Notices. Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA

17,401 words·~79 min read·/register/2007/11/09/07-5604

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

BILLING CODE 4910-22-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on the Newberg Dundee Transportation Improvement Project (Tier 1), Oregon 99W: Yamhill County, OR AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA. SUMMARY: This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1). The actions relate to a proposed highway project, the Newberg Dundee Transportation Improvement Project (Tier 1), Oregon 99W, extending approximately 11 miles from the eastern terminus east of Newberg in the Rex Hill area, to the western terminus where Oregon 99W intersects with OR18 (McDougal Corner) west of Dundee, near Dayton in the County of Yamhill, State of Oregon.

The Federal actions, taken as a result of a tiered environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4351 (NEPA), and implementing regulations on tiering, 40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28, and 23 CFR part 771, determined certain issues related to the proposed project. Those Tier 1 decisions will be used by Federal agencies in subsequent proceedings, including decisions whether to grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the highway project.

Tier 1 decisions also may be relied upon by State and local agencies in proceedings on the proposed project. DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is advising the public that it has made decisions that are subject to 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1) and are final within the meaning of that law. A claim seeking judicial review of the Tier 1 Federal agency decisions on the proposed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before May 7, 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 the FHWA: Ms. Michelle Eraut, Environmental Program Manager, Federal Highway Administration, 530 Center Street, NE., Suite 100, Salem, Oregon 97301; telephone 503-587-4716. You may also contact Ms. Lisa Ansell, Project Manager, Oregon Department of Transportation, 885 Airport Road SE., Building P, Salem, Oregon 97301-4788; telephone 503-986-2688. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the FHWA has issued a Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)and Record of Decision

(ROD)in connection with a proposed highway project in the State of Oregon. The Newberg Dundee Transportation Improvement Project (Tier 1), Oregon 99W, proposes an approximately 11 mile long, four-lane expressway extending from the eastern terminus, east of Newberg in the Rex Hill area to its western terminus where Oregon 99 W intersects with Oregon 18 (McDougal Corner) west of Dundee near Dayton. The proposed expressway will be primarily on new alignment. Decisions in the Tier 1 ROD include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Purpose and need for the project (see Chapter 1 of the FEIS). 2. Reasonable alternatives that will be carried forward for further evaluation in the Tier 2 proceedings (see FEIS Chapter 2). 3. Selection of the highway build alternative and highway corridor for the project. The selected alternative is called Modified 3J, which is a combination of Alternative 3J and other build alternatives. 4. Alternatives that have been eliminated from further consideration and study, including but not limited to, those identified in the Tier 1 FEIS as the “no build” alternative, and alternatives 3C, 3D, 3G, 3H, 3I, 3J, 3K and 4C (see FEIS Chapter 2). Detailed information about the alternatives considered in Tier 1, and about the Federal decisions that eliminated alternatives other than Alternative Modified 3J, is available in the Tier 1 ROD and Tier 1 FEIS. Interested parties may consult the ROD and FEIS for further information on each of the decisions described above. The Tier 1 actions by the Federal agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS)approved on June 2, 2005, in the FHWA Record of Decision

(ROD)issued on August 26, 2005, and in other documents in the FHWA project records. The scope and purpose of the Tier 1 FEIS are described in sections Chapter 1 of the FEIS. The FEIS, ROD, and other documents in the FHWA project file are available by contacting the FHWA or the Oregon Department of Transportation at the addresses provided above. The FHWA FEIS and ROD can also be viewed and downloaded from the project Web site at *http://www.newbergdundeebypass.org* . This notice applies to all Federal agency Tier 1 decisions that are final within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139( *l* )(1) as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to: 1. *General:* National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)[42 U.S.C. 4321-4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128]. 2. *Land:* Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]. (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: November 5, 2007. Michelle Eraut, Environmental Program Manager, Salem, Oregon. [FR Doc. E7-22031 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Notice of Fiscal Year 2008 Safety Data Improvement Program (SaDIP) Grant Application Instructions and Materials AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice is intended to announce the posting of the Fiscal Year 2008 Safety Data Improvement Program (SaDIP) Grant Opportunity to Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov* ). A tentative schedule for the Fiscal Year 2008 SaDIP grant application and award process is included with the synopsis and application instructions. Grant awards are contingent on passage of the FY 2008 U.S. Department of Transportation appropriations bill, which includes FMCSA appropriations, by Congress and approved by the U.S. President. DATES: November 9, 2007. Submit comments or questions by: November 30, 2007. Responses will be available on Grants.gov by: December 14, 2007 Application deadline: January 30, 2008 Grant Awards: End of 2nd Quarter / Start of 3rd Quarter FY 2008 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Address all comments concerning This notice to Betsy Benkowski, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-5387 (telephone), *Betsy.Benkowski@dot.gov* (Internet address). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4128 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established the SaDIP grant opportunity. The legislation provides discretionary funding for the States to improve the quality of crash and inspection data for large trucks and buses reported by the States to FMCSA, as established in Section 31102 of Title 49, United States Code. Eligible awardees include a State Agency, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guan, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Applicants must registrar with Grants.gov to apply for funding ( *http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp* ). Registration with grants.gov may take two to five days before the system will allow access to the grant application package. Applications should be submitted in accordance with the instructions provided and must be submitted in accordance with the instructions provided and must be submitted electronically to FMCSA through the Grants.gov Web site. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)number for the Safety Data Improvement Program is 20.234. Potential applicants will be required to install Pure Edge Viewer in order to se the form interface under the “Download the Application Package” hyperlink. Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to register their e-mail address with the system to receive notice of modifications made to the synopsis or application instructions. Issued on: November 6, 2007. Terry Shelton, Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology. [FR Doc. E7-22055 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-MC-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Impact Statement for the Expanded Moynihan/Penn Station Redevelopment Project, New York, NY AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that it will jointly prepare an environmental impact statement

(EIS)with the New York State Urban Development Corporation d/b/a Empire State Development Corporation

(ESDC)to assess the proposed Expanded Moynihan/Penn Station Redevelopment Project (the project) in New York City. The project is a comprehensive public/private development initiative to adaptively reuse the historic James A. Farley Building and the Western Annex (collectively referred to as the Farley Complex) as a new train station (Moynihan West) and relocated Madison Square Garden, to reconstruct critical station and circulation elements at the existing Pennsylvania Station (Penn Station) referred to herein as Moynihan East, and to implement transit-oriented private development. FRA is issuing this notice to solicit public and agency input into the development of the scope of the EIS and to advise the public that outreach activities conducted by ESDC and its representatives will be considered in the preparation of the EIS. The EIS will be prepared in accordance the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ) and the applicable regulations implementing NEPA as set forth in 40 CFR 1500-1508, FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts found at 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999), and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and its implementing regulations found at 6 New York Code of Rules and Regulations Part 617. The EIS will also address as necessary Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303) (DOT Act) and other applicable federal and state laws and regulations. The EIS will evaluate a “Preferred Alternative,” a “No Action Alternative” and various build alternatives that modify elements of the Preferred Alternative. There are two options under consideration for the Preferred Alternative. Under either of these options, the development of the Project would occur at the Farley Complex (Block 755) owned by ESDC and bounded by Ninth Avenue to the west, Eighth Avenue to the east, West 31st Street to the south and West 33rd Street to the north; the Penn Station Block (Block 781) bounded by Eighth Avenue to the west, Seventh Avenue to the east, West 31st Street to the south and West 33rd Street to the north; the Railroad Service Building (Block 780, Lot 60) located mid-block on West 31st Street across the street from Penn Station; the eastern and western portions of the One Penn Plaza Block (Block 783) bounded by Eighth and Seventh Avenues and West 33rd to West 34th Streets; and the United States Postal Service

(USPS)Morgan Facility and Annex located on two full blocks (Blocks 726 and 727) bounded by Tenth Avenue to the west, Ninth Avenue to the east and between West 28th and West 30th Streets ESDC may also acquire properties on one or more blocks immediately adjacent to the Penn Station Block to facilitate the construction of a loading dock and other support facilities for Moynihan Station, and to otherwise further the goals of the project. In addition, under one of the two options being considered, the City of New York would establish a new zoning subdistrict (the Subdistrict Option). This Subdistrict Option would allow development rights from the Penn Station Block to be transferred under certain specified conditions to receiving sites located within the subdistrict and at prescribed maximum floor areas. It is anticipated that the boundaries of the proposed subdistrict would include approximately 20 city blocks surrounding the Penn Station Block, extending as far south as West 28th Street, as far north as West 36th Street, as far east as within 200 feet west of Fifth Avenue, and as far west as 200 feet west of Ninth Avenue. In a related zoning action to be examined in the EIS, the City, in connection with the Subdistrict Option only, has proposed to change the underlying zoning classifications for a number of lots or blocks within the proposed subdistrict from manufacturing and commercial uses (M1-5, M1-6, C6-3X, C6-4X and C6-4M) to C6-4. This zoning change, if adopted by the City, would allow residential uses in certain areas where such uses are not currently permitted by zoning. DATES: A public scoping meeting will be held on December 6, 2007 in the Farley Building, 380 West 33rd Street, Room 4500, New York, NY from 4 to 8 p.m. A presentation will be made at 4:30 p.m. followed by the opportunity for the public to comment on the scope of the EIS. Those wishing to speak are required to register at the meeting location. At the meeting, comments may also be submitted in written form. Persons interested in providing written comments on the scope of the EIS should do so by December 17, 2007. Comments should be sent to Rebecca Pellegrini, Moynihan Station Development Corporation, 633 Third Avenue, 36th Floor, New York, NY 1017 or Mr. John Winkle, FRA at the address identified below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the environmental review, please contact: Arnold J. Carter, Sr. Vice President, Communications, Empire State Development Corporation, 633 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017,

(212)803-3740, or Mr. John Winkle, Transportation Industry Analyst, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mail Stop 20, Washington DC 20590, telephone

(202)493-6067. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. *Description of Project* . The proposed Expanded Moynihan Project/Penn Station Redevelopment Project is a comprehensive initiative, conceived to address and fulfill the following specific needs and purposes: to create a modern, iconic, and efficient major transportation hub that improves circulation and passenger and pedestrian capacity of the Penn Station complex and expands railroad capacity and throughput; to create a financially viable and dynamic mixed-use rail- and transit-oriented development; to restore and preserve an important historic resource; and to provide a unique opportunity to build a modern and efficient Madison Square Garden arena at a major transit hub. The development program at full build-out would include: redevelopment of the Farley Complex with a new Moynihan West train station and a new, relocated Madison Square Garden arena; the construction of a rebuilt rail station (the Moynihan East train station) with improved circulation and train halls to replace the existing the Penn Station; the construction of up to 5.4 million square feet in mixed-use development allowed by the zoning of the Penn Station Block (accommodated through on-site development at the Penn Station block or, alternatively, in the subdistrict option, through a combination of 1.1 million square feet at the Penn Station Block and 4.3 million square feet of development in the proposed subdistrict); the construction of an up to approximately 2 million square foot commercial building on the eastern portion of the One Penn Plaza Block at the Penn East site; the construction of a 125,000 square foot retail building on the western portion of the One Penn Plaza Block at the Penn West Site (and under the Subdistrict Option, a larger commercial and retail building at the Penn West Site using 875,000 square feet of development rights from the Penn Station Block); renovation of the Railroad Service building for railroad service, administration or other uses; possible expansion of the Morgan Annex to accommodate the transfer of USPS operations from the Farley Complex (it is assumed that USPS retail services, however, would be located elsewhere in the project area if they do not remain in the Farley Complex); in one potential configuration, the construction of a loading dock and other station-related support facilities on one or more blocks immediately adjacent to the Penn Station Block; and other new commercial and residential development within the proposed subdistrict as a result of a related zoning action by the City of New York and the transfer of development rights from the Farley Complex. II. *Previous Environmental Reviews* . The development of plans for improved New York City passenger facilities has been underway since as early as 1991 when the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) began planning for a new intermodal transportation facility. The potential availability of the Farley Complex led to additional efforts to devise plans that incorporated passenger rail facilities in the Farley Complex. A series of environmental reviews have accompanied the various proposals for improvements to the Penn Station facilities and site, including most recently draft and final environmental impact statements that were issued by ESDC under SEQRA in January 31, 2005 and April 27, 2006 respectively. While FRA and the USPS participated with ESDC in the preparation of these SEQRA documents, they were not NEPA documents and did not attempt to specifically satisfy NEPA requirements. The EIS that is the subject of this notice of intent will completely evaluate all of the environmental impacts of the currently proposed actions under NEPA and SEQRA and serve as an original EIS for the FRA but as a supplemental EIS for ESDC given its prior efforts under the 2005/2006 state SEQRA EIS process. III. *Problem Identification/Purpose and Need* . The principal public purpose of the project is the improvement of transportation facilities above the existing Penn Station tracks and platforms. The Penn Station complex is America's busiest passenger transportation facility, handling over 550,000 people daily, which is more than Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark Liberty airports combined. Yet the present station—a three-level, largely subterranean complex designed to handle 200,000 passengers per day—is inadequate to meet the needs of today's passengers. The station is already operating above its design capacity and is expected to experience a rapidly growing passenger load due to, among other factors, the growth of the Midtown business district and the development expected as a result of the Hudson Yards Rezoning. By rebuilding Penn Station and expanding it within the Farley Complex, the project aims to improve the functionality and capacity of station facilities, increase the reliability and sustainability of the station, and create an architecturally distinctive and welcoming facility that is easily navigable and understood both within the facility and at street level. Further, the project would resolve existing deficiencies in Penn Station that include pedestrian crowding, insufficient passenger waiting areas, confusing circulation, insufficient and outmoded employee facilities, and poor station identification and visibility within the surrounding area. By significantly increasing the amount of public space in the train station, the combination of both the east and west station elements creates an opportunity to establish wider concourses and improved connections to a renovated and expanded Penn Station, grand entrances from Eighth Avenue, and sky-lit train halls. Another primary goal of the proposed project is the preservation of major portions of the historic Farley Complex, including the exterior, notably the Eighth Avenue entrance and monumental stairs, and certain interior spaces, such as the USPS retail lobby and the New York Postmaster's office. The adaptive reuse of the historic Farley Complex would reflect the original Pennsylvania Station's role as a transportation resource and civic gateway, while preserving and restoring a designated local landmark and National Register property. The project includes major private sector components as well. Based on an extensive ESDC Developer Selection Process, ESDC conditionally designated a joint venture of the Related Companies and Vornado Realty Trust (the Venture) as project developers in July 2005. The Venture has proposed a revised development program that includes relocating Madison Square Garden to the Western Annex of the Farley Building and rail- and transit-oriented development at Penn Station and nearby development sites. The relocation of Madison Square Garden to the Farley Complex will enable Madison Square Garden to retain its status as an important civic facility that hosts sporting events, political conventions, memorial services, and related activities. The proposed project would include mixed-use high-rise development constructed above and around the new Moynihan Station with up to 5.4 million square feet of zoning floor area on the Penn Station block (or, in the Subdistrict Option, 1.1 million square feet of new retail development at the Penn Station block and 4.3 million square feet of zoning floor of development in the surrounding area) and approximately 2.125 million square feet on an adjacent block (the Penn East and West development sites). This development takes advantage of its unique location at a large transportation hub and is consistent with New York State and City public policy that promotes transit-oriented development. Additional transit-oriented development may result from a rezoning that has been proposed by the City of New York in connection with the subdistrict option and by the utilization of unused development rights from the Farley Complex at other sites within the subdistrict. As a high-profile and large-scale public and private development initiative, the proposed project is intended to be a leader in incorporating sustainable development principles in its design and construction. While the planning, design, and construction techniques are still being developed, it is anticipated that buildings located at the Farley Complex, at Penn East and Penn West and on the Penn Station Block will seek to achieve recognition under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

(LEED)standards as established by the U.S. Green Building Council and in conformance with city, state, and federal agency initiatives to integrate sustainable design standards in public development projects. The principal identified federal government roles at this stage of project development that trigger the application of NEPA (and related environmental and historic preservation statutes and regulations) involve the availability of federal funds appropriated by Congress to the FRA and other Department of Transportation operating administrations for improvements to Penn Station incorporating the James A. Farley Building, and FRA's statutory oversight responsibilities with respect to Amtrak. FRA does not have a role in the relocation of Madison Square Garden to the Western Annex or the development of the mixed-use high rise components of the project, both as proposed by the Venture. Other federal agencies, including but not limited to USPS, may participate, as cooperating agencies in the environmental review to the extent other federal actions subject to NEPA are identified. IV. *Alternatives to be Considered* . The EIS will consider the Preferred Alternative as established by ESDC, a No Action Alternative and a number of different build alternatives that would modify elements of the Preferred Alternative. These alternatives will consider ways to accommodate truck loading facilities at or near the new station and private development, as well as different sizes and configurations of the proposed development. V. *Probable Effects* . The FRA and ESDC will evaluate both project-specific and cumulative changes to the social, economic and physical environment—including land use and socioeconomic conditions, community facilities and services, open space, shadows, water resources, historic and archaeological resources, visual character and aesthetics, contaminated and hazardous materials, transportation, air quality, noise and vibration, infrastructure, environmental justice, and cumulative and secondary effects. The analysis will be undertaken consistent with NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the DOT Act and SEQRA, along with other applicable federal and state regulations. VI. *Scoping Process* . FRA invites all interested individuals, organizations, and federal, state, and local agencies to comment on the scope of the EIS. Comments are encouraged on specific social, economic, or environmental issues to be evaluated, on the purpose and need for the project, and on reasonable alternatives that may be less costly, more cost effective or have fewer environmental impacts while achieving similar transportation and other objectives. ESDC has also prepared a detailed draft scope of analysis as required under SEQRA and the draft scope may be obtained from ESDC's Web site: *http://www.empire.state.ny.us/default.asp* or from the contacts identified above. ESDC will be leading the outreach activities during the public scoping process, beginning with the scoping meeting identified under DATES above. Additional opportunities for public participation will be announced through mailings, notices, advertisements and press releases. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 31, 2007. Mark Yachmetz, Associate Administration for Railroad Development. [FR Doc. E7-22069 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration [Docket No: FTA-2007-28960] National Transit Database: Amendments to Urbanized Area Annual Reporting Manual AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Final Amendments to the 2007 National Transit Database Urbanized Area Annual Reporting Manual. SUMMARY: This notice provides final notice of changes to the Federal Transit Administration's

(FTA)2007 National Transit Database

(NTD)Urbanized Area Annual Reporting Manual (Annual Manual). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5335, FTA requires recipients of FTA Urbanized Area Formula Grants to provide an annual report to the Secretary of Transportation via the NTD reporting system according to a uniform system of accounts (USOA). In an ongoing effort to improve the NTD reporting system and be responsive to the needs of NTD data users and of the transit agencies reporting to the NTD, FTA annually refines and clarifies the reporting requirements through revisions to the Annual Manual. On September 5, 2007, FTA published a notice in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 17564) inviting comments on proposed amendments to the 2007 Annual Manual. This notice provides responses to those comments and announces the availability of the final 2007 Annual Manual. DATES: *Effective Date:* November 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues, John D. Giorgis, Office of Budget and Policy,

(202)366-5430 (telephone);

(202)366-7989 (fax); or *john.giorgis@dot.gov* (e-mail). For legal issues, Richard Wong, Office of the Chief Counsel,

(202)366-0675 (telephone);

(202)366-3809 (fax); or *richard.wong@dot.gov* (e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The National Transit Database

(NTD)is the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) primary database for statistics on the transit industry. Recipients of FTA's Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307) and Other Than Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5311) are required by statute to submit data to the NTD. These data are used to “help meet the needs of * * * the public for information on which to base public transportation service planning * * *” (49 U.S.C 5335). Currently, over 650 transit agencies in urbanized areas report to the NTD through an Internet-based reporting system. Each year, performance data from these submissions are used to apportion over $4 billion of FTA funds under the Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program. These data are also used in the annual National Transit Summaries and Trends report, the biennial Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, and in meeting FTA's obligations under the Government Performance Results Act of 1993. In an ongoing effort to improve the NTD Internet reporting system and to be responsive to both the needs of NTD data users and the needs of transit agencies reporting to the NTD, FTA annually refines and clarifies reporting requirements to the NTD, as contained in the Annual NTD Module Reporting Manual. This notice announces the availability of the final 2007 Annual Manual. II. Comments and FTA Response to Comments On September 5, 2007, FTA published a notice in the **Federal Register** (72 FR 17564) inviting comments on proposed amendments to the 2007 Annual Manual. In this announcement, FTA proposed seven changes:

(1)To require buyers of purchased transportation service from private providers to include the service in their own NTD report, and to no longer permit private providers of purchased transportation service to report separately to the NTD on behalf of the public provider of transit services;

(2)To require that when one public transit provider purchases transportation services from another public transit agency, that either the buyer or the seller may report the service, but that the service must be reported as being “directly operated;”

(3)To require rail transit agencies to report Average Weekday Unlinked Passenger Trips and Actual Passenger Car Revenue Miles by four time categories: Weekday AM Peak, Weekday Midday, Weekday PM Peak and Weekday Other;

(4)To require those few transit agencies that service one urbanized area over 200,000 in population (large urbanized area) and two or more urbanized areas under 200,000 in population (small urbanized areas) to separately allocate their operations, operational expense, and fixed guideway data among each of the urbanized areas under 200,000 in population that they serve on the federal funding allocation form;

(5)To require transit agencies to separate funds, which were previously reported as “Other FTA Funds,” into different categories for each FTA program in their NTD report;

(6)To create a standard form for submitting the Chief Executive Officer's

(CEO)certification; and

(7)To require all transit agencies, beginning with the 2008 report year, to conduct a statistical sample of average trip lengths (used for calculating passenger miles traveled) every three years, unless they are a large transit agency that is already required to sample every year. FTA received eight comments on the proposed amendments to the 2007 Annual Manual. Four comments were received regarding the proposed peak rail data collection, two comments were received on the proposed sampling requirements for small urbanized area transit agencies, and one comment each was received on the proposed changes to the allocation of funding form, the collection of funding data by specific FTA programs, and the standard form for filing CEO certifications. No comments were received on either of the two proposed changes regarding the reporting of purchased transportation services. Additionally, FTA received comments on two issues that were not addressed in the **Federal Register** Notice. Specifically, these comments concerned the 2007 reporting deadlines, and the circular providing guidance for the sampling of unlinked passenger trip and passenger mile traveled data in vanpool operations. FTA hereby responds to these comments in the following order:

(a)Rail Peak Service Data;

(b)Sampling Requirements for Small Urbanized Area Transit Agencies;

(c)Allocation of Funding;

(d)Collection of Funding Data by Specific FTA Programs;

(e)the CEO Certification Standard Form;

(f)the 2007 Reporting Deadlines; and

(g)Vanpool Sampling Requirements.

(a)Rail Peak Service Data FTA received four comments on its proposal to collect peak service data for rail transit systems. Two comments asked that this requirement be made optional for the 2007 and 2008 report years, as 2007 and 2008 data have already been collected without regard to peak data. One of these comments also suggested that FTA institute a size threshold to require peak data only from large rail transit agencies, and asked if the peak service data requirement would apply to atypical rail modes, such as inclined plane. One comment expressed concern about the burden this requirement would impose on small transit agencies that operate only motorbus and demand response service. *FTA Responds:* FTA adopts the commenters' suggestion to make this reporting requirement voluntary for the 2007 and 2008 report years. Therefore, FTA will grant a reporting waiver for the peak rail service data requirement to any transit agency that requests one for the 2007 or 2008 report years. FTA also agrees not to apply the peak rail service data requirement to atypical rail systems. The peak rail service data collection will only apply to heavy rail, light rail, or commuter rail systems. FTA will consider implementing a size threshold, likely to be a threshold to exempt rail systems with 9 or fewer vehicles, for the 2008 Report Year. FTA will invite further comments on such a size threshold as part of a future announcement in the **Federal Register** regarding proposed amendments to the 2008 Annual Reporting Manual for urbanized area transit agencies. For the 2007 and 2008 Report Years, any small rail systems will be able to get an automatic reporting waiver from the peak rail service requirements. FTA reminds the commenters that this proposal concerns only rail systems, and that this proposal does not apply to small transit agencies operating only motorbus and demand response services. One comment was received from a commuter rail transit agency that indicated that it collected tickets by hand on-board the trains, and so could not easily collect and report unlinked passenger trip data by time of day. Two comments suggested that some transit agencies could comply with FTA's proposal only by applying estimation factors to their actual total ridership counts. One comment asked if FTA would define a consistent peak service period across all rail agencies, or if each rail agency could define its own peak period. *FTA Responds:* FTA has updated the final 2007 Annual Manual to reflect the following guidance: Each rail transit agency may define its own peak period, based upon those times of a day at which it operates trains on shorter headways, relative to the rest of the day. Further, a rail transit agency may define an entire run of a train as being either “peak” or “off-peak.” As such, it would not be necessary for a rail transit agency to determine which persons boarded an individual train. Instead, peak service data could be provided based on the entire data for a given run of a train. Only if a rail transit agency is unable to collect even this data, a reasonable allocation factor may be used.

(b)Sampling Requirements for Small Urban Transit Agencies FTA received two comments on its proposal to require all transit agencies that are not required to sample every year to do so every third year. Previously, some transit agencies in small urbanized areas were only required to sample every fifth year. One small transit agency and one State public transportation association urged FTA to reconsider this proposal, arguing that the proposal would be too burdensome on small transit agencies. *FTA Responds:* FTA declines to adopt the commenters' suggestion to reinstitute a five year passenger mile sampling cycle for transit agencies in small urbanized areas. The previous requirements, with separate five year and three year sampling cycles for certain reporters, caused a great deal of confusion to reporters, and some transit agencies ended up sampling in the wrong year. Simplified requirements will ultimately benefit all transit agencies. Furthermore, the five-year sampling cycle was previously instituted at a time when transit performance data were not used for the apportionment of Urbanized Area Formula Grants (Section 5307 Grants) to small urbanized areas. With the passage of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005, however, transit performance data are now used in the apportionment of Section 5307 funds through the Small Transit-Intensive Cities

(STIC)Grant Program. As such, there is a greater need for high-quality passenger mile data in small urbanized areas, as passenger mile data for a transit agency in a small urbanized area impacts the Federal funding for transit not just in its own urbanized area, but in all other small urbanized areas, through the STIC apportionment formula. In order to reduce reporting burden, FTA currently only requires transit agencies to sample passenger miles so as to achieve 95% confidence with 10% precision. With a five-year sampling cycle, however, routine sampling errors can negatively impact STIC apportionments for five years until a new sample is conducted. A three-year sampling cycle will provide additional data to improve the overall quality of the passenger mile data used in the apportionment of Federal funds. FTA recognizes that sampling for passenger miles may be burdensome on transit agencies, particularly small ones. As such, FTA is undertaking an effort to revise its sampling guidelines, so as to reduce some of the reporting burden. FTA notes that the new sampling requirements will not impact transit agencies until the 2011 report year, as transit agencies on both the five-year and the three-year cycle were already required to sample for the 2008 report year under the old cycles.

(c)Rail Peak Service Data One comment requested further direction on FTA's proposal to expand its Federal Funding Allocation form to require transit agencies servicing one large urbanized area and two or more small urbanized areas to allocate their service data across the various small urbanized areas. (For NTD purposes, a large urbanized area is one with 200,000 or more in population, and a small urbanized area is one with less than 200,000 in population.) Previously, FTA's Federal Funding Allocation form only accounted for transit agencies serving one small urbanized area, not two or more. This comment expressed concern about the burden of conducting this allocation for the commenter's own agency. *FTA Responds:* FTA notes that the above comment came from a transit agency that serves two large urbanized areas, and only one small urbanized area. As such, the revised guidance does not apply to this transit agency. FTA notes that transit agencies should allocate data across various small urbanized areas in the same way in which many transit agencies already allocate data across various large urbanized areas. Additionally, FTA will provide guidance on this allocation through the 2007 Annual Manual, through NTD training sessions, and through technical assistance available from NTD validation analysts.

(d)Collection of Funding Data by Specific FTA Programs FTA received one comment in support of its proposal to collect funding data separately for each FTA Program, rather than through a catchall category for “Other FTA Funds.” *FTA Responds:* FTA thanks the commenter.

(e)CEO Certification Standard Form FTA received one comment on its proposal to create a standard CEO Certification Form. This commenter was concerned that the standard CEO Certification Form would not be able to accommodate its practice of filing its NTD report before receiving the final report from its auditor. *FTA Responds:* FTA notes that its proposed CEO Certification Form includes options 3a and 3b, each of which provides for a transit agency to file its NTD report before receiving the final report from its auditor.

(f)2007 Reporting Deadlines FTA received one comment that the ordinary reporting deadlines for transit agencies with 2007 fiscal years ending on or before June 30, 2007, would not be attainable, given that the 2007 Annual Reporting Manual was pending public notice-and-comment. *FTA Responds:* FTA agrees with this comment, and establishes the following 2007 NTD Reporting Deadlines for transit agencies with 2007 fiscal years ending on or before June 30, 2007: *Report Due Date:* November 30, 2007. *Waiver Request Deadline:* November 30, 2007. *Last Date to Receive Report Revisions:* May 1, 2008. *Report Closeout:* May 15, 2008. FTA does not change the deadlines for transit agencies with 2007 fiscal years ending after June 30, 2007. FTA further reminds transit agencies that pursuant to 49 CFR 630.6 NTD reporters may request a 30-day extension for submitting their reports.

(g)2007 Reporting Deadlines FTA received one comment proposing revised guidance for sampling passenger miles for vanpool service, which are currently covered by the Circular UMTA C 2710.21, issued in 1988. *FTA Responds:* The original **Federal Register** Notice announcing proposed amendments to the 2007 Annual Manual did not mention vanpool sampling guidelines or Circular UMTA C 2710.21. As noted above, FTA is currently considering revising its sampling guidance, and will take this comment under advisement in developing any such guidance. FTA will invite public guidance on revised guidance, once it has been developed. The final 2007 Reporting Manual, as amended, may be found on the Internet at *http://www.ntdprogram.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC, this 6th day of November 2007. James S. Simpson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-22063 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements; Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection abstracted below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. The nature of the information collection is described as well as its expected burden. The **Federal Register** Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on July 20, 2007. No comments were received. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 10, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rodney McFadden, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:

(202)366-2647; or *e-mail: Rodney.mcfadden@dot.gov* . Copies of this collection can also be obtained from that office. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maritime Administration (MARAD) *Title of Collection:* Supplementary Training Course Application. *Type of Request:* Extension of currently approved information collection. *OMB Control Number:* 2133-0030. *Expiration Date of Approval:* Three years from date of approval by the Office of Management and Budget. *Affected Public:* U.S. Merchant Marine Seamen, both officers and unlicensed personnel, and other U.S. citizens employed in other areas of waterborne commerce. *Form Numbers:* MA-823. *Abstract:* Section 1305(a) of the Maritime Education and Training Act of 1980 indicates that the Secretary of Transportation may provide maritime-related training to merchant mariners of the United States and to individuals preparing for a career in the merchant marine of the United States. Also, the U.S. Coast Guard requires a fire-fighting certificate for U.S. merchant marine officers. This collection provides the information necessary for the maritime schools to plan their course offerings and for applicants to complete their certificate requirements. *Expiration Date of Approval:* Three years from date of approval by the Office of Management and Budget. *Annual Estimated Burden Hours:* 500 hours. ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: MARAD Desk Officer. *Comments are invited on:* Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect, if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Dated: November 1, 2007. Christine S. Gurland, Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21965 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No. MARAD-2007 0007] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel MERRIE ELLEN. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2007-0007 at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S. vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before December 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2007-0007. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W21-203, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel MERRIE ELLEN is: *Intended Use:* “Sail training charters lasting several days during the summer months departing and returning to Pleasant Harbor”. *Geographic Region:* “The Hood Canal in the inland waters of the state of Washington”. 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 (FR 65 19477-19478). Dated: November 2, 2007. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Christine Gurland, Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21974 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No. MARAD-2007-0009] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel TRANQUILO. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, are listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2007-0009 at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S. vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before December 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2007-0009. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://www.regulations.gov.* All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W21-203, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel TRANQUILO is: *Intended Use:* “passenger charter.” *Geographic Region:* “State of Wisconsin and Michigan waters, Bay of Green Bay and Lake Michigan”. 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). Dated: November 2, 2007. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Christine Gurland, Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E7-21975 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0029] Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Request for public comments 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 agency 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 OM B approval. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0029] by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *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 S.E., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone: 1-800-647-5527. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *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) or you may visit *http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.* *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anetris Campbell at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Rulemaking (NVS-100), 202-366-0933. 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W45-331, Washington, DC 20590. 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:

(i)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; 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:* 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defects, and Noncompliance Orders. *OMB Number:* 2127-0046. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Form Number:* This collection of information uses no standard forms. Abstract: 49 U.S.C. 30162 specifies that any “interested person may file a petition with the Secretary of Transportation requesting the Secretary to begin a proceeding” to prescribe a motor vehicle safety standard under 49 U.S.C. chapter 301, or to decide whether to issue an order under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b). 49 U.S.C. 30111 gives the Secretary authority to prescribe motor vehicle safety standards. 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) gives the Secretary authority to issue an order to a manufacturer to notify vehicle or equipment owners, purchasers, and dealers of the defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Section 30162 further specifies that all petitions filed under its authority shall set forth the facts, which it is claimed establish that an order is necessary and briefly describe the order the Secretary should issue. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 20. *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 Departments 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: November 6, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-22074 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0023] Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles Are Eligible for Importation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles are eligible for importation. SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because

(1)they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and

(2)they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards. DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *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:* Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *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) or you may visit *http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.* *How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket:* You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given above. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:

(1)Go to the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)Web page *http://www.regulations.gov.*

(2)On that page, click on “search for dockets.”

(3)On the next page ( *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main* ), select NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION from the drop-down menu in the Agency field, enter the Docket ID number and title shown at the heading of this document, and select “Nonrulemaking” from the drop-down menu in the Type field and “Vehicle Import Eligibility” in the drop-down menu in the Sub-Type field.

(4)After entering that information, click on “submit.”

(5)The next page contains docket summary information for the docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see. You may download the comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, instead of the word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the documents are word searchable. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for new material. Background Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the **Federal Register** of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the **Federal Register.** Barry Taylor Enterprises of Richmond, California (BTE)(Registered Importer 01-280) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which BTE believes are substantially similar are 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles that were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS. The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most FMVSS. BTE submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2001 Chevrolet Tahoe multipurpose passenger vehicles are identical to their U.S.-certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 101 *Controls and Displays,* 102 *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect,* 103 *Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems,* 104 *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems,* 106 *Brake Hoses,* 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment,* 111 *Rearview Mirrors,* 113 *Hood Latch System,* 114 *Theft Protection,* 116 *Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids,* 118 *Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems,* 119 *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars,* 120 *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars,* 124 *Accelerator Control Systems,* 135 *Passenger Car Brake Systems,* 201 *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,* 202 *Head Restraints,* 204 *Steering Control Rearward Displacement,* 205 *Glazing Materials,* 206 *Door Locks and Door Retention Components,* 207 *Seating Systems,* 208 *Occupant Crash Protection,* 210 *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages,* 212 *Windshield Mounting,* 214 *Side Impact Protection,* 216 *Roof Crush Resistance,* 219 *Windshield Zone Intrusion,* 225 *Child Restraint Anchorage Systems,* 301 *Fuel System Integrity,* and 302 *Flammability of Interior Materials.* The petitioner additionally states that the vehicle identification plates affixed to the vehicles meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated: Standard No. 209 *Seat Belt Assemblies:* Inspection of all vehicles and installation, on vehicles that are not already so equipped, of U.S.-model components to meet the requirements of this standard. All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the authority indicated below. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: November 5, 2007. Harry Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. E7-21967 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0021] Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 2000-2003 BMW C1 Motorcycles Are Eligible for Importation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2000-2003 BMW C1 motorcycles are eligible for importation. SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2000-2003 BMW C1 motorcycles that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all such standards. DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** . ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above and be submitted by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *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:* Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *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) or you may visit *http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.* *How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket:* You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given above. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:

(1)Go to the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)Web page *http://www.regulations.gov.*

(2)On that page, click on “search for dockets.”

(3)On the next page ( *http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main* ), select National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from the drop-down menu in the Agency field, enter the Docket ID number and title shown at the heading of this document, and select “Nonrulemaking” from the drop-down menu in the Type field and “Vehicle Import Eligibility” in the drop-down menu in the Sub-Type field.

(4)After entering that information, click on “submit.”

(a)Headlamps;

(b)front and rear side-mounted reflex reflectors;

(c)rear-mounted reflex reflector;

(d)tail lamp assembly; and

(e)front and rear turn signal lamps. Standard No. 111 *Rearview Mirrors:* inspection of all vehicles and installation of U.S.-model rearview mirrors on vehicles not already so equipped. Standard No. 120 *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars:* installation of a tire information placard. Standard No. 123 *Motorcycle Controls and Displays:*

(a)installation of a U.S.-model speedometer, or modification of the speedometer so that it reads in miles per hour; and

(b)installation of an ignition switch label. All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the authority indicated below. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: November 5, 2007. Harry Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. E7-21969 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0026; Notice 1] General Motors Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance General Motors Corporation

(GM)has determined that certain model year 2006 & 2007 motor vehicles equipped with remote start systems that it manufactured prior to May of 2007, did not fully comply with paragraph S7.3(a)(1) of 49 CFR 571.208, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection* . GM has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, *Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports* . Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), GM has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. This notice of receipt of GM's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition. Affected are approximately 146,360 model year 2006 & 2007 motor vehicles including; Buick Lacrosse and Pontiac Grand Prix passenger cars; and Buick Terraza, Chevrolet Uplander, Pontiac Montana SV6 and Saturn Relay multipurpose passenger vehicles. GM certified these vehicles to paragraph S7.3(a)(1) of 49 CFR 571.208 which requires: S7.3

(a)A seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position shall be equipped with a warning system that, at the option of the manufacturer, either—

(1)Activates a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds and that activates a continuous or flashing warning light visible to the driver displaying the identifying symbol for the seat belt telltale shown in Table 2 of FMVSS 101 or, at the option of the manufacturer if permitted by FMVSS 101, displaying the words ”Fasten Seat Belts” or ”Fasten Belts”, for not less than 60 seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the ”on” or the ”start” position) when condition(b) exists simultaneously with condition(c) * * *

(b)The vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the ”on” position or to the ”start” position.

(c)The driver's lap belt is not in use, as determined, at the option of the manufacturer, either by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened, or by the belt not being extended at least 4 inches from its stowed position. GM explains that under certain circumstances following a remote engine start that the seatbelt assembly warning system audible signal and/or the telltale warning light do not always activate as required to fully comply FMVSS No. 208. The vehicles in question fall into two groups. The first group contains only 2006 model year vehicles. The second group consists of a few late production 2006 multipurpose passenger vehicles and all the 2007 vehicles reported. For simplification, these groups are referenced hereafter as the 2006 and the 2007s. GM states that when a subject vehicle's engine is started using the ignition key (not with remote start), three warning cycles are provided to unbelted occupants for the 2007 vehicles. The first warning cycle satisfies the requirements specified in FMVSS 208 S7.3(a)(1) for the unbuckled driver. The second and third cycles provide additional audible and telltale warnings, of the same duration required by the standard, for drivers who remain unbuckled. The 2006 vehicles receive only the first cycle of driver and passenger warnings. If at anytime the driver buckles, the warnings will cease. GM additionally explains that in some cases, if the vehicle is started using the remote start function the seatbelt assembly warning system will not activate upon key rotation to the “RUN” position as specified by FMVSS No. 208 S7.3(a)(l). For both 2006 and 2007 vehicles following remote start, an audible warning will sound when the key is rotated to the “RUN” position, but the required telltale warning may not be provided. The length of the telltale warning for the first warning cycle is decreased by the amount of time between when the engine is started and when the key is turned to the “RUN” position. The driver, buckled or unbuckled, receives an audible warning except in the situation where the front passenger buckles between 25 and 33 seconds following the remote start (in effect buckling in response to the chime and silencing it before the driver enters the vehicle). For the 2006 vehicles, as originally manufactured, there were no supplemental warning signal cycles. The 2007 vehicles were provided with an enhanced safety belt reminder system that will activate if front outboard occupants are not belted and the vehicle speed is above 5 mph. The 2007 vehicles will provide two cycles of audible and visual belt warning notice in such conditions. GM also provided a detailed explanation of the reasons why it believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. In summary, GM states that for all of the subject vehicles, the unbuckled driver receives a warning when the ignition key is turned to the “RUN” position essentially every time:

(1)When the vehicles are started with its ignition key, the required seat belt warnings are provided.

(2)When the 2007 vehicles and the upgraded 1 2006 vehicles are started remotely, the unbuckled driver receives, at a minimum, the audible warning when the ignition key turned to the “RUN” position plus 2 cycles of visual and audible warning when the vehicle's speed reaches 5 Miles per hour (mph). 1 General Motors has initiated a Customer Satisfaction Program to upgrade the belt reminder system on the 2006 vehicles to provide three sets of warning cycles as implemented on the 2007 vehicles and has sent letters to the customers of those vehicles informing them of this.

(3)When the 2006 vehicles are started remotely, the unbuckled driver will receive, at a minimum, the audible warning. The only exception for where an audible warning is not provided is when the front passenger buckles between 25 and 33 seconds following the remote start (in effect buckling in response to the chime and silencing it before the driver enters the vehicle). GM states that it believes that because the noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety that no further corrective action is warranted. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by any of the following methods: a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays. c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov/* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed to 1-202-493-2251. The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the authority indicated below. Comment closing date: December 10, 2007. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: November 2, 2007. Harry Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. E7-22057 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0020] Controls, Telltales and Indicators AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of draft interpretation; request for comments. SUMMARY: In past interpretations, NHTSA has taken the position that redundant displays, voluntarily provided by the vehicle manufacturer, need not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 101 *Controls, Telltales, and Indicators* , if another display fully meets the standard's requirements. This document sets forth a draft interpretation addressing whether this principle should apply to redundant telltales “of particular safety significance” placed in “common spaces.” We have tentatively concluded that the principle should not be extended to these telltales. DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in the heading of this document by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* Docket Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the Submission of Comments heading under the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Submission of Comments. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or to the DOT Docket Operations, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:

(202)366-2992, Fax:

(202)366-3820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Purpose of a Draft Interpretation B. Redundant Displays C. “Telltales of Particular Safety Significance” in a “Common Space” II. Draft Interpretation III. Submission of Comments I. Background A. Purpose of a Draft Interpretation One of the functions performed by NHTSA's Chief Counsel is to issue interpretations of the statutes and regulations administered by the agency. These interpretations are typically issued in the form of a letter responding to a request for interpretation from a manufacturer or other interested entity. Our interpretations have always been placed in public viewing files and, more recently, have been available to the public on the NHTSA Web site. We believe that, in certain cases, and including those potentially affecting parties who may have relied on previous interpretations, it is beneficial to publish new interpretations in draft form in the **Federal Register** to provide an opportunity for public comment before deciding whether to make them final. This will help ensure that we have considered all relevant issues and viewpoints prior to adopting and publishing a final interpretation. B. Redundant Displays Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Controls, Telltales and Indicators,* specifies performance requirements for location, identification, color, and illumination of motor vehicle controls, telltales and indicators. The purpose of FMVSS No. 101 (at S2.) is to: * * * ensure the accessibility, visibility and recognition of motor vehicle controls, telltales, and indicators, and to facilitate the proper selection of controls under daylight and nighttime conditions, in order to reduce the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the driving task, and by mistakes in selecting controls. FMVSS No. 101 does not itself require that any particular controls, telltales or indicators be furnished, although several of the controls, telltales or indicators regulated by the standard are required by other safety standards. The standard instead provides that if certain controls, telltales or indicators are furnished, they must meet the requirements of the standard. In general, controls, telltales or indicators not listed in the standard are not subject to its requirements. In past interpretations of FMVSS No. 101, NHTSA has taken the position that redundant, voluntarily provided displays need not meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 101, if another display fully meets the standard's requirements. This principle is expressed in letters such as an April 13, 1988 letter to Mr. Robert A. Rogers of General Motors Corporation (GM). In writing to NHTSA, GM noted that S5.3.4(b) (as stated back in 1988) of FMVSS No. 101 stated in part that “that telltales and identification for brakes, highbeams, turn signals, and safety belts may not be adjustable under any driving condition to a level that is invisible.” GM sought NHTSA's concurrence that variable illumination intensity, including levels at which the displays would not be visible, was permissible for the redundant (but not the other) turn signal and highbeam telltales. NHTSA's response to GM stated in part: Your letter raises the issue of how the requirements of Standard No. 101 apply to redundant displays. It is our opinion that where a manufacturer provides more than one of a particular display listed in Standard No. 101, e.g., two speedometers, the requirements of the standard for that listed display are met if one of the displays complies with the standard's requirements. The standard's purposes of ensuring the accessibility and visibility of a particular display are fully satisfied by the complying display. Thus, the requirements need not be met again for a redundant display. * * * C. “Telltales of Particular Safety Significance” in a “Common Space” For many years, FVMSS No. 101 specified that a common space may be used to display messages from any source, subject to several requirements. One of the requirements was that the telltales for the brake, high beam, turn signal, and safety belt (“telltales of particular safety significance”) may not be shown in the common space. This requirement ensured that these “telltales of particular safety significance” are always visible to the driver. In a September 23, 2003 (68 FR 55217) notice of proposed rulemaking to update FMVSS No. 101, we proposed, among other matters, to permit “telltales of particular safety significance” to be in a common space, but with the restriction that such telltales could not share a common space with other specified “telltales of particular safety significance” that were listed. We further proposed that if one of these “telltales of particular safety significance” is activated, it would be required to displace any other symbol or message in that common space while the underlying condition that caused the telltale's activation exists. We did not receive any public comments on the proposed changes to the common space for displaying multiple messages, especially regarding “telltales of particular safety significance.” Therefore, in a final rule of August 17, 2005 (70 FR 48305), we stated that we were adding to S5.5, specified “telltales of particular safety significance” that were proposed in the NPRM. We noted that: “The changes adopted in this final rule continue to ensure that these telltales of particular safety significance, if activated, will always be visible to the driver, but give vehicle manufacturers increased flexibility in instrument panel design.” In a subsequent final rule in response to petitions for reconsideration published on May 15, 2006 (71 FR 27964), we amended S5.5.2 to read: S5.5.2 The telltales for any brake system malfunction required by Table 1 to be red, air bag malfunction, low tire pressure, passenger air bag off, high beam, turn signal, and seat belt must not be shown in the same common space. II. Draft Interpretation In a request for an interpretation, Suzuki asked about the requirements of the August 17, 2005 final rule amending FMVSS No. 101, and specifically those of S5.5, * Common space for displaying multiple messages. * That company cited a possible design where there is a telltale “provided in the instrument cluster” that meets all applicable FMVSS No. 101 requirements. As a specific example, it cited the low tire pressure telltale, described in the August 2005 final rule as a telltale “of particular safety significance.” (See 70 FR 48300). Suzuki asked two questions regarding a “redundant” telltale (using the low tire pressure telltale as an example) provided in a common space for displaying multiple messages. Suzuki's first question was whether a redundant telltale “of particular safety significance” provided in the common space must meet the color requirements in Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101. It stated its view that since the telltale in the common space is voluntary and not provided to meet FMVSS No. 101, the color requirement would not apply. That company's second question was whether the requirement in S5.5.5 that the telltale provided in the common space must displace any other symbol or message in the common space while the underlying condition for the telltale's activation exists applies. It stated its view that since the telltale in the instrument cluster (i.e., the telltale that meets all applicable FMVSS No. 101 requirements) would be illuminated for as long as the underlying condition exists, it is not necessary for the telltale provided in the common space to displace other symbols or messages. Suzuki's request for interpretation raises the issue of whether the principle that redundant displays voluntarily provided by the vehicle manufacturer need not meet all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 101 *Controls, Telltales, and Indicators,* should apply to redundant telltales “of particular safety significance” placed in “common spaces.” As discussed below, we have tentatively concluded that this principle should not be extended to that situation. As indicated by our 1988 letter to GM, the agency has followed the principle at issue based on the premise that where a manufacturer provides more than one of a particular display listed in FMVSS No. 101, the standard's purposes of ensuring the accessibility and visibility of that type of display are fully satisfied if one of the displays meets the requirements of the standard. However, in developing both the previous and revised requirements related to telltales in common spaces, NHTSA had special concern about ensuring the effectiveness of telltales of particular safety significance in common spaces. Given the special requirements that were developed to address that concern, we have tentatively concluded that this principle should not be extended to telltales of particular safety significance in common spaces. Even if such telltales are viewed as redundant, drivers may come to rely on these telltales. Failure of the telltale to meet the specified color requirements or to displace another message could reduce the safety of the vehicle. Accordingly, it is our tentative conclusion that the telltales of particular safety significance listed in S5.5 1 and provided in a common space must meet the full requirements of FMVSS No. 101 regardless of whether a separate telltale is also provided. 1 See S5.5.2, S5.5.5, and S5.5.6(b). As indicated above, Suzuki's first question was whether a redundant telltale “of particular safety significance” provided in the common space must meet the color requirements in Table 1 of FMVSS No. 101. For the reasons discussed above, our tentative answer is yes. That company's second question was whether the requirement in S5.5.5 that the telltale provided in the common space must displace any other symbol or message in the common space while the underlying condition for the telltale's activation exists applies. For reasons discussed above, our tentative answer is yes. III. Submission of Comments How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments? Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit your comments by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received? If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. 2 2 *See* 49 CFR § 512. In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above. Will the Agency Consider Late Comments? We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments received after that date. How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People? You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document (e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other interested persons) at any time by going to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the street address given above under ADDRESSES . The Docket Management Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/.* Issued on: October 26, 2007. Anthony M. Cooke, Chief Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-21431 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 35092] Progressive Rail Inc.—Continuance in Control Exemption—Montgomery Short Line LLC Progressive Rail Inc.

(PRI)has filed a verified notice of exemption to continue in control of Montgomery Short Line LLC (MSL), upon MSL's becoming a Class III rail carrier. 1 1 MSL is a wholly owned subsidiary of PRI. This transaction is related to a concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 35093, *Montgomery Short Line LLC—Lease and Operation Exemption—Union Pacific Railroad Company.* In that proceeding, MSL seeks to lease and operate approximately 23.5 miles of rail line owned by the Union Pacific Railroad Company from Merriam to the end of the track near Montgomery, in Scott and Le Sueur Counties, MN. PRI intends to consummate the transaction on or after November 24, 2007, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was filed). PRI is a common carrier by rail that owns and operates lines in the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin. PRI also currently controls Central Midland Railway Company, a Class III rail carrier, that owns and operates rail property interests in Missouri. PRI represents that:

(1)The rail lines to be leased by MSL do not connect with it or any other railroad in their corporate family;

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

(3)the transaction does not involve a Class I rail carrier. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323. *See* 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2). Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all the carriers involved are Class III rail carriers. If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio.* Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than November 16, 2007 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective). An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 35092, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Michael J. Barron, Jr., Fletcher & Sippel, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606-2832. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Decided: November 1, 2007. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-21958 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 35093] Montgomery Short Line LLC—Lease and Operation Exemption—Union Pacific Railroad Company Montgomery Short Line LLC (MSL), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease, pursuant to an agreement to be executed prior to consummation with Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), and to operate approximately 23.5 miles of rail line known as the Montgomery, Minnesota Subdivision from milepost 38.7 near Merriam, to milepost 62.2 at the end of the track near Montgomery, in Scott and Le Sueur Counties, MN. As a result of this transaction:

(1)MSL will become the exclusive operator of rail freight service over the line;

(2)UP and MSL will interchange traffic at Merriam; and

(3)UP will retain the right to operate passenger trains over the line. This transaction is related to the concurrently filed notice of exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 35092, *Progressive Rail Inc.—Continuance in Control Exemption—Montgomery Short Line LLC* , wherein Progressive Rail Inc. seeks to continue in control of MSL upon its becoming a rail carrier. MSL certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million. The transaction is expected to be consummated on or after November 24, 2007, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was filed). If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio.* Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than November 16, 2007 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective). An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 35093, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Michael J. Barron, Jr., Fletcher & Sippel, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606-2832. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http:www.stb.gov.* Decided: November 1, 2007. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-21956 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Fiscal Service Fee Schedule for the Transfer of U.S. Treasury Book-Entry Securities Held on the National Book-Entry System AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury is announcing a new fee schedule applicable to transfers of U.S. Treasury book-entry securities maintained on the National Book-Entry System

(NBES)that occur on or after January 2, 2008. The basic fee for the transfer of a Treasury book-entry security will increase from $.26 to $.28. The Federal Reserve funds movement fee will remain at $.05, resulting in a combined fee of $.33 for each Treasury securities transfer. In addition to the basic fee, off-line transfers have a surcharge. The surcharge for an off-line Treasury book-entry transfer will remain $33.00. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Sharer, Government Securities Specialist, Bureau of the Public Debt, 799 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20239, telephone

(202)504-3658; Kristina Yeh, Financial Systems Analyst, Bureau of the Public Debt, 799 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20239, telephone

(202)504-3679; Ed Errigo, Financing Specialist, Bureau of the Public Debt, 799 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20239, telephone

(202)504-3611; Terri Roddy, Financial Systems Analyst, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 3rd Street, Room 527, Parkersburg, WV 26106, telephone

(304)480-6035. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Treasury has established a fee structure for the transfer of Treasury book-entry securities maintained on NBES. Treasury reassesses this fee structure periodically, based on our review of the latest book-entry costs and volumes. For each Treasury securities transfer or reversal sent or received on or after January 2, 2008, the basic fee will increase to $.28 from $.26. The surcharge for an off-line Treasury book-entry transfer will remain $33.00. The basic transfer fee assessed to both sends and receives is reflective of costs associated with the processing of a security transfer. The off-line surcharge reflects the additional processing costs associated with the manual processing of off-line securities transfers. The Treasury does not charge a fee for account maintenance, the stripping and reconstitution of Treasury securities, the wires associated with original issues, or interest and redemption payments. The Treasury currently absorbs these costs and will continue to do so. The fees described in this notice apply only to the transfer of Treasury book-entry securities held on NBES. Information concerning fees for book-entry transfers of Government Agency securities, which are priced by the Federal Reserve System, is set out in a separate **Federal Register** notice published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on {add date and docket number}. The following is the Treasury fee schedule that will take effect on January 2, 2008, for the book-entry transfers on NBES: Treasury-NBES Fee Schedule 1 —Effective January 2, 2008 [In dollars] Transfer type Basic fee Off-line surcharge Funds 2 movement fee Total fee On-line transfer originated .28 N/A .05 .33 On-line transfer received .28 N/A .05 .33 On-line reversal transfer originated .28 N/A .05 .33 On-line reversal transfer received .28 N/A .05 .33 Off-line transfer originated .28 33.00 .05 33.33 Off-line transfer received .28 33.00 .05 33.33 Off-line account switch received .28 .00 .05 .33 Off-line reversal transfer originated .28 33.00 .05 33.33 Off-line reversal transfer received .28 33.00 .05 33.33 1 The Treasury does not charge a fee for account maintenance, the stripping and reconstituting of Treasury securities, the wires associated with original issues, or interest and redemption payments. The Treasury currently absorbs these costs and will continue to do so. 2 The funds movement fee is not a Treasury fee, but is charged by the Federal Reserve for the cost of moving funds associated with the transfer of a Treasury book-entry security. Authority: 31 CFR 357.45. Dated: October 4, 2007. Kenneth E. Carfine, Fiscal Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E7-22007 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-39-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Central Withholding Agreement AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning instructions on how to apply for a Central Withholding Agreement. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before January 8, 2008 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Glenn Kirkland, Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Allan Hopkins, at

(202)622-6665, or at Internal Revenue Service, room 6129, 1111 Constitution, Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet, at *Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Title:* Central Withholding Agreement. *OMB Number:* 1545-XXXX *Abstract:* The collection is not necessary for IRS purposes. If the individual wishes to have a Central Withholding Agreement (CWA), this instructs him how to make his application for consideration. IRC Section 1441(a) requires withholding on certain payments of Non Resident Aliens (NRAs). Section 1.1441-4(b)(3) of the Income Tax Regulations provides that the withholding can be considered for adjustment if a CWA is applied for and granted. *Current Actions:* There are no changes being made to the form at this time. *Type of Review:* New collection. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 500. *Estimated Time per Respondent:* 4 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 2,000. The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice: An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. *Request for Comments:* Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. *Comments are Invited on:*

(a)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

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

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Approved: November 5, 2007. Glenn Kirkland, IRS Reports Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21963 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision [AC-20: OTS Nos. 17022, H3882, H3883, and H4438] Atlantic Coast Bank, Atlantic Coast Federal, M.H.C., Atlantic Coast Federal Corporation, and Atlantic Coast Financial Corporation, Waycross, Georgia; Approval of Conversion Application Notice is hereby given that on October 12, 2007, the Office of Thrift Supervision approved the application of Atlantic Coast Federal, M.H.C., and Atlantic Coast Bank, Waycross, Georgia, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection by appointment (phone number: 202-906-5922 or e-mail: *Public.Info@OTS.Treas.gov* ) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20522, and OTS Southeast Regional Office, 1475 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, GA 30309. Dated: November 5, 2007. By the Office of Thrift Supervision. Sandra E. Evans, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 07-5604 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 17

Traces to 17 documents

U.S. Code