Notices. Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and other Federal agencies

11,484 words·~52 min read·/register/2007/07/05/07-3239

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on a Proposed Highway Project in California AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. DOT. ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and other Federal agencies. SUMMARY: This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(1)(1). These actions relate to a proposed Highway project on State Route 50 between Post Mile L0.9 to 12.8 in Sacramento County, State of California.

These actions grant approvals for the project. DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(1)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before January 2, 2008. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 180 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Perez, Senior Project Development Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 650 Capitol Mall, #4-100, Sacramento, CA 95814, weekdays between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m., telephone 916-498-5065, *cesar.perez@fhwa.dot.gov,* or John Webb, Supervisory Environmental Planner, California Department of Transportation, 2389 Gateway Oaks Dr., Sacramento, CA 95833, weekdays between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,

(916)274-0588, *John_Webb@dot.ca.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing approvals for the following highway project in the State of California. This project would improve safety and provide congestion relief on State Route 50, between post mile 0.9 to 12.8, in Sacramento County, California. This would be accomplished by adding bus/carpool lanes in the existing median of U.S. 50 between the above post miles. The purpose of the project is to increase mobility, provide an option for reliable peak period travel time, improve traffic operations, use the highway facilities as efficiently as possible, and provide incentives for commuters. Actions by the Federal agencies and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Final Environmental Assessment for the project. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was approved on June 25, 2007. The Final Environmental Assessment and other documents in the FHWA administrative record file are available by contacting the FHWA or the California Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above. This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to: 1. *General:* National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)[42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109]. 2. *Air:* Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q). 3. *Wildlife:* Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536], Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661-667(d)]. Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703-712]. 4. *Historic and Cultural Resources:* Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(aa) 11]; Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 U.S.C. 470(aa)-11]; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 469-469(c)]; Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001-3013]. 5. *Social and Economic:* Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)-2000(d) (1)]; American Indian Religious Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland Protection Policy Act

(FPPA)[7 U.S.C. 4201-4209]; The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. 6. *Hazardous Materials:* Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992(k). 7. *Executive Orders:* E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Resources; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 Invasive Species. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(1)(1). Issued on: June 27, 2007. Dennis A. Scovill, Chief Operating Officer, Sacramento, California. [FR Doc. E7-12900 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-RY-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-28480] Commercial Driver's License

(CDL)Standards: National Agricultural Aviation Association

(NAAA)Application for Exemption AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments. SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received from the National Agricultural Aviation Association

(NAAA)an application for an exemption from the commercial driver's license

(CDL)requirements. NAAA requests that commercial motor vehicle drivers working with agricultural aircraft operators be exempt from the required knowledge and skills tests and be eligible to receive a restricted CDL. NAAA also requests an exemption to allow these restricted CDL holders to transport fuels used to power agricultural aircraft engines if transported in quantities of 1,000 gallons or less. NAAA believes that relief from the CDL regulations will relieve a current economic hardship and will provide parity in the CDL regulations compared to other, nearly identical farm-related services. NAAA believes that the evidence provided in the exemption request demonstrates that the level of safety achieved under the exemption would be equal to or greater than the level of safety that prevails without the exemption. FMCSA requests public comment on the NAAA application for exemption. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FMCSA-2007-28480 using any of the following methods: • *Web site: http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/.* 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, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140, Ground Floor of West Building, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number for this notice. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading for further information. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or Room W12-140, Ground Floor of West Building, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want us to notify you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-line. *Privacy Act:* Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other entity). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, 2000). This statement is also available at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSD, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, telephone 202-366-4009, E-mail: *MCPSD@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, June 9, 1998) amended 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to grant exemptions from motor carrier safety regulations. On December 8, 1998, the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carriers, the predecessor to FMCSA, published an interim final rule implementing sec. 4007 (63 FR 67600). On August 20, 2004, FMCSA published a final rule (69 FR 51589) on this subject. Under this rule, FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the **Federal Register** (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request. The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of the Agency must be published in the **Federal Register** (49 CFR 381.315(b)). If the Agency denies the request, it must state the reason for doing so. If the Agency grants the exemption, the notice must specify the person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is being granted. The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up to 2 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)). Application for Exemption The NAAA is a trade association that represents over 1,300 members in 46 states. It requests that commercial motor vehicle

(CMV)drivers supporting agricultural aircraft operations be exempted from the required knowledge and skills tests required for a CDL and that these individuals be eligible to receive restricted CDLs as described in 49 CFR 383.3(f). In addition, NAAA further requests an exemption from 49 CFR 383.3(f)(3)(v) that would allow these restricted CDL holders to transport fuels used to power agricultural aircraft engines, if transported in quantities of 1,000 gallons or less. NAAA member operators/pilots are licensed as commercial applicators who use aircraft to enhance food and fiber production, protect forestry, and control health-threatening pests. According to the NAAA, as a part of this operation, a CMV will be driven to a satellite strip where the plane is normally located. The driver will serve as a “mixer-loader” of the crop protection products that go into the agricultural aircraft, and will also refuel the aircraft at the satellite strip. These activities are normally conducted at a location where the aerial application operators have permanent fuel tanks and mixing and loading facilities for crop-protection products. However, at times they work so far from their permanent facility that it is cost-effective to use a satellite landing strip and an on-site fuel truck. The fuel is pumped from the fixed base tanks into the fuel truck and then the fuel truck transports it to the satellite strip for the agricultural aircraft. More trips are made to transport fuel to the satellite strip as needed and the CMV returns to the fixed-base location at the end of the day. Some of the vehicles may also be equipped with crop protection products such as fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, or herbicides. Due to the nature of this work, the truck drivers normally are traveling on rural, less-trafficked roads. NAAA requests that these drivers be permitted to receive restricted CDLs without knowledge and skills testing primarily to expand the labor pool of available drivers. A shortage of available drivers may prevent use of a satellite airstrip closer to the application site. This results in an aircraft having to travel back to its home base for each load instead of using a closer landing area. In this case more fuel is burned to travel to the application site and more time elapses, resulting in fewer application jobs performed during the day. One operator surveyed responded that he loses $2,500 to $5,000 per day as a result of not having an available CDL driver. The granting of the exemption would save on fuel costs, which, according to the NAAA, have increased 142% for aerial application operations in the last three years. In a recent survey, NAAA asked its members if they had experienced difficulties finding CDL drivers to transport chemicals and fuel to satellite application strips, and over 95% answered “yes.” In addition, over 90% of the respondents answered that they had found themselves without a CDL driver for such vehicles during the aerial application season. One explanation offered for this situation is that qualified CDL drivers would be more interested in all-year driving work, rather than the seasonal work that driving for an aerial application operation offers. This factor, coupled with the fact that most aerial application operations are located in rural areas, makes for a smaller pool of available, qualified drivers. NAAA also states finding Department of Motor Vehicle

(DMV)locations and scheduling testing times to take the knowledge and skill tests required for a CDL can be difficult. Its survey indicates that only a select number of DMV locations offer the knowledge and skill tests required to obtain a CDL. Over 76% of the respondents indicated that only a limited number of these DMV locations are readily available. This is an additional handicap, as these operators must take the time and resources to travel significant distances for a potential employee to be tested. NAAA also requests an exemption from 49 CFR 383.3(f)(3)(v) provisions that limit restricted CDL holders to transporting diesel fuel in quantities of 3,785 liters, or 1,000 gallons or less. There are two fuels used in agricultural aircraft operations. One is Jet A, which is used to fuel turbine engines. The second is Avgas, which is used to fuel piston-engine aircraft. Diesel and Jet A fuel are very similar in terms of chemical characteristics. The flash point for the two chemicals is nearly identical at 100 degrees, and Avgas has a lower flashpoint than Jet A and diesel. The time period in which the exemption would usually be needed is the 180 days from the beginning of April through the end of September. This parallels the main season for growing crops in the U.S.—the period aerial applicators are most active. However, because climatic conditions vary around the country, the season of an agricultural aircraft operation depends on where the business is located. If a restricted CDL exemption is granted, NAAA therefore requests that the operator be able to choose the six-month period that best matches the growing conditions in the area in which the business is located. NAAA's justification for including agricultural aircraft operations among the types of employers that may use restricted CDL holders, as listed in section 383.3(f), is that these types of operations are extremely similar to agri-chemical businesses, farm retail outlets, etc. Agricultural aircraft operators transport the same types of materials, such as fertilizers, pesticides and fuel, and in the same quantities as the farm-related industries. Furthermore, agricultural aircraft drivers are transporting these materials on the same rural, lightly-trafficked roads on which farm-related industries are traveling. NAAA's response to ensuring an equivalent level of safety for the proposed exemption is that these operations will be required to ensure that they employ safe drivers and that safe equipment is used on the roads. NAAA states that section 383.3(f)(3) requires restricted-CDL holders to have a “good driving record.” These operators are required to perform random drug tests on employees and to ensure that drivers have hazardous materials endorsements, which require a background check by the Transportation Security Administration. Furthermore, under 49 CFR part 180 Subpart E, “Qualification and Maintenance of Cargo Tanks,” regulations are in place to ensure the structural integrity of the cargo tanks used to transport fuel in the event that the tanks are involved in a crash. A recent NAAA survey found that 95.3% of aerial application businesses surveyed had never been involved in any type of accident while transporting fuel or chemicals. The results also show that 92.9% of those surveyed travel on roads in rural areas with minimal traffic and that a vehicle transporting fuel or chemicals travels an average of 57.81 miles per day. NAAA notes that several operators also mentioned that they do not travel this many miles every day. In many cases, driving is done only once or twice a week to a satellite facility. To ensure that the current safety level is preserved, NAAA states that it is in a strong position to provide meaningful continuing education on highway safety to a large portion of the small business owners of agricultural aviation operations throughout the country through its education program known as the Professional Aerial Application Support System (PAASS). The focus of the PAASS program is to educate individuals in the aerial application industry on the latest techniques and technologies to mitigate agricultural aviation flying accidents and off-target application incidents, in addition to enhancing the security of aerial application operations. According to NAAA, in addition to educating its industry on security and pilot safety, PAASS can also be used to further educate its members on highway transportation safety issues. A copy of the NAAA exemption application is available for review in the docket for this notice. Request for Comments In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public comment on NAAA's application for exemption from the 49 CFR part 383 CDL requirements. The Agency will consider all comments received by close of business on August 6, 2007. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will consider them to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public docket for new material. Issued on: June 26, 2007. Larry W. Minor, Acting Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E7-13021 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-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 approval of the following 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. It should be noted that this notice supersedes and corrects the **Federal Register** Notice that was published on June 11, 2007 (see 72 FR 32159), which inadvertently listed an erroneous title for the proposed study. DATES: Comments must be received no later than September 4, 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 25, Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. Gina Christodoulou, Office of Support Systems, 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 2130-New.” 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 or collection title 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, 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), Pub. L. No. 104-13, 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 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 is a brief summary of proposed new information collection activities that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA: *Title:* Confidential Close Call Reporting System Evaluation-Related Interview Data Collection. *OMB Control Number:* 2130-New. *Abstract:* In the U.S. railroad industry, injury rates have been declining over the last 25 years. Indeed, the industry incident rate fell from a high of 12.1 incidents per 100 workers per year in 1978 to 3.66 in 1996. As the number of incidents has decreased, the mix of causes has also changed toward a higher proportion of incidents that can be attributed to human and organizational factors. This combination of trends—decrease in overall rates but increasing proportion of human factors-related incidents—has left safety managers with a need to shift tactics in reducing injuries to even lower rates than they are now. In recognition of the need for new approaches to improving safety, FRA has instituted the Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C 3 RS). The operating assumption behind C 3 RS is that by assuring confidentiality, employees will report events which, if dealt with, will decrease the likelihood of accidents. C 3 RS, therefore, has both a confidential reporting component, and a problem analysis/solution component. C 3 RS is expected to affect safety in two ways. First, it will lead to problem solving concerning specific safety conditions. Second, it will engender an organizational culture and climate that supports greater awareness of safety and a greater cooperative willingness to improve safety. If C 3 RS works as intended, it could have an important impact on improving safety and safety culture in the railroad industry. While C 3 RS has been developed and implemented with the participation of FRA, railroad labor, and railroad management, there are legitimate questions about whether it is being implemented in the most beneficial way, and whether it will have its intended effect. Further, even if C 3 RS is successful, it will be necessary to know if it is successful enough to implement on a wide scale. To address these important questions, FRA is implementing a formative evaluation to guide program development, a summative evaluation to assess impact, and a sustainability evaluation to determine how C 3 RS can continue after the test period is over. The evaluation is needed to provide FRA with guidance as to how it can improve the program, and how it might be scaled up throughout the railroad industry. Program evaluation is an inherently data driven activity. Its basic tenet is that as change is implemented, data can be collected to track the course and consequences of the change. Because of the setting in which C 3 RS is being implemented, that data must come from the railroad employees (labor and management) who may be affected. Critical data include beliefs about safety and issues related to safety, and opinions/observations about the operation of C 3 RS. The proposed study is a five-year demonstration project to improve rail safety, and is designed to identify safety issues and propose corrective action based on voluntary reports of close calls submitted to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation. Because of the innovative nature of this program, FRA is implementing an evaluation, which will be carried out by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), U.S. Department of Transportation, to determine whether the program is succeeding, how it can be improved and, if successful, what is needed to spread the program throughout the railroad industry. Confidential interviews to evaluate the close call reporting system will be conducted with two groups:

(1)Key stakeholders to the process (e.g., FRA officials, industry labor, and carrier management within participating railroads); and

(2)Employees in participating railroads who are eligible to submit close call reports to the Confidential Close Call Reporting System. Different questions will be addressed to each of these two groups. Confidential interviews will be semi-structured, with follow-up questions asked as appropriate depending on the respondent's initial answer. *Form Number(s):* FRA F 6180.126A; FRA F 6180.126B. *Affected Public:* Railroad Employees and Key Non-railroad Stakeholders. *Respondent Universe:* 300 Select Railroad Employees/Non-railroad Stakeholders. *Frequency of Submission:* On Occasion. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 267 Hours. *Status:* Regular Review. 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 June 28, 2007. Belinda Ashton, Acting Director, Office of Budget, Federal Railroad Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13016 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. Boone & Scenic Valley Railroad [Docket Number FRA-2007-28097] By letter dated April 26, 2001, the Boone & Scenic Valley Railroad

(BSV)petitioned FRA for a waiver of compliance from the requirements of 49 CFR 223.11, *Existing locomotives,* for four diesel electric locomotives, under Docket Number FRA-2001-9607. These four locomotives are: Numbers 1858 and 2254 (built by General Electric), Number 1098 model S-2 (American Locomotive Company), and Number 1003 model NW-2 (Electromotive Division of General Motors). On October 2, 2001, the Railroad Safety Board approved this requested waiver for a period of 5 years, with an option for renewal. On December 6, 2006, the Board extended the waiver for an additional 5 years. However, the BSV also operates a steam locomotive, Number JS8419, over approximately 12 miles of their line from Boone, IA, in conjunction with their tourist and excursion service. Since this locomotive was built after January 1, 1946, it is required to be equipped with glazing material compliant with the requirements of 49 CFR 223.11. Steam locomotive Number JS8419 was built in China by Datong Locomotive Works in Shanxi, China, in October 1988, purchased new by the BSV in 1989, and delivered with automotive-type safety glazing. It has been in regular summer weekend service each year since 1990, except for in 1993 and 2002. By letter dated February 12, 2007, BSV requested that Number JS8419 be granted a waiver under the same conditions as their four diesel electric locomotives. They stated that retrofitting JS8419 with compliant glazing would be very costly, and a serious financial burden on the museum. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA in writing before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number ( *e.g.* , Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2007-28097) and must be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the DOT Central Docket Management Facility, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19377-78). The statement may also be found at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC on June 28, 2007. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Implementation. [FR Doc. E7-13025 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. Carolina Coastal Railway, Inc. [Docket Number FRA-2007-28420] The Carolina Coastal Railway, Inc.

(CLNA)seeks a permanent waiver of compliance from *Control of Alcohol and Drug Use,* 49 CFR Part 219 Subpart G, which requires a railroad to conduct random alcohol and drug testing. CLNA has less than 16 hours of service employees and previously had no joint operations, but they plan to lease from Norfolk Southern Corporation

(NS)nearly 140 miles of track from Raleigh to Plymouth, NC, on June 15, 2007. The CLNA will operate over NS tracks to reach their yards for interchange potentially at Chocowinity, NC, and at Raleigh, NC. CSX Transportation

(CSX)will have overhead trackage rights over a 16-mile segment of the track, although there will be temporal separation since CLNA's operation will be during daytime hours and CSX's operations will be restricted to nighttime hours. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA in writing before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number ( *e.g.* , Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2007-28420) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC on June 28, 2007. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E7-13028 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. Maryland Transit Administration [Modification to Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2000-7054/7286] As a modification to the Maryland Transit Administration's

(MTA)existing Shared Use/Temporal Separation waiver originally granted by FRA on January 19, 2001, MTA is requesting that FRA modify the original terms and conditions of its permanent waiver of compliance from sections of Title 49 of the CFR for operation of its Cockeysville Light Rail Line

(CLRL)due to changes that have recently occurred. (See “Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Jurisdiction Over the Safety of Railroad Passenger Operations and Waivers Related to Shared Use of the Tracks of the General Railroad System by Light Rail and Conventional Equipment,” 65 FR 42529 (July 10, 2000). See also “Joint Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Shared Use of the Tracks of the General Railroad System by Conventional Railroads and Light Rail Transit Systems,” 65 FR 42626 (July 10, 2000).) In this regard, the Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS), which operates a freight railroad sharing track temporally with the CLRL, is ceasing freight service on the CLRL from a point at Chain Marker 122 continuing northward to the end of the line. The sole exception to this is at Chain Marker 122, where NS continues to cross the CLRL via a diamond crossover to service the NS Flexi-Flo facility. In regard to this, NS has filed a Petition for Exemption for authority to abandon the freight service on the CLRL (see Surface Transportation Board

(STB)Docket No. AB-290, Sub No. 237X, Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.—Abandonment Exemption—In Baltimore Co., MD), and is awaiting STB resolution at this time. Due to the cessation of NS freight service on the CLRL from a point at Chain Marker 122 northward, MTA is requesting that FRA determine that there is no longer shared use on the CLRL and that waivers are no longer necessary because the statutes and regulations covered in the Shared Use Policy Statement no longer apply to the CLRL north of that point. Also, MTA agrees that the waivers that were approved in the January 19, 2001, decision letter that are relevant at the diamond crossing will remain in effect, and that Standard Operating Procedure LR.07.02.04, which replaces MTA Procedure No. 6.33, provides sufficient protection at the interlocked diamond crossover. Lastly, MTA requests that, to the extent FRA regulations apply in any manner, FRA waive the requirements of 49 CFR Part 219, Control of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, for MTA employees who control the operation of the NS trains across the diamond because it is adopting the Federal Transit Administration's drug and alcohol policy, which provides an equivalent level of oversight. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA in writing before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2000-7054/7286) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.—5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). The Statement may also be found at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC on June 28, 2007. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E7-13029 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief From the Requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 236 Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)Part 235 and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 236 as detailed below. [Docket Number FRA-2007-28293] *Applicants:* Rock and Rail, LLC, Mr. Franklin Lloyd, President, P.O. Box 1026, Cañon City, Colorado 81215. Cañon City and Royal Gorge Railroad, LCC, Mr. Mark Greksa, Owner/Manager, P.O. Box 859, Georgetown, Colorado 80444. Union Pacific Railroad, Mr. Bill Breeden, General Director, Maintenance of Way, 1400 Douglas Street, Stop 0910, Omaha, Nebraska 68179. Rock and Rail, LLC, and Cañon City and Royal Gorge Railroad, LLC, collectively

(RGX)and the Union Pacific Railroad Company

(UP)jointly seek approval of the proposed conversion of the existing traffic control system to an automatic block signal system on the single main track and sidings between Cañon City, Colorado, Milepost 159.2, and East Parkdale, Colorado, Milepost 169.9, on the former UP Denver Area, Tennessee Pass Subdivision, a distance of approximately 10.7 miles. The proposed changes include the removal of the power-operated switch machines from the control points at East and West Cañon City and East and West Parkdale, and their replacement with manual switch operating devices. In addition, the proposed changes include the removal of the electric switch locks from switches at Mileposts 159.2, 159.5, 159.9, and 160.1. The reason given for the proposed changes is due to the Applicants' operational plan, which features a significant reduction in the size and number of trains, and reduction in hours of operation compared to the time when UP operated the trackage as a mainline through route. The UP closed the trackage as a through route in August 1997, and in 1998 sold the portion of trackage from Cañon City to Parkdale to RGX. The line was severed and RGX acquired a stub-ended branch line, accessible only from the Cañon City end of the line, with no potential for through traffic. Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the protest is made, and include a concise statement of the interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed above. FRA expects to be able to determine these matters without an oral hearing. However, if a specific request for an oral hearing is accompanied by a showing that the party is unable to adequately present his or her position by written statements, an application may be set for public hearing. All communications concerning this proceeding should be identified by Docket Number FRA-2007-28293 and may be submitted by one of the following methods: • *Web site: http://dms.dot.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic site; • *Fax:* 202-493-2251; • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; or • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 of the U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FRA wishes to inform all potential commenters that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28, 2007. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E7-13027 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements; Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. The nature of the information collection is described as well as its expected burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on April 23, 2007. No comments were received. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 6, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linden Houston, Program Manager, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:

(202)366-4839, or e-mail: *Linden.Houston@dot.gov.* Copies of this collection also can be obtained from that office. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maritime Administration (MARAD). *Title:* Application for Conveyance of Port Facility Property. *OMB Control No.:* 2133-0524. *Type of Request:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Affected Public:* Eligible port entities. *Forms:* MA-1047. *Abstract:* Public Law 103-160, which is included in 40 U.S.C. 554 authorizes the Department of Transportation to convey to public entities surplus Federal property needed for the development or operation of a port facility. The information collection will allow MARAD to approve the conveyance of property and administer the port facility conveyance program. The collection is necessary for MARAD to determine whether the community is committed to the redevelopment/reuse plan; the redevelopment/reuse plan is viable and is in the best interest of the public; and the property is being used in accordance with the terms of the conveyance and applicable statutes and regulations. *Expiration Date of Approval:* Three years from date of approval by the Office of Management and Budget. *Summary of Collection of Information:* Public Law 103-160, which is included in 40 U.S.C. 554 authorizes the Department of Transportation to convey to public entities surplus Federal property needed for the development or operation of a port facility. The information collection will allow MARAD to approve the conveyance of property and administer the port facility conveyance program. *Annual Estimated Burden Hours:* 1280 hours. *Addressee:* Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: MARAD Desk Officer. *Comments are invited on:* Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency'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. Dated: June 29, 2007. Daron T. Threet, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13015 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA-2007-27181 (Notice No. 07-5] Information Collection Activities AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments on an information collection under Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Control No. 2137-0586, pertaining to Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning Grants. PHMSA will request approval from OMB for a revision to the current information collection. The revision implements a statutory provision authorizing PHMSA to request information from states concerning fees related to the transportation of hazardous materials. In addition, we are revising the current information collection to include more detailed information from grantees to enable us to more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the grant program in meeting emergency response planning and training needs. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 4, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number (PHMSA-2007-27181) by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulation Identification Number

(RIN)for this notice. Internet users may access comments received by DOT at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Note that comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* including any personal information provided. Requests for a copy of the information collection should be directed to Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (PHH-11), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone

(202)366-8553. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (PHH-11), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone

(202)366-8553. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8 (d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations requires PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies an information collection PHMSA is submitting to OMB for revision under OMB Control Number 2137-0586. This collection is contained in 49 CFR Part 110, Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning Grants. We are proposing to revise the information collection to implement a statutory provision authorizing PHMSA to request information from states concerning fees related to the transportation of hazardous materials. In addition, we are proposing to revise the current information collection to include more detailed information from grantees to enable us to more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the grant program in meeting emergency response planning and training needs. State and Tribal Hazardous Materials Fees Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 *et seq.* ) specifies that Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness

(HMEP)grant funds are to be allocated based on the needs of states and Indian tribes for emergency response planning and training, considering a number of factors including whether the state or tribe imposes and collects a fee on the transportation of hazardous materials and whether the fee is used only to carry out a purpose related to the transportation of hazardous materials. 40 U.S.C. 5116(b)(4). Accordingly, the HMEP grant application procedures in Part 110 require applicants to submit a statement explaining whether the applicant assesses and collects fees for the transportation of hazardous materials and whether those fees are used solely to carry out purposes related to the transportation of hazardous materials. Section 5125(f) of the Federal hazmat law permits a State, political subdivision of a state, or Indian tribe to impose a fee related to the transportation of hazardous materials only if the fee is fair and used for a purpose related to transporting hazardous materials, including enforcement and planning, developing, and maintaining a capability for emergency response. In accordance with § 5125, the Department of Transportation may require a state, political subdivision of a State, or Indian tribe to report on the fees it collects, including:

(1)The basis on which the fee is levied;

(2)the purposes for which the revenues from the fee are used; and

(3)the total amount of annual revenues collected from the fee. Until now, we have not proposed asking States, political subdivisions, or Indian tribes to report this information. In response to our February 26, 2007 notice [72 FR 8421] concerning the renewal of the OMB approval of the information collection required of applicants for HMEP grants, we received one comment from the Interested Parties for Hazardous Materials Transportation urging us to require grant applicants to report on the hazardous materials fees they collect in accordance with § 5125(f) of the Federal hazmat law. The commenter states that such information is important for both the agency and the regulated community to determine if States are in compliance with applicable provisions of the Federal hazmat law. We agree that we should ask States and Indian tribes to provide more detailed information about hazardous materials fees they collect. This information will help us to evaluate more fully the emergency response funding needs of States and Indian tribes, thereby promoting more effective use of HMEP grant funds. In addition, information about fees will assist us in targeting our safety assistance team activities to specific regions. Comprehensive information on the assessment, collection, and use of State and tribal fees related to the transportation of hazardous materials is not available from other sources. Only the State or Indian tribe assessing the fee can be expected to accurately report on the purposes for which the fees are assessed and the total amount of fee revenue collected each year. Therefore, we are revising the instructions for submitting an HMEP grant application to request that applicants expand on the currently required statement explaining whether the State or Indian tribe assesses and collects fees on the transportation of hazardous materials and whether such fees are used solely for purposes related to the transportation of hazardous materials. Beginning with the application for FY 2008 funds, applicants will be asked to respond to the following additional questions: 1. Does your State or tribe assess a fee or fees in connection with the transportation of hazardous materials? 2. If the answer to question 1 is “yes,” a. What State agency administers the fee? b. What is the amount of the fee and the basis on which the fee is assessed? Examples of the bases on which fees may be assessed include:

(1)An annual fee for each company which transports hazardous materials within your state or tribal territory;

(2)a fee for each truck or vehicle used to transport hazardous materials within your State or tribal territory;

(3)a fee for certain commodities or quantities of hazardous materials transported in your State or tribal territory; or

(4)a fee for each hazardous materials shipment transiting your state or tribal territory. c. Is company size considered when assessing the fee? For instance, do companies meeting the Small Business Administration's

(SBA)definition of a small business pay the same or lesser fee amount than companies that do not meet the SBA definition? d. For what purpose(s) is the revenue from the fee used? For example, is the revenue used to support hazardous materials transportation enforcement programs? Is the fee used to support planning, developing, and maintaining an emergency response capability? e. What is the total annual amount of the revenue collected for the last fiscal year or 12-month accounting period? We do not anticipate that responding to these questions will significantly add to the total time required to complete the HMEP grant application. First, it is our understanding that many States and Indian tribes do not collect fees in connection with the transportation of hazardous materials. For those entities, there will be no additional time required to complete the application. For States and Indian tribes that do collect such fees, we estimate that responding to the question will add approximately two hours to the total time required to complete the HMEP application. Last year, 12 States and Indian tribes reported through their grant applications that they collect fees related to the transportation of hazardous materials. Therefore, for purposes of this information collection approval request, we estimate that 12 States and Indian tribes collect fees for which the additional information will be required. HMEP Performance Reports HMEP grant recipients are required to monitor the performance of the activities supported by the grant funds to ensure compliance with Federal requirements and achievement of performance goals. Recipients must submit performance reports covering the activities funded by the HMEP grants. The performance reports are to include a comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals and objectives established for the performance period and the reasons for not achieving those goals and objectives, if applicable. For planning grants, activities eligible for funding include:

(1)Development, implementation, and improvement of emergency plans and exercises that test the plan;

(2)Assessments to determine hazardous materials flow patterns;

(3)Assessments of emergency response capabilities;

(4)Emergency response drills and exercises associated with emergency preparedness plans; and

(5)Technical staff to support the planning effort. For training grants, eligible activities include:

(1)Assessments of the number of public sector employees who need training;

(2)Development and delivery of comprehensive training to public sector employees, including activities necessary to monitor this activity, such as examinations, critiques, and instructor evaluations;

(3)Management of the training program to achieve increased benefits, proficiency, and rapid deployment of emergency responders. Grant recipients generally provide performance reports detailing how HMEP grants were expended and the state or Indian tribe's achievements related to its planning and training efforts. These performance reports are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the HMEP grant program in improving hazardous materials transportation emergency response programs nationwide. We note in this regard that the National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB)recently completed its investigation of a July 10, 2005 railroad accident involving a head-on collision of two freight trains in Anding, Mississippi. As a result of its investigation, the NTSB issued several recommendations concerning emergency response communication and coordination. The NTSB specifically recommended that PHMSA require and verify that states and their communities receiving funds through the HMEP grant program conduct training exercises and drills with the joint participation of railroads and other transporters of hazardous materials as a means to evaluate state, regional, and local emergency response plans. We are considering how to address the NTSB recommendation; in the meantime, we strongly encourage HMEP grant recipients to conduct such exercises and drills. To increase the transparency of the programs funded by HMEP grants and to enable us to more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the HMEP program in meeting emergency response planning and training needs, beginning in 2008, we are proposing to ask HMEP grant recipients to report the following information in their performance reports: Planning Grants 1. Did you complete or update assessments of commodity flow patterns in your jurisdiction? If so, how many and what were the results of those assessments? What was the amount of planning dollars devoted to this effort? What percentage of total planning dollars does this represent? 2. Did you complete or update assessments of the emergency response capabilities in your jurisdiction? What factors did you consider to complete such assessments? How many assessments were completed and what were the results of those assessments? What was the amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP planning grant funds does this represent? 3. Did you develop or improve emergency plans for your jurisdiction? If so, how many plans were either developed or updated? Briefly describe the outcome of this effort. What was the amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP planning grant funds does this represent? 4. Did you conduct emergency response drills or exercises in support of your emergency plan? How many exercises or drills did you conduct? Briefly describe the drill or exercise (tabletop, computer simulation, real-world simulation, or other drill or exercise), the number and types of participants, including shipper or carrier participants, and lessons learned. What was the amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP planning grant funds does this represent? 5. Did you use HMEP planning grant funds to provide technical staff in support of your emergency response planning program? If so, what was the amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP planning grant funds does this represent? 6. How many Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) are located in your jurisdiction? How many LEPCs were assisted using HMEP funds? What was the amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to such assistance? What percentage of total HMEP planning grant funds does this represent? Training Grants 1. Did you complete an assessment of the training needs of the emergency response personnel in your jurisdiction? What factors did you consider to complete the assessment? What was the result of that assessment? What was the amount of HMEP training grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP training grants funds does this represent? 2. Provide details concerning the number of individuals trained in whole or in part using HMEP training grant funds. You should include separate indications for the numbers of fire, police, emergency medical services

(EMS)or other personnel who were trained and the type of training provided based on the categories listed in standards published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at 29 CFR 1910.120 pertaining to emergency response training. (Note that “other” personnel include public works employees, accident clean-up crews, and liaison and support officers. Note also that if HMEP training grant funds were used in any way to support the training, such as for books or equipment, you should show that the training was partially funded by HMEP training grant funds.) What was the amount of training dollars devoted to this effort? What percentage of total training dollars does this represent? 3. Did you incur expenses associated with training and activities necessary to monitor such training, including, for example, examinations, critiques, and instructor evaluations? What was the amount of HMEP training grant funds devoted to this activity? What percentage of total HMEP training grant funds does this represent? 4. Did you provide incident command systems training? If so, provide separate indications for the numbers of fire, policy, EMS, or other personnel who were trained. What was the amount of HMEP training grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP training grant funds does this represent? 5. Did you develop new training using HMEP training grant funds in whole or in part, such as training in handling specific types of incidents or specific types of materials? If so, briefly describe the new programs. Was the program qualified using the HMEP Curriculum Guidelines process? What was the amount of HMEP training grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP training grant funds does this represent? 6. Did you use HMEP training grant funds to provide staff to manage your training program to increase benefits, proficiency, and rapid deployment of emergency responders? If so, what was the amount of HMEP training grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP training grant funds does this represent? 7. Do you have a system in place for measuring the effectiveness of emergency response to hazardous materials incidents in your jurisdiction? Briefly describe the criteria you use (total response time, total time at an accident scene, communication among different agencies or jurisdictions, or other criteria). How many State and local response teams are located in your jurisdiction? What is the estimated coverage of these teams ( *e.g.* , the percent of state jurisdictions covered)? Overall Program Evaluation 1. Using a scale of 1-5 (with 5 being excellent and 1 being poor), how well has the HMEP grants program met your need for preparing hazmat emergency responders? 2. Using a scale of 1-5 (with 5 being excellent and 1 being poor), how well do you think the HMEP grants program will meet your future needs? 3. What areas of the HMEP grants program would you recommend for enhancement? We do not anticipate that responding to these questions will add significantly to the total time required to complete performance reports. HMEP grant recipients are required to submit performance reports, most of which should include some or all of the information we are requesting. We estimate that providing the specific information requested will add approximately three hours to the total time required for each grant recipient to complete its performance reports. The questions listed above are intended to ensure that performance reports focus on results and include quantitative data on the planning and training programs funded by the HMEP grants. This data will enable us to more accurately assess the planning and training activities conducted by grant recipients and, thus, to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the HMEP program in improving overall hazardous materials transportation emergency preparedness and response. The data and information requested is only available from the states and Indian tribes participating in the HMEP grants program. The total revised information collection budget for the HMEP grants program follows: *Title:* Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning Grants. *OMB Control Number:* 2137-0586. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved information collection. *Abstract:* Part 110 of 49 CFR sets forth the procedures for reimbursable grants for public sector planning and training in support of the emergency planning and training efforts of states, Indian tribes and local communities to manage hazardous materials emergencies, particularly those involving transportation. Sections in this part address information collection and recordkeeping with regard to applying for grants, monitoring expenditures, and reporting and requesting modifications. *Affected Public:* State and local governments, Indian tribes. *Recordkeeping:* *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 66. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 66. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* 4,302. *Frequency of collection:* On occasion. Issued in Washington, DC on June 29, 2007. Edward T. Mazzullo, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards. [FR Doc. E7-13007 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 35051] Progressive Rail Inc.—Acquisition of Control Exemption—Central Midland Railway Company Progressive Rail Inc. (PRI), a Class III rail carrier, 1 has filed a verified notice of exemption to acquire control of Central Midland Railway Company (CMR), also a Class III rail carrier, pursuant to a stock purchase agreement. 2 CMR currently leases and operates a rail line of Missouri Central Railway Co., and a rail line of Union Pacific Railroad Company. 3 1 PRI owns rail property interests in the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa. 2 A redacted version of the stock purchase agreement between CMR and PRI was filed with the notice of exemption. The full version of the agreement, as required by 49 CFR 1180.6(a)(7)(ii), was concurrently filed under seal along with a motion for protective order. The request for a protective order is being addressed in a separate decision. 3 Both rail lines are located in the State of Missouri. The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on or about July 19, 2007. PRI represents that:

(1)The involved railroads do not connect with each other or with other railroads in their corporate families;

(2)the transaction is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect the railroads with each other or any railroad in their corporate families; and

(3)the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. 4 Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323. *See* 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2). 4 In addition to its verified notice of exemption, PRI submitted a facsimile letter dated June 21, 2007, confirming that the qualifications at

(i)and

(ii)of 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) had been met. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under section 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio* . Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 35051, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Michael J. Barron, Jr., Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606-2832. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Decided: June 26, 2007. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams. Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-12753 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Fiscal Service Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds—Terminations: Factory Mutual Insurance Company (NAIC #21482), Affiliated FM Insurance Company (NAIC #10014) AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 17 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2006 Revision, published June 30, 2006, at 71 FR 37694. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at

(202)874-6850. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Certificates of Authority issued by the Treasury to the above-named companies under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to qualify as acceptable sureties on Federal bonds were terminated effective August 17, 2006. Federal bond-approving officials should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2006 Revision to reflect this change. With respect to any bonds currently in force with these companies, bond-approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration and need not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be accepted from these companies, and bonds that are continuous in nature should not be renewed. The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at *http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570* . Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782. Dated: June 22, 2007. Rose M. Miller, Acting Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial Management Service [FR Doc. 07-3239 Filed 7-3-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 16

Traces to 16 documents

U.S. Code