Notices. Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and Other Federal Agencies

7,077 words·~32 min read·/register/2007/09/21/07-4666

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 Proposed Highways in Utah AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA and Other Federal Agencies. SUMMARY: This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The actions relate to various proposed highway projects in the State of Utah.

Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the projects. DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on any of the listed highway projects will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before March 19, 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: For FHWA: Mr. Edward T. Woolford, Environmental Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration, 2520 West 4700 South, Suite 9A, Salt Lake City, Utah 84118, Telephone

(801)963-0182. For UDOT: Ms. Rebecka Stromness, Environmental Program Manager, Utah Department of Transportation, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119, Telephone

(801)965-4327. The FHWA Utah Division's normal business hours are 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. MST. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the FHWA and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the highway projects in the State of Utah that are listed below. The actions by the Federal agencies on a project, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documented environmental impact statement

(EIS)issued in connection with the project, and in other project records. The final environmental impacts statement

(FEIS)and record of decision

(ROD)and other project records for the listed projects are available by contacting the FHWA or the Utah Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above. For some of the projects, the FEIS and ROD also can be viewed and downloaded electronically at: *http://www.udot.utah.gov* , or viewed at public libraries in the relevant project area(s). This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions on the listed projects as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken. The laws under which Federal agency decisions were made on the projects listed in this notice include, but are not limited to: National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)[42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109]; Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]; Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251-1377 (Section 404, Section 401, Section 319); Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 16 U.S.C. 4601-4604; TEA-21 Wetlands Mitigation, 23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(m), 133(b)(11); Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q); Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 and Section 1536]; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 470(f) *et seq.* ]; 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]; 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]; 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); Executive Order (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. The projects subject to this notice are: 1. *Iron County Transportation Corridor, SR-56 to Exit 51 on I-15.* Project location: Iron County, SR-56 & I-15. Project reference number: STP-1756(1)0. Project type: The selected alternative consists of two

(2)thirteen

(13)foot lanes and two

(2)eight

(8)foot shoulders. The selected alternative begins at the North Kanarraville/Hamilton Fort (Exit 51) interchange and progresses westerly to approximately 5600 West. At 5600 West, the alignment begins a gradual curve northward to 5700 West. The alignment follows 5700 West due north to intersect with SR-56, with a bend to the northwest so that the intersection with SR-56 is at a 90-degree angle. The total length of the selected alternative is 5.6 miles. Final actions taken under: National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)[42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109]; Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]. FHWA NEPA documents: FEIS dated August 25, 2005 & ROD dated April 19, 2006. 2. *SR-26 (Riverdale Road), 1900 West to Washington Boulevard.* Project location: SR-26 (Riverdale Road), Cities of Roy, Riverdale, South Ogden and Ogden in Weber County, Utah. Project reference number: SP-0026(4)0. Project type: The selected alternative will provide for new travel lanes between I-15 and Wall Avenue (40th Street) in each direction, Wall Avenue to Chimes westbound direction only, and from 36th Street to Washington Blvd. in both directions; new dedicated turn lanes; modifications to existing traffic signals; reconstruction of I-84 bridge and ramps; and reconstruction of the I-15 Riverdale Road bridge and ramps. Final actions taken under, but not limited to: National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)[42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109]; Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]. FHWA NEPA documents: FEIS dated January 3, 2007 and ROD dated April 26, 2007. 3. * Syracuse Road (1700 South), 1000 West to 2000 West.* Project location: West Syracuse, Davis County, Utah. Project reference number: STP-0108(8)4. Project type: The selected alternative consists of widening Syracuse Road from 1000 West to 2000 West. The selected alternative consists of two

(2)travel lanes in each direction with a center turn lane, shoulders which include a bike lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk. Final actions taken under: National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)[42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109]; Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]. FHWA NEPA documents: FEIS dated August 15, 2006 and ROD dated February 22, 2007. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1). Issued on: September 14, 2007. Walter C. Waidelich, Jr., Division Administrator, Salt Lake City, Utah. [FR Doc. E7-18620 Filed 9-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-RY-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-28230] Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved Information Collection: Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request

(ICR)described below to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval and invites public comment. The FMCSA requests approval to revise and renew an ICR entitled, “Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program” (MCSAP). The information required consists of grant application preparation, quarterly reports and electronic data documenting the results of driver/vehicle inspections performed by the States. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before November 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by any of the following methods. Please identify your comments by the FMCSA Docket Number FMCSA-2007-28230. • *Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow instructions for submitting comments to the Docket. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* 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:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Docket:* For access to the Docket Management System

(DMS)to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The DMS is available electronically 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want notification of receipt of your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope, or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments online. *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John E. Kostelnik, Office of Safety Programs, State Programs Division, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-366-5721; e-mail: *Jack.kostelnik@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Background:* Sections 401 through 404 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982

(STAA)(Pub. L. 97-424) established a program of financial assistance to the States to implement programs to enforce:

(a)Federal rules, regulations, standards, and orders applicable to commercial motor vehicle safety; and

(b)compatible State rules, regulations, standards and orders. This grant-in-aid program is known as the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). Section 402(c) of the STAA requires that the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary), on the basis of reports submitted by the States and the Secretary's own inspections, make a continuing evaluation of the manner in which each State is carrying out its approved safety enforcement plan. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) further revised the MCSAP to broaden its purpose beyond enforcement activities and programs by requiring participating States to assume greater responsibility for improving motor carrier safety. TEA-21 required States to develop performance-based plans reflecting national priorities and performance goals, revised the MCSAP funding distribution formula, and created a new incentive funding program. As a result, States are given greater flexibility in designing programs to address national and State goals of reducing the number and severity of commercial motor vehicle

(CMV)accidents. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) amended 49 U.S.C. 31102(b)(1) to modify and augment the conditions a State must meet to qualify for basic program funds under the MCSAP. The statute requires a State to document in the State Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan

(CVSP)its commitment to meet the following additional conditions: • Deploy technology to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of CMV safety programs; • Include, in both the training manual for the licensing examination to drive a non-CMV and the training manual for the licensing examination to drive a CMV, information on best practices for driving safely in the vicinity of noncommercial and commercial motor vehicles; • Conduct comprehensive and highly visible traffic enforcement and CMV safety inspection programs in high-risk locations and corridors; and • Except in the case of an imminent or obvious safety hazard, ensure that an inspection of a vehicle transporting passengers for a motor carrier of passengers is conducted at a station, terminal, border crossing, maintenance facility, destination, or other location where a motor carrier may make a planned stop. Additionally, SAFETEA-LU provided that States may use a portion of MCSAP basic grant funds to conduct documented enforcement of State traffic laws—both laws and regulations designed to promote the safe operation of CMVs and laws and regulations relating to non-CMVs, when necessary to promote the safe operation of CMVs. Section 4106 amended 49 U.S.C. 31102(c) to provide that a State may use a portion of MCSAP grant funds to conduct documented enforcement of State traffic laws—both laws and regulations designed to promote the safe operation of CMVs and laws and regulations relating to non-CMVs, when necessary to promote the safe operation of CMVs. In order for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to evaluate program effectiveness, it is necessary for the State to provide and maintain information concerning past, present and future program activity. The Final Rule that revised Part 350 (MCSAP) to comply with the congressionally-mandated provisions of TEA-21 was published in the **Federal Register** (65 FR 15092) on March 21, 2000. Part 350 is currently being revised to implement the changes to the MCSAP made by SAFETEA-LU. The State's grant application, known as the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan

(CVSP)must contain the information required by 49 CFR 350.201, 350.211 and 350.213. This information is necessary to enable the FMCSA to determine whether a State meets the statutory and administrative criteria to be eligible for a grant. It is necessary that a State's work activities and accomplishments be reported so that the FMCSA can monitor and evaluate a State's progress under its approved plan and make the determinations and decisions required of 49 CFR 350.205 and 350.207. The FMCSA is required to determine whether each State's efforts meet the intended objectives of its plan. In the event of nonconformity with any approved plan and failure on the part of a State to remedy deficiencies, the FMCSA is required to take action to cease Federal participation in that State's plan. This information collection supports the DOT Strategic Goal of Safety (i.e., reducing commercial truck-related fatalities by providing financial and technical support to State CMV enforcement efforts). The FMCSA uses the information in the CVSP to determine whether a State has the necessary resources and authority to undertake the program intended by Congress. After a grant has been awarded to a State, a continuing and final evaluation of the State's activities is performed to determine whether continued funding is appropriate and if revisions in the State's CVSP should be made. A quarterly report in narrative form is submitted by the States to provide the minimum necessary information to assist in appropriate monitoring of a State's performance, compared to its CVSP, and to permit the FMCSA to determine whether the effort of a State is cost efficient and whether Federal assistance should be continued. In addition, inspection data and reports are submitted electronically by the inspecting officer from the field to the FMCSA at the time of completion of the inspection. SAFETEA-LU provides that States may now conduct traffic enforcement activities against non-CMVs to promote the safe operation of CMVs. The States have been routinely conducting traffic enforcement activities on CMVs and have been reimbursed, provided an appropriate inspection was conducted at the time. Previously, non-CMV traffic enforcement was not an eligible MCSAP activity for reimbursement so the States have not captured activity levels for this type of enforcement. It is anticipated that the number of non-CMV enforcement activities conducted by the States will be minimal since SAFETEA-LU limits the amount of MCSAP grant funding that can be used for non-CMV traffic enforcement activities to no more than five percent of the basic amount the State receives annually. The quarterly report is created by the State and submitted to the FMCSA using inspection data and other information. The collection of uniform data permits analysis and comparison of State programs and facilitates program administration and reporting; e.g., comparison of the data from a single State to the national average, equipment violation and out-of-service trends, etc. The FMCSA routinely uses quarterly report information to measure individual and collective State program accomplishment and to assist with future program development. *Description of MCSAP forms:* a. *Form MCSAP-1, Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program:* The MCSAP-1 form is submitted with the CVSP grant application. It specifies the name of the applicant agency, the amount applied for, and contains the signatures of the responsible State authorities. b. *Form MCSAP-2, Grant Agreement:* The MCSAP-2 form is the grant agreement that specifies the total amount of the State Program, the State and Federal participating shares, the period of the grant, and the signatures of the responsible State official and the FMCSA Division Administrator. The reverse side of the MCSAP-2 contains the “General Provisions For the Agreement.” c. *Form MCSAP-2A, Grant Amendment for Fiscal Year:* The MCSAP-2A form is used to modify the terms of the grant. It is used to increase or decrease the amount of the grant, or to extend the period of the grant. It contains the signatures of the responsible State official and the FMCSA Division Administrator. *In addition, the following documents are provided as part of the CVSP package:* a. *State Training Plan (optional format):* This document is a request for commercial vehicle training courses. It is used by the FMCSA's National Training Center to more effectively schedule training courses to meet the needs of State enforcement agencies. b. *State Certification:* The CVSP must contain a State Certification signed by the Governor, the State Attorney General, or other specially designated State official. The Certification contains requirements of conditions that must be met by the State to receive MCSAP grant funds. Virtually all (99%) of the information required by the MCSAP grant program is submitted electronically. This includes over three million inspection reports, which are uploaded electronically from laptop computers at inspection sites in the field to the FMCSA annually. The near-universal use of laptops for submitting these inspection reports has resulted in a dramatic cut of the time burden. The annual CVSPs require signed certifications by State personnel and are not, therefore, electronically transmitted. The FMCSA is the only Federal agency given authority to enforce safety regulations applicable to commercial trucks and buses in interstate commerce. The type of information to be gathered from the States through this information collection is unique to the MCSAP. No duplication was identified through the rulemaking process to implement relevant sections of SAFETEA-LU. The legislative requirement is that grants be extended to the States predicated on annual submission of CVSPs. The FMCSA has determined that although monthly or bimonthly reports are not needed, a semiannual report would not be sufficiently frequent to allow for timely evaluation and changes in State program direction. Therefore, quarterly reports were determined to be the most appropriate, considering burden and Federal need. If the reports were submitted less frequently, the FMCSA would be unable to exercise appropriate oversight and administration of the program as envisioned by the Congress. *Title:* Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program. *OMB Control Number:* 2126-0010. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently-approved information collection. *Respondents:* State MCSAP lead agencies and local agencies. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 52 [50 States + Puerto Rico + District of Columbia = 52]. *Estimated Time per Response:* 80 hours per grant application preparation; 8 hours per quarterly report preparation; and 1 minute per inspection and data upload. *Expiration Date:* November 30, 2007. *Frequency of Response:* 1 grant application annually; 4 quarterly reports annually; and approximately 3 million total inspection and data uploads annually. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 12,280 hours. The methods used to calculate the hours necessary to prepare grant applications, upload data, and prepare quarterly reports are based on interviews with the State and Federal personnel charged with those responsibilities. The information required to prepare the applications for grants and the subsequent reports is based on general information ordinarily maintained by the States in the general course of business, and only simple computations are required to determine burden hours. The grant applications and reports are submitted by the 50 States, four Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Each entity submits one grant request and four quarterly reports per year. In addition, about three million total inspection reports are uploaded each year. This figure reflects only 20 percent of the total estimated annual hours to perform the activities because MCSAP reimburses 80 percent of the eligible costs incurred in the administration of an approved plan as set forth in 49 CFR 350.303, 350.309 and 350.311. Labor hours are estimated and an average hourly rate for professional personnel is applied. The four territories of American Samoa, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are funded at 100 percent; therefore they are not included in the computation of the annual burden. *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 FMCSA's performance;

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;

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

(4)ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection. Issued on: September 14, 2007. Terry Shelton, Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology. [FR Doc. E7-18637 Filed 9-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-29254] Minimum Age for Operating a Commercial Motor Vehicle

(CMV)in Interstate Commerce: Jcrane, Inc. (Jcrane), Application for Exemption AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments. SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces that it has received from Jcrane, Inc. (Jcrane) an application for an exemption from provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that require an individual who operates a commercial motor vehicle

(CMV)of 10,001 or more pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

(GVWR)in interstate commerce to be a minimum of 21 years of age. The exemption would allow Jcrane's employees who are not yet 21 years of age to legally operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Jcrane states that the granting of the exemption would allow the company to better train crane operators and therefore increase overall safety. The FMCSA requests public comment on Jcrane's application for exemption. DATES: Comments must be received on or October 22, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FMCSA-2007-29254 using any of the following methods: If filing comments by September 27, 2007, please use: • *Web site:* *http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Department of Transportation Docket Management System electronic docket site. No electronic submissions will be accepted between September 28, 2007, and October 1, 2007. If filing comments on or after October 1, 2007, use: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods: • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* until September 27, 2007, or the street address listed above. The DOT docket may be offline at times between September 28 through September 30 to migrate to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). On October 1, 2007, the internet access to the docket will be at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. *Privacy Act:* Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.dms.dot.gov* or *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. 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). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations: Telephone: 202-366-4009. E-mail: *MCPSD@fmcsa.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. Under its regulations, 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 the conducting of any safety analyses. 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)) with the reason for denying or, in the alternative, the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is 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 Jcrane is a crane rental service located in southwest Ohio. It currently has nine full-time employees with commercial driver's licenses (CDLs), and operates three tractor-trailers and five mobile cranes. The tractor-trailers are support vehicles for the cranes and are driven by apprentices or individuals who are in the process of learning to operate cranes. These apprentice drivers are normally in the 18-23 year age range. According to Jcrane, this is the ideal age range to begin operator training. As a crane-support truck driver, these individuals haul counterbalance weights for the crane on a flatbed trailer. The drivers will follow a crane from the home base to a different jobsite every day, set the crane up, wait for the crane to make the lift, tear the crane down, and follow it back to the shop. These drivers never travel alone, are home every night, and do not haul goods owned by other people. Jcrane's operating area is generally within a 200-mile radius of their home base in Covington, Ohio. Due to their location, they never service the northeast corner of Ohio, but do a lot of work in eastern Indiana. Under Ohio law, their 18-20 year old apprentices may legally drive a truck from Covington, Ohio to Cleveland, Ohio—which is 5 hours northeast of their home terminal; however, they may not drive to Richmond, Indiana, which is approximately 1-hour west, due to FMCSA's prohibition against drivers under the age of 21 operating in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.11(b)(1). Jcrane requests an exemption for their employees under the age of 21 to be able to legally operate their equipment and tractor-trailers across state borders, however not outside of a 200-mile radius from their home terminal in Covington, Ohio. Jcrane states that, because they are located more than 200 miles from the eastern Ohio border, this exemption would not change the maximum distance that these drivers can travel and therefore would have no effect on safety. This exemption would, however, according to Jcrane, allow it to better train crane operators and therefore increase overall safety. Jcrane requests that the exemption from § 391.11(b)(1) be in effect for a period of two years from the date of issue. A copy of Jcrane Inc.'s exemption application is in the docket identified for this notice. Request for Comments In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA requests public comment on Jcrane Inc.'s application an exemption from 49 CFR 391.11(b)(1). The Agency will consider all comments received by close of business on October 22, 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. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E7-18628 Filed 9-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Intent To Prepare a Revised Environmental Impact Statement for the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project in Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara, CA AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration

(FTA)and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

(VTA)will prepare a Revised Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)for the proposed Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project (SVRT Project), a 16.1-mile extension of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

(BART)system from the planned BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont through Milpitas and San Jose to Santa Clara, California. The Revised EIS will be prepared in accordance with regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as the provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. The purpose of this Notice of Intent

(NOI)is to inform interested parties of the plan to prepare a Revised EIS, to invite agency and public participation in the EIS process, and to announce public scoping meetings. DATES: Written comments on the scope of the Revised EIS, including the Project's purpose and need statement, Project alternatives, environmental and community impacts to be evaluated, and evaluation methodologies should be sent to Tom Fitzwater, Environmental Resources Planning Manager, by October 29, 2007. Public scoping meetings will be held on October 9, 11, and 18, 2007 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the locations indicated under ADDRESSES below. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by postal mail, e-mail, or fax, to: Tom Fitzwater, Environmental Resources Planning Manager, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Environmental Programs and Resources Management, 3331 North First Street, Building B-2, San Jose, CA 95134-1927. E-mail: *SVRT.NEPA.EIS.Comments@vta.org.* Fax:

(408)321-5787. Project Web site: *http://www.vtabart-vta.org.* Comments may also be submitted at the public scoping meetings. The dates and locations of the public scoping meetings are: October 9, 2007, Milpitas City Hall, Committee Meeting Room, 455 East Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, CA 95035. October 11, 2007, San Jose City Hall, Wing 118-120, 200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, CA 95113. October 18, 2007, City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Senior Center, 1303 Fremont Street, Room 232, Santa Clara, CA 95050. The scoping meeting facilities will be accessible to persons with disabilities. If special translation or signing services or other special accommodations are needed, please contact VTA Customer Service five days prior to the meeting at

(408)321-2300, or e-mail *community.outreach@vta.org.* To be placed on the Project mailing list, contact Tom Fitzwater, VTA Environmental Planning Resources Manager, as indicated above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerome Wiggins, Transportation Program Specialist, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco Regional Office, 201 Mission Street, Room 2210, San Francisco, CA 94105-1926,

(415)744-3115. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Purpose of the Revised EIS.* The original Notice of Intent

(NOI)to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report

(EIR)for the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project was issued on February 6, 2002. The original Draft EIS/EIR was released to the public on March 16, 2004. However, no action was taken to finalize the original Draft EIS. Due to the passage of time, changes in the Project and environmental setting, availability of new information, and funding considerations, a Revised EIS will be prepared. The Revised EIS will explore the environmental and community impacts of the Project and Project alternatives and will discuss actions to reduce or eliminate such impacts. Environmental issues to be examined include: Changes to the physical environment (air quality and global warming, biological resources, noise and vibration, water quality, floodplains, geology and seismicity, visual and aesthetics, hazardous materials, energy, utilities, and electromagnetic fields); changes to the social environment (land use, business displacements, community facilities, and neighborhood disruptions); changes to traffic and pedestrian circulation; changes to transit service and patronage; associated changes to traffic congestion; and changes to parklands and cultural resources. Impacts will be identified for both the construction phase and the long-term operation of the Project or Project alternatives. *Proposed Project Description:* The SVRT Project Alternative would begin at the planned BART Warm Springs Station (to be implemented by 2013) in Fremont and proceed on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to south of Mabury Road in San Jose. The alignment would then descend into a subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate at grade in Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. The total length of the alignment would be 16.1 miles. Six stations are proposed with an additional future station in Milpitas. Passenger service would start in 2016, assuming funding is available. A Berryessa Extension Project

(BEP)Alternative will also be included in the EIS to address the New Starts Candidate Project for federal funding purposes. The BEP Alternative would begin at the planned BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceed on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to south of Mabury Road in San Jose. The total length of the alignment would be 9.3 miles. One station is proposed in Milpitas and one in San Jose. Passenger service for the BE Project would start in 2016, assuming funding is available. *Draft Project Purpose and Need:* The purpose of the Project is to improve transit services and increase intermodal connectivity among transit routes and stations serving origins and destinations in Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County, and portions of the Central Valley. Meeting this overall Project purpose would address a variety of related needs in the SVRTC, including the following goals: • Improve public transit service in this severely congested corridor by providing increased transit capacity and faster, convenient access throughout the San Francisco Bay Area Region, including southern Alameda County, central Contra Costa County, Tri-Valley, San Joaquin Valley, and Silicon Valley; • Enhance regional connectivity through expanded, interconnected rapid transit services between BART in Alameda County and light rail and commuter rail in Silicon Valley; • Accommodate future travel demand in the corridor by expanding modal options; • Alleviate severe and increasing traffic congestion on the I-880 and I-680 freeways between Alameda County and Silicon Valley; • Improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions; • Improve mobility options to employment, education, medical, retail, and entertainment centers for corridor residents, (in particular, low income, youth, elderly, disabled, and ethnic minority populations); • Maximize transit usage and ridership; and • Support local economic and land use plans and goals. The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (study area) is one of the most congested corridors in Northern California. Over the past several years, it has experienced very high and increasing levels of traffic congestion due to the growth of jobs throughout the Silicon Valley area, including downtown San Jose, and the cities of Fremont, Milpitas, and Santa Clara. Congestion is also spreading from the peak hours to off peak hours. Population and employment growth within the entire study area from 2000 to 2030, as forecast by the Association of Bay Area Governments, is expected to increase dramatically. Current levels of service

(LOS)on highways in the corridor, I-680 and I-880, are “F” in the peak hour, with future level of service anticipated to continue to be LOS F. LOS F describes failure conditions with unacceptable delays to most vehicles, long queues, and stop-and-go flow. Planned improvements to highway and transit service in the study area are not expected to keep up with the demand for quality transit, given the increased highway congestion expected. *Proposed Project Alternatives:* The 2004 Draft EIS evaluated three alternatives: the Future No-Build, a Transportation Systems Management alternative with enhanced bus service, and the proposed BART extension. On the basis of the Draft EIS, FTA and VTA have decided that the TSM alternative is not a reasonable alternative because it does not meet the Project's purpose and need. The buses, which operate on highways, are subject to the same congestion as automobiles. Therefore, the Revised EIS will evaluate the following alternatives, plus any additional alternatives that emerge from the scooping process. • Future No-Build Alternative. This alternative consists of the existing transit and roadway networks and planned and programmed improvements in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor that are identified in the Bay Area's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Mobility for the Next Generation—Transportation 2030 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (Transportation 2030 Plan), adopted by MTC in February 2005, and the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030), adopted by VTA in February 2005. • SVRT Project Alternative—BART Extension to Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara. This alternative consists of a 16.1-mile extension of the BART system. The Project would begin at the planned BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont (to be implemented by 2013) and proceed on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the City of Milpitas to south of Mabury Road in the City of San Jose. The extension would then descend into a subway tunnel, continue through downtown San Jose, and terminate at grade in the City of Santa Clara near the Caltrain Station. Six stations are proposed: Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Diridon/Arena, and Santa Clara. An additional future station in Milpitas is also proposed. • Berryessa Extension Project Alternative. This alternative would begin at the planned BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceed on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to south of Mabury Road in San Jose. The total length of the alignment would be 9.3 miles. Two stations are proposed: Milpitas and Berryessa. *Analytical Methodologies:* FTA and VTA will collaborate with agencies and the public, as appropriate, on the methodologies to be used and the level of detail required in the analysis of proposed alternatives. Information on the methodologies for analysis will be sent to the appropriate agencies directly. Information will also be presented at the scoping meetings for public distribution. Both agencies and the public may comment, as described under DATES above. *The EIS Process and the Role of Agencies and the Public:* The purpose of the EIS process is to explore in a public setting, potentially significant effects of implementing the proposed Project and Project alternatives on the physical, human, and natural environment. The major areas of investigation include, but are not limited to, the effect on historic resources in downtown San Jose, the noise impacts of the BART trains outside of the planned tunnel, and the vibration impacts of the BART trains both inside and outside of tunnel. Regulations implementing NEPA, as well as provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), call for agency and public involvement in the EIS process. Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU requires that FTA and VTA extend an invitation to other Federal and non-Federal agencies and Indian tribes that may have an interest in the proposed Project to become a participating agency, and establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation in and comment on the environmental review. A cooperating agency is defined as “any Federal agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal. Accordingly, an invitation to become a cooperating or participating agency, as appropriate, will be extended to agencies and Indian tribes known to 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 Planning Resource Manager identified above under ADDRESSES above. *Agency and Public Involvement:* A comprehensive agency and public involvement program has been developed. The Policy Advisory Board consisting of county, city, BART, and VTA officials; City Partnership Teams consisting of VTA and city staff representatives; and the External Technical Advisory Committee consisting of staff representatives from state, regional, county, city, and transit agencies; were established in 2002 and continue to meet regularly to provide guidance, discuss the proposed Project, and for coordination and technical input. Community Working Groups consisting of the leaders of neighborhood and business associations, community organizations, advocacy groups, major property owners, and planning commissioners were also established in 2002 for cities and specific geographical areas to communicate Project information to key members of the community and facilitate community input and participation. These mechanisms will be developed into a formal coordination plan that covers both agency and public involvement. The coordination plan will be posted on the Project Web site at *http://www.vtabart-vta.org* . *FTA Procedures:* 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 practical. 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). *Related Documents:* The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor, Major Investment Study Final Report (November 2001), the 2004 Draft EIS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (November 2004), and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (June 2007) are available for public review at the following public libraries: • Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Main Library, 150 East San Fernando Street, San Jose, CA 95112. • Fremont Main Library, 2400 Stevenson Boulevard, Fremont, CA 94538. • Milpitas Library, 40 N. Milpitas Boulevard, Milpitas, CA 95035. • Central Park Library, 2635 Homestead Road, Santa Clara, CA 95051. The reports are also available by contacting Tom Fitzwater at the address and phone number given above. Issued on: September 14, 2007. Leslie Rogers, Regional Administrator. [FR Doc. 07-4666 Filed 9-20-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

U.S. Code