, e-mail *jsandberg@exporail.net* . The locations of the public scoping meetings are given above under DATES . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ray Tellis, Federal Transit Administration, 888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1850, Los Angeles, CA 90017, phone

(312)202-3950, e-mail *ray.tellis@dot.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scoping The FTA and the Authority invite all interested individuals and organizations, public agencies, and Native American Tribes to comment on the scope of the EIS, including the project's purpose and need, the alternative to be studies, and the impacts to be evaluated. Comments should focus on the purpose and need for the proposed project; alternatives that may be less costly or have less environmental or community impacts while achieving similar transportation objectives; and the identification of any significant social, economic, or environmental issues relating to the alternatives. Purpose and Need for the Project The project purpose is to improve public transit service in the Exposition Corridor between Culver City and Santa Monica. The overall goal of the proposed project is to improve mobility in the Exposition Corridor between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica by extending the mobility benefits of the Phase 1 project beyond the currently planned terminus in Culver City. Mobility issues in this corridor have been well documented in the many studies that have analyzed transportation on the Westside and in the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan. Additional considerations supporting the project's need include: • The major concentration of activity centers and destinations in the Exposition corridor. • The “Centers Concept” Land Use Policy in the Los Angeles Basin supporting the development of high capacity transit corridors connecting the Centers including Santa Monica, Culver City and downtown Los Angeles. • The existing concentration of transit-supportive land use in the Exposition corridor. • The high population and employment densities in the Exposition corridor. • Local redevelopment plans that are highly supportive of, and dependent on, high capacity transit in the Exposition corridor. • History of strong patronage of the currently available transit service in the Exposition corridor. • Significant transit-dependent population in the Exposition corridor. • Significant planned future population and employment growth in the Exposition corridor. • Existing and future travel demand patterns demonstrating a strong and growing demand for high-capacity transit in the Exposition corridor. • Local policy direction oriented toward travel demand management and transit solutions rather than the expansion of the roadway network. The public and participating agencies are invited to consider and comment on this preliminary statement of the purpose and need for the proposed project. Comments will be given serious consideration. Alternatives The Exposition Light Rail Corridor Project Phase 2 proposes to extend transit from the terminus of the Exposition Light Rail Corridor Project Phase 1 at the Venice/Robertson station to a terminus in Santa Monica. The project generally follows an abandoned railroad right-of-way

(ROW)that was purchased by LACMTA in 1990. There Are Two Primary Alignment Alternatives Being Considered *The Exposition ROW Alignment* alternative follows the ROW for the full distance from the current terminus of the Exposition Light Rail Transit Project Phase 1 at Venice/Robertson Station in the City of Culver City to 5th and Colorado in the City of Santa Monica, except for a one-mile segment at the western end where the right-of-way ends and the alignment would follow existing city streets and the edge of the I-10 Santa Monica Freeway to reach the proposed terminus station in Santa Monica. The alignment is approximately 6.9 miles in length. *The Exposition ROW/Venice/Sepulveda Alignment* alternative diverts from the rail right-of-way at the Venice/Robertson station (the terminus of Phase 1) and follows Venice Boulevard to Sepulveda Boulevard where it turns north to rejoin the Rail ROW at approximately the I-405 San Diego Freeway. This alternative alignment also diverts from the ROW for one-mile segment at the western end where the right-of-way ends and the alignment would follow existing city streets and the edge of the I-10 Santa Monica Freeway to reach the proposed terminus station in Santa Monica. This alignment is approximately 7.8 miles in length. Transit Alternatives To Be Considered Include *Light Rail Transit in the Exposition ROW Alignment* —This alternative proposes light rail transit in the Exposition ROW as described above. Possible station sites have been identified at Motor, Overland, Sepulveda, Pico/Sawtelle, Bundy, 26th/Cloverfield and 5th/Colorado. *Light Rail Transit in the Exposition ROW/Venice/Sepulveda Alignment* —This alternative proposes light trail transit in the Exposition ROW/Venice/Sepulveda alignment as described above. Possible station sites have been identified at, Venice/Overland, Venice/Sepulveda, Sepulveda/National, Pico/Sawtelle, Bundy, 26th Cloverfield and 5th/Colorado. *Bus Rapid Transit in the Exposition ROW Alignment* —This alternative would utilize bus rapid transit in the Exposition ROW alignment as described above. The busway would be located within an abandoned rail right-of-way. At the end of the exclusive right-of-way at Olympic Boulevard in Santa Monica the bus service would operate along Olympic Boulevard, 17th Street, and Colorado Boulevard until reaching its terminus at 5th and Colorado in the City of Santa Monica. Possible station sites have been identified at Motor, Overland, Sepulveda, Pico/Sawtelle, Bundy, 26th/ Cloverfield and 5th/Colorado. *No-Build Alternative* —This alternative includes only “committed” improvements—typically those in the annual element of the Transportation Improvement Program or local capital programs—together with minor transit service expansions and/or adjustments that reflects a continuation of existing service policies. This alternative will include committed transportation improvements such as the completion of the Metro Rapid Bus Program by 2008 and possible additional feeder bus networks to serve major activity centers on the Westside. *Transportation System Management Alternative (TSM)* —The TSM alternative enhances the No-Build Alternative and emphasizes transportation system upgrade such as intersection improvements, minor road widening, traffic engineering actions, bus route restructuring, shortened bus headways, expanded use of articulated buses, reserved bus lanes, contra-flow lanes for buses and High Occupancy Vehicles

(HOVs)on freeways, special bus ramps on freeways, expanded park/ride facilities, express and limited-stop service, signalization improvements, and timed-transfer operations. In addition to the above described alternatives, others identified through the scoping process will be evaluated for potential inclusion in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Because of the sensitive adjacent land uses located in many parts of this corridor, all alternatives will need to consider a full range of design and mitigation solutions to enlist the support of local communities for the completion of this line. Probable Effects The purpose of the EIS process is to explore in a public setting the effects of the proposed project and its alternatives on the physical, human, and natural environment. The FTA and the Authority will evaluate all significant environmental, social, and economic impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed project. Impact areas to be addressed include: The transportation impacts; land use, zoning, and economic development; secondary development; land acquisition, displacements, and relocations; cultural resource impacts, including impacts on historical and archaeological resources and parklands/recreation areas; neighborhood compatibility and environmental justice; natural resource impacts including air quality, wetlands, water resources, noise, vibration; energy use; safety and security; wildlife and ecosystems, including endangered species. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate all adverse impacts will be identified and evaluated. FTA Procedures The regulations implementing NEPA, as well as provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), call for public involvement in the EIS process. Section 6002 of SAFETEAU-LU requires that FTA and the Authority do the following:

(1)Extend an invitation to other Federal and non-Federal agencies and Indian tribes that may have an interest in the proposed project to become “participating agencies,”

(2)provide an opportunity for involvement by participating agencies and the public in helping to define the purpose and need for a proposed project, as well as the range of alternatives for consideration in the EIS, and

(3)establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation in, and comment on, the environmental review process. An invitation to become a participating agency, with the scoping materials appended, will be extended to other Federal and non-Federal agencies and Native American tribes that may have an interest in the proposed project. It is possible that FTA and the Authority will not be able to identify all Federal and non-Federal agencies and tribes that may have such an interest. Any Federal or non-Federal agency or tribe interested in the proposed project that does not receive an invitation to become a participating agency should notify at the earliest opportunity the Project Manager identified above under ADDRESSES. A comprehensive public involvement program will be developed and a Coordination Plan for public and interagency involvement will be created and posted under the Phase 2 tab on the project Web site at *http://www.buildexpro.org.* The public involvement program includes a full range of involvement activities including a project Web site; outreach to local officials, community and civic groups, and the public; and development and distribution of project newsletters. Specific mechanisms for involvement will be detailed in the public involvement program. The Authority may seek New Starts funding for the proposed under 49 U.S.C. 5309 and will therefore be subject to New Starts regulations (49 CFR Part 611). The New Starts regulation requires a planning Alternatives Analysis that leads to the selection of a locally preferred alternative and the inclusion of the locally preferred alternative as part of the long-range transportation plan adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments. The Authority plans to use the Draft EIS as the planning Alternatives Analysis. The New Starts regulation also requires the submission of certain project-justification information in support of a request to initiate preliminary engineering, and this information is normally developed in conjunction with the NEPA process. Pertinent New Starts evaluation criteria will be included in the Final EIS. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and with the FTA/Federal Highway Administration regulations “Environmental Impact and Related Procedures” (23 CFR part 771). In accordance with 23 CFR 771.105(a) and 771.133, FTA will comply with all Federal environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders applicable to the proposed project during the environmental review process to the maximum extent practicable. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the environmental and public hearing provisions of Federal transit laws (49 U.S.C. 5301(e), 5323(b), and 5324), the project-level air quality conformity regulation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)(40 CFR part 93), the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines of EPA (40 CFR part 230), the regulation implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800), the regulation implementing section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR part 402), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (23 CFR 771.135), and Executive Orders 12898 on environmental justice, 11988 on floodplain management, and 11990 on wetlands. Issued on February 5, 2007. Leslie T. Rogers, Regional Administrator, Region IX, Federal Transit Administration. [FR Doc. 07-609 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 23

Traces to 23 documents

U.S. Code