Notices. Notice of request for comments

9,838 words·~45 min read·/register/2007/10/02/07-4796

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

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration [FTA Docket No. FTA-2007-29355] Notice of Request for a New Collection AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of request for comments. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration

(FTA)to request the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)to approve a new collection: 49 U.S.C. Section 5317, New Freedom Program. DATES: Comments must be submitted before December 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments identified by the docket number by only one of the following methods: 1. *Web site: www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the U.S. Government electronic docket site. ( **Note:** The U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT's) electronic docket is no longer accepting electronic comments.) All electronic submissions must be made to the U.S. Government electronic docket site at *www.regulations.gov* . Commenters should follow the directions below for mailed and hand-delivered comments. 2. *Fax:* 202-493-2251. 3. *Mail:* U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. 4. *Hand Delivery:* U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Instructions:* You must include the agency name and docket number for this notice at the beginning of your comments. Submit two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail. For confirmation that FTA has received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Note that all comments received, including any personal information, will be posted and will be available to Internet users, without change, to www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477), or you may visit www.regulations.gov. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and comments received, go to www.regulations.gov at any time. Background documents and comments received may also be viewed at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Schneider, FTA Office of Program Management 202-493-0175, fax: 202-366-3475, or e-mail: *david.schneider@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including:

(1)The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA;

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and

(4)ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. *Title:* 49 U.S.C. 5317, New Freedom Program. *(OMB Number: 2132-NEW)* *Background:* 49 U.S.C. 5317, the New Freedom Program, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to states and designated recipients in urbanized areas of 200,000 persons or greater to reduce barriers to transportation services and expand the transportation mobility options available to people with disabilities beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA)of 1990. Grant recipients are required to make information available to the public and to publish a program of projects which identifies the subrecipients and projects for which the State or designated recipient is applying for financial assistance. FTA uses the information to determine eligibility for funding and to monitor the grantees' progress in implementing and completing project activities. FTA collects performance information from designated recipients in rural areas, small urbanized areas and other direct recipients for small urbanized areas annually and collects performance information from designated recipients in large urbanized areas on a quarterly basis. The information submitted ensures FTA's compliance with applicable federal laws and OMB Circular A-102. *Respondents:* State & local government, private non-profit organizations and public transportation authorities. *Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents:* 251 hours for each of the 206 respondents. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 122,374 hours. *Frequency:* Annual and quarterly. Issued: September 26, 2007. Ann Linnertz, Associate Administrator for Administration. [FR Doc. E7-19420 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the Restoration of Rail Service in the Northern Branch Corridor, Bergen and Hudson Counties, NJ AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA). ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration

(FTA)and the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) intend to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to study the restoration of rail passenger service on the Northern Branch rail corridor between North Bergen, Hudson County, and Tenafly, Bergen County. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA: 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ) of 1969 and the regulations implementing NEPA set forth in 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and 23 CFR Part 771, as well as provisions of the recently enacted Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The purpose of this Notice is to alert interested parties regarding the plan to prepare the EIS, to provide information on the nature of the proposed transit project, to invite participation in the EIS process, including comments on the scope of the EIS proposed in this notice, and to announce that public scoping meetings will be conducted. This notice supersedes the FTA notice of June 18, 2001 entitled “Major Investment Study/Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Branch Corridor, Bergen County, New Jersey.” DATES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS should be sent to Linda A. Mosch, P.E., NJ TRANSIT Project Manager, by November 7, 2007. Public scoping meetings will be held on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 3 to 5 p.m. and at 7 to 9 p.m. at locations indicated under ADDRESSES below. An interagency scoping meeting will be scheduled after agencies with an interest in the proposed project have been identified. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS should be sent to Linda A. Mosch, P.E, Project Director—Northern Branch EIS, NJ TRANSIT, One Penn Plaza East, Newark, NJ 07105-2246. Comments may also be offered at the public scoping meetings. The address for the public scoping meeting is as follows: Crowne Plaza Englewood Hotel, 401 S. Van Brunt St., Englewood, NJ 07631. This location is accessible by persons with disabilities. If special translation or signing services or other special accommodations are needed, please contact the Project Director, Linda A. Mosch, P.E., at

(973)491-8481 least 48 hours before the meeting. A scoping information packet is available on the NJ TRANSIT Web site at *http://NorthernBranchCorridor.com* or by calling the Project Director, Linda A. Mosch, P.E., at

(973)491-8481. Copies will also be available at the scoping meetings. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rebecca Reyes-Alicea, Community Planner, Federal Transit Administration, One Bowling Green, Room 429, New York, New York, 10004-1415, telephone

(212)668-2203. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Scoping In accordance with Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, FTA and NJT invite comment on the scope of the EIS, specifically on project's purpose and need, the alternatives to be evaluated that may address the purpose and need, and the impacts of the alternatives considered. To ensure that these issues are identified, the scoping meetings will begin with a formal presentation followed by the opportunity for the public to comment on the scope of the EIS. Oral and written comments may be given at the scoping meetings; a stenographer will record all comments. Those wishing to speak are required to register at the meeting location. Registration to speak will begin at 2:30 p.m. and will remain open until 4:30 p.m. for the afternoon session; registration to speak will begin at 6:30 p.m. and will remain open until 8:30 p.m. for the evening session. Written comments may be submitted at the meeting or may be mailed to the project manager at the address in ADDRESSES above. II. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project The purpose of the Northern Branch project is to address the transportation needs of the Northern Branch Corridor through the re-introduction of rail transit service. The project area is heavily populated and is centrally located in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area. The area is directly west of the Hudson River, in close proximity to Manhattan. The area's location relative to New York City has played an important role in its development and continues to be an important factor in the economy of the area. Most of the transportation problems in the project area are the result of the great changes that have taken place during the past 30 years. While Bergen County's population had not changed significantly until 1990, there have been other significant changes. The number of households has grown, resulting in smaller households and more workers per household than in the past. Even more significant has been the growth in employment from 1960 to today. The number of jobs only tells part of the story about the project area's economy. The economy is diversifying. A growing number of the jobs are now service oriented, with fewer in the manufacturing sector. This shift has contributed to the area's transportation problems because service sector businesses generate more trips than manufacturing businesses, especially during the off-peak travel periods. The growth in households and the diversification of the economy have caused an increase in travel in the project area in recent years. The increases have been during the peak travel periods, the off-peak weekday periods, and the weekend periods. Congestion on the roads is a growing problem, which is reducing overall mobility in the area and could constrain future economic growth, and may affect the area's very high standard of living. While the transportation system continues to provide a fairly high level of mobility for some residents and businesses, many parts of the system are straining to accommodate the new demands caused by a growing economy. The area's roadways provide the best evidence of the strains on the system. While more roads are congested for longer periods, there are few opportunities to expand local or regional roadway capacity. The project area has a substantial transit system. However, there is evidence that the system is not providing service for all of the markets that could be served. Further investments in transit would improve mobility in Bergen County, alleviating some traffic congestion, and supporting continued economic growth. Provision of new transportation service in the Northern Branch Corridor would address: • Commuting to New York City (trans-Hudson) from Bergen County; • Inter- and intra-corridor commuting, both to employment centers within the project corridor, and from the project corridor to employment locations in other areas of New Jersey; and, • Non-work trips including business, shopping, recreational, and education to New York City, within the corridor, and to destinations outside the corridor in New Jersey. Based on the needs identified in the project area, goals and objectives in the Northern Branch Corridor were identified in the early planning studies and are as follows. Goal 1: Meet the Needs of Travelers in the Project Area Objectives: • *Attract riders to transit.* A central goal of the project is to attract more riders to rail transit in the Northern Branch corridor. In spite of its proximity to New York, eastern Bergen County continues to have high single occupancy vehicle commutation. The goal of re-introducing rail transit is to encourage a greater transit ridership both on opening day and into the future. • *Improve travel time.* Travelers in the project area put a high value on their time, and are looking for travel options that will improve their travel time and reliability. • *Improve convenience.* Travelers are looking for new travel options that will make traveling in the region more convenient. They are looking for frequent service, adequate parking at stations, competitive travel times, and convenient connections to other transit services, such as ferries, PATH, and feeder services. • *Provide more options for travelers.* Today, travelers are severely limited in their travel options. Transit can be used for only a very small portion of the area's travel needs. Travelers want more travel options to meet their diverse travel needs. Options could include service to many destinations, including Midtown, Lower Manhattan, the Hudson River Waterfront, Newark, and recreational areas, such as the Sports Complex and the Jersey Shore, especially on weekends and at night. • *Improve services for the low-income/minority/transit dependent travelers* . Transit dependent residents in the project area need good transit options to more of the region's jobs, not only the jobs in Manhattan, but growing employment centers in New Jersey, like the Hudson River Waterfront area, Newark, the Meadowlands, and Bergen and Rockland employment centers. Goal 2: Advance Cost-Effective Transit Solutions Objectives: • *Support favorable farebox recovery* . For the vast majority of transit systems, fare revenue does not cover the cost of providing service. However, higher farebox recovery ratios allow transit agencies to maximize the amount of service that can be provided for the same dollar of public operating subsidy. One of the goals of the Northern Branch project is to introduce rail transit to the corridor in a manner that is sensitive to the need to minimize the operating subsidy required to run the service. This will help ensure that the provision of transit service in the corridor is financially sustainable. • *Advance cost-effective transit solutions.* The objective is to advance a project that, from a cost-benefit perspective, provides the greatest overall benefit at the lowest capital cost. • *Support future expansion, scalability and affordability* . The Northern Branch project should allow for future transit expansion while at the same time provide a solution that is affordable to construct. With limited capital funds, the ability to advance projects in phases helps to keep the projects affordable. Project scalability allows projects to be constructed without precluding future expansion projects. One of the criteria on which the Northern Branch project will be evaluated is the degree to which one phase of a project integrates into a more global planning effort for transportation improvement in the region. Goal 3: Encourage Economic Growth Objectives: • *Provide transportation capacity to support growth.* Population and employment growth in and around Bergen County and Hudson County is expected to continue in the future. Additional transportation capacity and new travel options will be needed to support this growth, providing access between the jobs in the counties and surrounding residential communities. Growing congestion will continue to have negative impacts on the area's economy in the future. • *Help attract new businesses* . Companies looking to locate new facilities, or expand existing facilities in Bergen County and Hudson County, will be looking for assurances that steps are being taken to provide the area with new travel alternatives. One of the major assets of this area is its proximity to New York City and its role in sustaining the strength of the State Plan's Metropolitan Planning Area. New transportation choices that improve access to New York and the rest of the region will help Bergen County and Hudson County to maintain its competitive advantage in the region. Goal 4: Improve regional access Objectives: • *Provide connections to a variety of locations within the region* . With the one exception of Manhattan, Bergen County's access to the rest of the region is almost entirely by auto, on highways that are becoming increasingly congested. With the completion of the Secaucus Transfer, the areas served by the Main, Bergen, and Pascack Valley lines now benefit from rail access to the growing Hudson River Waterfront area, to Newark, to Trenton, and to the major recreational attractions, like the Meadowlands and the New Jersey Shore. Goal 5: Reduce Roadway Congestion Objectives: • *Provide more travel options for travelers trying to avoid highway congestion.* Major regional highways in the project area are heavily congested. There are a limited number of major highways, each serving intra-county and regional travel needs. Congestion in Bergen County is a growing problem, which is likely to become more serious in the future. Transit strategies are unlikely to substantially reduce congestion, but can provide useful new travel alternatives for travelers trying to avoid congestion. Goal 6: Enhance the Transit Network Objectives: • *Eliminate gaps in the rail network.* Bergen County's transit share for trips to Manhattan is lower than any other part of northern New Jersey. This is due to several gaps in the transit network serving the area. For example, there is no rail service in eastern Bergen County. The closest rail line is the Pascack Valley Line, which is west of the Hackensack River. This inconvenient and capacity-constrained line is not an option for most residents of eastern Bergen County. Also, rail service is infrequent during off-peak periods. Rail service is best to Lower Manhattan, via PATH and ferry, less effective to the Valley, between Canal Street and 34th Street, via PATH, and most difficult to Midtown. • *Eliminate gaps in the bus network.* The bus network in eastern Bergen County also has some gaps. First, the network only serves Midtown Manhattan. Also, in the eastern most parts of the county, there is little or no bus service. In the more central parts of the study area there are many bus routes. However, these routes are generally slow because they travel on local roads and make many stops along the route to pick up passengers. III. Alternatives Proposed for Consideration It is proposed that the EIS evaluate a Future No Build Alternative and Build alternatives of two modes: diesel-multiple-unit service from North Bergen to Tenafly, with a connection to the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail at Tonnelle Avenue in North Bergen; and an extension of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail from its existing terminus at Tonnelle Avenue in North Bergen to Tenafly. Additionally, the EIS will evaluate both modal alternatives with a terminus at NJ Route 4 in Englewood. *Future No Build Alternative:* the Future No Build consists of the transportation system expected to be in place in the project design year if the proposed project were not built. It includes all other projects currently in the North Jersey Transportation Authority's 20-year metropolitan transportation plan. *Diesel-multiple-unit vehicle:* These alternatives would involve simultaneous operation of rail passenger and freight operations using the Northern Branch Corridor right-of-way. Terminal stations would be located at Tenafly, in the vicinity of Hudson Avenue; or at NJ Route 4 in Englewood. *Light rail vehicle:* These alternatives would involve time-separated operation of rail passenger and freight operations using the Northern Branch Corridor right-of-way. Rail passenger service would operate between 5:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. with freight operations between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. Terminal stations would be located at Tenafly, in the vicinity of Hudson Avenue; or at NJ Route 4 in Englewood. In order to accommodate the shift of freight service to nighttime operation, corridor improvements would be constructed between Tenafly and Northvale. The build alternatives will involve construction of new transportation infrastructure, including tracks, stations and yards. As many as 11 station locations will be evaluated. Any additional reasonable alternatives that come to light during the scoping process will also be evaluated. IV. Probable Effects The FTA and NJ TRANSIT will evaluate both project-specific and cumulative changes to the social, economic and physical environment—including land use and socioeconomic conditions, ecology, water resources, historic and archaeological resources, visual character and aesthetics, contaminated and hazardous materials, transportation, air quality, noise and vibration, and environmental justice effects. Mitigation of all adverse impacts will be considered. V. 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 practicable. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality and FTA 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), the section 404(b)(1) guidelines of EPA (40 CFR part 230), the regulation implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800), the regulation implementing section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR part 402), section 4(f) of the DOT Act (23 CFR 771.135), and Executive Orders 12898 on environmental justice, 11988 on floodplain management, and 11990 on wetlands. Issued on: September 24, 2007. Brigid Hynes-Cherin, Regional Administrator, FTA Region 2. [FR Doc. E7-19434 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Transit Improvements in the Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor, Los Angeles, CA AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration

(FTA)and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) intend to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)for the proposed Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor Project. The proposed project would provide for transit improvements within the Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor, which extends approximately 10 miles from Wilshire Boulevard on the north to El Segundo Boulevard on the south. The study area for the project includes portions of five jurisdictions: the Cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood, Hawthorne, El Segundo, as well as portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County, California. The study area is generally defined as the area extending north to Wilshire Boulevard, east to Arlington Avenue, south to El Segundo Boulevard, and west to Sepulveda and La Tijera Boulevards. A variety of land uses exist within the study area including single- and multi-family residences and commercial uses north of the Interstate 10 (I-10) freeway and south of Slauson Avenue, commercial uses along Crenshaw Boulevard and in Hawthorne, industrial and public land uses in Inglewood and El Segundo, as well as redevelopment areas in Los Angeles, Inglewood, and Hawthorne. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)and its implementing regulations. The Draft EIS will be combined with the planning Alternatives Analysis required by 49 U.S.C. 5309 for New Starts-funded projects. LACMTA will also use the EIS document to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The purpose of this notice is to alert interested parties regarding the intent to prepare the EIS, to provide information on the nature of the proposed project and possible alternatives, to invite public participation in the EIS process (including providing comments on the scope of the Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS), to announce that public scoping meetings will be conducted, and to identify participating and cooperating agency contacts. DATES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS, including the project's purpose and need, the alternatives to be considered, the impacts to be evaluated, and the methodologies to be used in the evaluations should be sent to LACMTA on or before November 5, 2007 at the address below. See ADDRESSES below for the address to which written public comments may be sent. Public scoping meetings to accept comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR will be held on the following dates: • Monday, October 15, 2007, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., at Darby Park, 3400 W. Arbor Vitae Street, Inglewood, CA 90305. • Wednesday, October 17, 2007, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., at Nate Holden Performing Arts Center, 4718 W. Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90016. • Saturday, October 20, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., at Audubon Middle School, 4120 11th Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90008. The project's purpose and need, and the initial set of alternatives proposed for study will be presented at these meetings. The buildings used for the scoping meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. Any individual who requires special assistance, such as a sign language interpreter, to participate in a scoping meeting should contact Ms. Susan Gilmore, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) at 213-922-7287, or *gilmores@metro.net. * Scoping materials will be available at the meetings and are available on the LACMTA Web site ( *www.metro.net/crenshaw* ). Hard copies of the scoping materials may also be obtained from Ms. Susan Gilmore, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) at 213-922-7287, or *gilmores@metro.net* . An interagency scoping meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at LACMTA, One Gateway Plaza (Gateway Conference Room, 3rd Floor), Los Angeles, CA 90012. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Mr. Alan Patashnick, Project Manager and Director of South Bay Area Team, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop: 99-22-3, Los Angeles, California 90012, e-mail address *patashnickalan@metro.net* . The locations of the public scoping meetings are given above under DATES . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ray Tellis, Team Leader, Los Angeles Metropolitan Office, Federal Transit Administration, 888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1850, Los Angeles, CA 90017, phone

(213)202-3950, e-mail *ray.tellis@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scoping The FTA and LACMTA invite all interested individuals and organizations, public agencies, and Native American Tribes to comment on the scope of the EIS, including the project's purpose and need, the alternatives to be studied, the impacts to be evaluated, and the evaluation methods to be used. Comments should focus on: Alternatives that may be less costly or have less environmental or community impacts while achieving similar transportation objectives, and the identification of any significant social, economic, or environmental issues relating to the alternatives. Purpose and Need for the Project The project purpose is to improve public transit service and mobility in the Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor between Wilshire and El Segundo Boulevards. The overall goal of the proposed project is to improve mobility in the corridor by connecting with existing lines such as the Metro Green Line or approved transit lines, such as the Exposition Light Rail Transit

(LRT)Line (under construction). The proposed project is included in the current LACMTA Long-Range Transportation Plan and in the Southern California Association of Governments' 2004 Regional Transportation Plan ( *http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtp2004/2004/Final/07RTPProjectList.xls* ). Mobility issues in this corridor have been well documented in many studies, including the *Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor Preliminary Planning Study* (1994), the *Route Refinement Study* (2000), and the *Major Investment Study*

(MIS)(2003). These reports are available for review on the LACMTA Web site ( *http://www.metro.net/crenshaw* ). Additional considerations supporting the project's need include: • Several major activity centers and destinations are concentrated in the Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor including Los Angeles International Airport (LAX); the Great Western Forum; Hollywood Park; the commercial centers in Koreatown, the Crenshaw District, and downtown Inglewood; as well as office developments on Wilshire Boulevard and in downtown Inglewood and El Segundo. • The MIS established that a north-south, high-capacity transportation connection is needed west of downtown Los Angeles and the Interstate 110 (I-110) freeway. • The “Centers Concept” Land Use Policy in the Los Angeles Basin supports the development of high capacity transit corridors connecting the Centers, including Los Angeles, Inglewood, and LAX. • The Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor's existing bus routes are some of the most productive and highest used. • The Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor's transportation capacity needs to be increased to serve growth, without increasing mobile source ozone emissions in this air quality nonattainment area. • The Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor currently has a high concentration of transit-supportive land uses and has high densities of both population and employment. • Substantial numbers of transit-dependent persons reside in the Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor. • Significant population and employment growth is projected for the Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor. • Existing and future travel demand patterns demonstrate a strong and growing need for high-capacity transit in the Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor. • Local policy direction is focused on travel demand management and transit solutions, rather than expansion of the roadway network. The public and participating and cooperating agencies are invited to consider and comment on this preliminary statement of the purpose and need for the proposed project. Alternatives In addition to a No-Build Alternative, a range of reasonable alternatives will be evaluated in the EIS/EIR including, but not limited to, alternative transit technologies, alignments, operating plans, station locations, and a Transportation Systems Management

(TSM)Alternative. The transit technologies to be evaluated, in addition to the No-Build and TSM Alternatives, will include Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light Rail Transit (LRT), and any other reasonable alternatives identified during scoping for the project. The primary alignments to be initially considered include: *Wilshire/Crenshaw/Metro Green Line:* This alternative alignment would extend south along Crenshaw Boulevard from Wilshire Boulevard through Koreatown, the Crenshaw District, and downtown Inglewood. From Crenshaw Boulevard, the alignment would turn southwest along the LACMTA owned Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way, adjacent to Florence Avenue, and continue south to the existing Metro Green Line Aviation Station. A transfer connection would be provided to LAX from the Aviation Station. *Exposition/Crenshaw/Metro Green Line:* This alignment alternative would extend from the Exposition LRT Line (under construction) south along Crenshaw Boulevard, through the Crenshaw District and downtown Inglewood. From Crenshaw Boulevard, the alignment would turn southwest onto the Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way, adjacent to Florence Avenue, and continue south to the existing Metro Green Line Aviation Station. A transfer connection would be provided to LAX from the Aviation Station. *Wilshire/Crenshaw/La Brea/Hawthorne:* This alignment alternative would extend south along Crenshaw Boulevard from Wilshire Boulevard to the Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way in Inglewood. From the right-of-way, the alignment would travel south along La Brea Avenue to Hawthorne Boulevard. *Exposition/Crenshaw/Prairie/Hawthorne:* This alignment alternative would extend south from the Exposition LRT Line (under construction) along Crenshaw Boulevard to the Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way. From the right-of-way, the alignment would turn south along Prairie Avenue, turn west to connect to the existing Metro Green Line Hawthorne Station along the I-105 freeway, and continue south along Hawthorne Boulevard. The transit alternatives to be considered include: *Bus Rapid Transit Alternative:* This alternative would utilize BRT and operate via the Wilshire/Crenshaw/Metro Green Line or Wilshire/La Brea/Hawthorne alignments described above. *Light Rail Transit Alternative:* This alternative would utilize LRT and operate via the Exposition/Crenshaw/Metro Green Line or Exposition/Crenshaw/Prairie/Hawthorne alignments described above. *No Build Alternative:* This alternative includes the committed highway and transit projects in the current LACMTA Long Range Transportation Plan and the 2030 Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Transportation Plan. For purposes of this EIS and comparison of alternatives, the major fixed-guideway investments under study for the Exposition Phase 2 and Westside Extension transit corridors are not included in the No-Build Alternative. The completion of the Metro Rapid Bus Program is included as well as possible additional feeder bus networks to serve the region's major activity centers. *Transportation System Management

(TSM)Alternative:* The TSM alternative enhances the No Build Alternative and emphasizes transportation system upgrade, such as intersection improvements, minor road widening, traffic engineering actions, bus route restructuring, shortened bus headways, expanded use of articulated buses, reserved bus lanes, expanded park/ride facilities, express and limited-stop service, signalization improvements, and timed-transfer operations. In addition to the alternatives described above, other transit alternatives identified through the public and agency scoping process will be evaluated for potential inclusion in the EIS. Probable Effects The purpose of the EIS process is to explore, in a public setting, the effects of the proposed project and its alternatives on the physical, human, and natural environment. The FTA and LACMTA will evaluate all significant environmental, social, and economic impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed project. Impact areas to be addressed include: Transportation; land use, zoning and economic development; secondary development; land acquisition, displacements and relocations; cultural resources (including historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources) and parklands/recreation areas; neighborhood compatibility and environmental justice; visual and aesthetic impacts; natural resources (including air quality, noise and vibration, wetlands, water resources, geology/soils, and hazardous materials); energy use; safety and security; and wildlife and ecosystems (including endangered species). Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate all adverse impacts will be identified and evaluated. FTA Procedures The regulations implementing NEPA, as well as provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), call for public involvement in the EIS process. Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU requires that FTA and LACMTA do the following:

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

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

(3)establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation in, and comment on, the environmental review process. An invitation to become a participating or cooperating agency, with scoping materials appended, will be extended to other Federal and non-Federal agencies and Native American tribes that may have an interest in the proposed project. It is possible that FTA and LACMTA will not be able to identify all Federal and non-Federal agencies and Native American tribes that may have such an interest. Any Federal or non-Federal agency or Native American tribe interested in the proposed project that does not receive an invitation to become a participating agency should notify at the earliest opportunity the Project Manager identified above under ADDRESSES . A comprehensive public involvement program and a Coordination Plan for public and interagency involvement will be developed for the project and posted on LACMTA's Web site (Crenshaw-Prairie Transit Corridor Project Web page: *http://www.metro.net/crenshaw)* . The public involvement program includes a full range of activities including the project webpage on the LACMTA Web site, development and distribution of project newsletters, and outreach to local officials, community and civic groups, and the public. Specific activities or events for involvement will be detailed in the public involvement program. LACMTA may seek New Starts funding for the proposed project under 49 United States Code 5309 and will, therefore, be subject to New Starts regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)Part 611). The New Starts regulation requires a planning Alternatives Analysis that leads to the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative and the inclusion of this alternative in the long-range transportation plan adopted by the LACMTA and Southern California Association of Governments. LACMTA plans to develop the Draft EIS/EIR to satisfy the required planning Alternatives Analysis. The New Starts regulations also require the submission of certain project-justification information to support a request to initiate preliminary engineering. This information is normally developed in conjunction with the NEPA process. Pertinent New Starts evaluation criteria will be included in the EIS. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and with the FTA/Federal Highway Administration regulations “Environmental Impact and Related Procedures” (23 CFR part 771). In accordance with 23 CFR 771.105(a) and 771.133, FTA will comply with all Federal environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders applicable to the proposed project during the environmental review process to the maximum extent practicable. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the environmental and public hearing provisions of Federal transit laws (49 U.S.C. 5301(e), 5323(b), and 5324); the project-level air quality conformity regulation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)(40 CFR Part 93); the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines of EPA (40 CFR Part 230); the regulation implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800); the regulation implementing Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR Part 402); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (23 CFR 771.135); and Executive Orders 12898 on environmental justice, 11988 on floodplain management, and 11990 on wetlands. Issued on: September 27, 2007. Leslie T. Rogers, Regional Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-19415 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation for High-Capacity Transit Improvements in the I-10 West Corridor AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration

(FTA)and Valley Metro Rail, Inc. (METRO) intend to prepare an Alternatives Analysis (AA)/Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)and Section 4(f) Evaluation on proposed high capacity transit improvements, including a potential light rail transit

(LRT)line and/or bus rapid transit

(BRT)in the Interstate 10 (I-10) West study area between the Central Phoenix/East Valley LRT Starter Line on Central Avenue and State Route 101 extending through the cities of Phoenix and Tolleson in Maricopa County, Arizona. The proposed study area is bounded by State Route 101 on the west; Thomas Road on the north; 7th Street on the east; and Buckeye Road on the south. Transit improvements and alignments within the I-10 right-of-way will be considered among the alternatives. The AA/EIS will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and its implementing regulations. The AA/EIS process will be initiated with a scoping process that provides opportunities for the public to comment on the scope of the project and proposed alternatives to be considered in the AA and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This input will be used to assist decisionmakers in determining a locally preferred alternative

(LPA)for the I-10 West Corridor. After the completion of the DEIS and upon selection of an LPA, METRO will request permission from FTA to enter into preliminary engineering per requirements of New Starts regulations 49 CFR part 611. The Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)will be issued after FTA approves entrance into preliminary engineering. The purpose of this notice is to alert interested parties regarding the intent to prepare the AA/EIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation, to provide information on the nature of the proposed project and possible alternatives, to invite public participation in the AA/EIS process, including comments on the scope of the alternatives proposed in this notice, to announce that public scoping meetings will be conducted, and to identify participating agency contacts. DATES: Written and e-mailed comments on the scope of study, including the alternatives to be considered, and the impacts to be assessed, should be sent to METRO on or before November 16, 2007. See ADDRESSES below for the street address and e-mail address to which written comments may be sent. Public scoping meetings to accept comments on the scope of the study will be held on the following dates: • Tuesday, October 23, 2007, at 6 p.m., Desert West Community Center, 6501 West Virginia Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85035. • Thursday, October 25, at 3 p.m., University Park Center, 350 North 10th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. *An interagency scoping meeting will be held on the following date:* • Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 10 a.m., Valley Metro Rail, Inc. (METRO), 101 North 1st Avenue, Suite 1300, Phoenix, Arizona 85003. The buildings used for the scoping meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. Any individual who requires special assistance, such as a sign language interpreter, to participate in a scoping meeting should contact Maria Hyatt, City of Phoenix City Manager's Office, 200 West Washington Street, 12th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003 (Telephone 602-261-8897) at least 48 hours in advance of a meeting in order for METRO and the City of Phoenix to make the necessary arrangements. Scoping materials will be available at the meetings and through the project's Web site at *http://www.metrolightrail.org/I-10West.* Hard copies of the scoping materials are also available from Mr. Rick Pilgrim whose contact information is given in ADDRESSES below. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the attention of Mr. Rick Pilgrim, Valley Metro Rail, Inc., 101 North 1st Avenue, Suite 1300, Phoenix, AZ 85003. E-mail: *I-10West@metrolightrail.org.* Phone:

(602)495-8216; Fax:

(602)252-7453. The locations of the public scoping meetings are given above under DATES . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hymie Luden, Office of Planning and Program Development, Federal Transit Administration, 201 Mission Street, Room 2210, San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone:

(415)744-2732. E-mail: *hymie.luden@dot.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scoping The FTA and METRO invite all interested individuals and organizations, public agencies, and Native American Tribes to comment on the scope of the AA and the EIS, including the project's preliminary statement of purpose and need, the alternatives to be studied and the impacts to be evaluated. Comments should focus on the purpose and need for the proposed project; alternatives that may be less costly or have less environmental or community impacts while achieving similar transportation objectives; and significant social, economic, or environmental issues relating to the alternatives. Purpose and Need for the Project The purpose is defined as follows: 1. Identify a transit alternative that increases efficient access to employment opportunities throughout the Central Phoenix/West Valley region. 2. Identify an improvement that provides effective transit options to relieve peak period congestion. 3. Identify a transit improvement alternative, with a recommended alignment and technology, to connect the LRT system currently under construction with the West Valley. 4. Identify a transit improvement alternative that would facilitate continued development of a comprehensive and inter-connected regional transit network that is multi-modal, that offers a range of effective mobility choices for current and future transit riders, and that attracts new transit riders to use the growing regional system. 5. Identify an alternative that improves the efficiency of transit operations. 6. Identify an alternative that provides cost-effective transit improvements and expands access to corridor destinations. 7. Identify a transit alternative that supports economic development (including transit-oriented development), and ensures enhanced connectivity among existing and planned regional and local activity center and attractions. Additional considerations supporting the project's need include: The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), adopted by the Maricopa Association of Governments

(MAG)and financed under the one-half cent sales tax extension, identifies 57-miles of major light rail/high capacity transit corridors to be implemented by 2026. Currently, the 20-mile starter segment is under construction. An 11-mile extension into west Phoenix is one of five corridors identified in the RTP. The City of Phoenix, which spans approximately 515 square miles, is the largest city in Arizona, and the fifth largest in the nation. The Arizona Department of Commerce estimates the 2006 population of Phoenix at approximately 1.5 million. The population of Phoenix is estimated by MAG to grow to approximately 2.2 million by 2030. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 73 percent of Phoenix workers drove to work alone in 2005, 16 percent carpooled, 3 percent took public transportation, 4 percent used other means, and 3 percent worked at home. Commute times averaged 26.9 minutes. The City of Phoenix currently operates a bus fleet of 485 vehicles with a daily ridership of nearly 154,000, providing over 18 million miles of annual service. In general, travel on highways and arterials is expected to increase by approximately 30 percent between 2004 and 2030 within Maricopa County; peak period travel to work is expected to grow by about 40 percent; similar trends are anticipated for the City of Phoenix. Growth in the City of Phoenix and adjacent jurisdictions has caused substantial increases in traffic congestion on the existing roadway network, and has generated the need for new or improved public transportation service. Even with implementation of the projects included in the MAG RTP, service levels in 2030 on the area freeways and arterials is expected to deteriorate substantially due to increased travel demand, resulting in a significant increase in congestion. The MAG 2006 Freeway Level of Service

(LOS)Study shows I-10 West direction during AM and PM peak hour at LOS E and F for significant portions of the study corridor. Preliminary analysis of recent MAG traffic modeling for 2030 indicate similar poor LOS conditions in the future for the section of I-10 within the study area. The AA/EIS will analyze the potential for the proposed high capacity transit improvements to address increased demand for travel by connecting the project corridor with the LRT Starter Line on Central/First Avenue. Alternatives: The alternatives proposed for evaluation include: • A no-build alternative, which includes the current network plus all ongoing, programmed, and committed projects listed in the MAG RTP; • A Transportation Systems Management

(TSM)alternative, which would include improving existing transit services such as additional bus service and routes, and which also serves as a baseline for evaluation against which all other alternatives may be compared for federal funding purposes (referred to as the FTA Future Baseline and implements all of the projects in the No-Build Alternative); • Bus Rapid Transit alternatives; and • Light Rail Transit alternatives. Each build alternative will explore the construction of new transportation infrastructure such as tracks, stations, and maintenance yards. Underground, surface and/or aerial design options may be developed for each of the build alternative alignments. Multi-modal alternatives will also be explored. The EIS Process and the Role of Participating Agencies and the Public The purpose of the NEPA process is to explore, in a public setting, the effects of the proposed project and its alternatives on the physical, human, and natural environment. The FTA and METRO will evaluate all significant environmental, social, and economic impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed project. Impact areas to be addressed include: Land use; development potential; secondary development; land acquisition, displacements, and relocations; cultural resources (including impacts on historical and archaeological resources); parklands and recreation areas; visual and aesthetic qualities; air quality; noise and vibration; ecosystems (including threatened and endangered species); energy use; business and neighborhood disruptions; environmental justice; changes in traffic and pedestrian circulation and congestion; and changes in transit service and patronage. Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any significant adverse impacts will be identified and evaluated. The methodology for evaluation of impacts will focus on the areas of investigation mentioned above. As the public involvement and agency consultation process proceeds, additional evaluation criteria and impact assessment measures will be included in the analysis. Potential alternatives will be developed to a conceptual level, and will be screened and ranked against these evaluation criteria and local community considerations. Travel time savings, potential for congestion reduction and improved mobility options for residents of the City of Phoenix and adjacent metropolitan areas will be assessed for the transportation alternatives considered. The public involvement program and agency coordination plan discussed below will provide the vehicle through which these evaluation analyses will be conducted. The regulations implementing NEPA, as well as provisions of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), call for public involvement in the EIS process. Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU requires that FTA and METRO do the following:

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

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

(3)establish a plan for coordinating public and agency participation in and comment on the environmental review process. A list of interested agencies has been developed, and an invitation to become a participating agency, with the scoping information packet appended, will be extended to other Federal and non-Federal agencies and Indian tribes that may have an interest in the proposed project. It is possible that we may not be able to identify all Federal and non-Federal agencies and Indian tribes that may have such an interest. Any Federal or non-Federal agency or Indian tribe interested in the proposed project that does not receive an invitation to become a participating agency should notify, at the earliest opportunity, the person identified above under ADDRESSES . A comprehensive Public Involvement Program will be developed, and a public and agency involvement Coordination Plan will be created. The Public Involvement Program will include a full range of involvement activities. Activities will include outreach to local and county officials and community and civic groups; a public scoping process to define the issues of concern among all parties interested in the project; organizing periodic meetings with various local agencies, organizations and committees; a public hearing upon release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS); development and distribution of project newsletters and the establishment of a project Web site. Opportunities to participate in the scoping process, in addition to the public meetings announced in this notice, will be made available. Specific mechanisms for involvement will be detailed in the Public Involvement Program. METRO may seek New Starts funding for the proposed project under 49 U.S.C. 5309 and will therefore be subject to New Starts regulations (49 CFR part 611). The New Starts regulations require a planning Alternatives Analysis that leads to the selection of a locally preferred alternative and the inclusion of the locally preferred alternative as part of the long-range transportation plan adopted by the MAG. The New Starts regulations also require the submission of certain project-justification information in support of a request to initiate preliminary engineering, and this information is normally developed in conjunction with the NEPA process. Pertinent New Starts evaluation criteria will be included in the Final EIS. The AA/EIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA and its implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and with the FTA/Federal Highway Administration regulations “Environmental Impact and Related Procedures” (23 CFR part 771). In accordance with 23 CFR 771.105(a) and 771.133, FTA will comply with all Federal environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders applicable to the proposed project during the environmental review process to the maximum extent practicable. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the environmental and public hearing provisions of Federal transit laws (49 U.S.C. 5301(e), 5323(b), and 5324), the project-level air quality conformity regulation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)(40 CFR part 93), the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines of EPA (40 CFR part 230), the regulation implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR part 800), the regulation implementing Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR part 402), and Executive Orders 12898 on environmental justice, 11988 on floodplain management and 11990 on wetlands. The Section 4(f) Evaluation will comply with the United States Department of Transportation Act (23 CFR 771.135). Issued on: September 27, 2007. Leslie T. Rogers, Regional Administrator, FTA Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-19417 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2007-28638] Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Request for public comment on an extension of a currently approved collection. SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket ID Number NHTSA 2007-28638] by 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. *Instructions:* For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. 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. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). *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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of each request for collection of information may be obtained at no change from Carlita Ballard, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Room W43-439, NVS-131, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is

(202)366-0846. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the **Federal Register** providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:

(1)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;

(ii)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii)How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected and;

(iv)How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses. In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collections of information: *Title:* Petitions for Exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 543). *OMB Control Number:* 2127-0542. *Form Number:* None. *Affected Public:* Motor vehicle manufacturers. *Requested Expiration Date of Approval:* Three years from approval date. *Abstract:* Manufacturers of passenger vehicle lines may petition the agency for an exemption from Part 541 requirements, if the line is equipped with an anti-theft device as standard equipment and meets agency criteria. Device must be as effective as partsmarking. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 3,164. *Number of Respondents:* 14. 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331 requires the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate a theft prevention standard to provide for the identification of certain motor vehicles and their major replacement parts to impede motor vehicle theft. 49 U.S.C. 33106 provides for an exemption to this identification process by petitions from manufacturers who equip covered vehicles with standard original equipment antitheft devices, which the Secretary determines are likely to be as effective in reducing or deterring theft as partsmarking. NHTSA may exempt a vehicle line from the partsmarking requirements, if the manufacturer installs an antitheft device as standard equipment on the entire vehicle line for which it seeks an exemption and NHTSA determines that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 33106, after model year

(MY)2000, the number of new exemptions is contingent on a finding by the Attorney General as part of its long-range review of effectiveness. After consulting with DOJ, the agency decided it could continue granting one exemption per model year pending the results of the long-term review. In a final rule published on April 6, 2004, the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard was extended to include all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle rating of 6,000 pounds or less, and to light duty trucks with major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of multipurpose passenger vehicles. Consistent with this DOJ consultation, the April 6, 2004 final rule amended the general requirements of Section 543.5 of Chapter 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, allowing a manufacturer to petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one additional line of its passenger motor vehicles from the requirements of the theft prevention standard for each model year after MY 1996. The final rule became effective September 1, 2006. Prior to September 1, 2006, manufacturers were only allowed to petition NHTSA for high-theft vehicle lines. In its April 6, 2004 final rule, the agency amended part 543 to allow vehicle manufacturers to file petitions to exempt all vehicle lines that would become subject to parts-marking requirements beginning with the effective date of the final rule. As a result of this amendment, vehicle manufacturers are allowed to file petitions to exempt all vehicle lines that would become subject to the parts-marking requirements regardless of their theft status (high or low). While there are approximately 27 vehicle manufacturers, since the effective date of the rule, a maximum of 14 petitions for exemption from the parts-marking requirements have been received by the agency for any single model year. We anticipate this to remain the average number of yearly responses received by the agency. NHTSA estimates that the average hours per submittal will be 226, for a total annual burden of 3,164. This was an increase from the previous OMB inventory of 1,130 burden hours. NHTSA estimates that the cost associated with these burden hours is $36.62 per hour, for a total cost of approximately $115,866. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Issued on: September 24, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 07-4796 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 5

Traces to 5 documents

U.S. Code

CFR