Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2004 / Notices 65495

equipment manufacturer modifies the 

system. Applying that paragraph to nonOEM replacement parts, the non-OEM 

supplier may obtain certified 

equipment, substitute its own 

replacement part(s), and submit the 

modified device to a third party 

certification body for testing. Non-OEMs 

seeking interim certification of their 

replacement parts in OEM lighting 

equipment will be required to follow the 

same procedures as OEMs of lighting 

equipment as provided in paragraph 2a 

of AC 150/5345–53B. Also, these nonOEMs will be required to pay for the 

costs of testing their products in OEM 

lighting equipment, just as OEMs, under 

paragraph 2b of that advisory circular 

bear, the costs of testing their 

equipment. The addendum to AC 150/

5345/53B will be modified to include 

equipment certified in this manner with 

specific substitute part(s). Separate tests 

will be required for each combination of 

substitute parts (e.g., a supplier selling 

both a flash tube and a timing circuit 

must have a device certified with each 

part substituted independently, and 

then together). 

As part of this interim procedure, 

non-OEM components will be subject to 

Appendix 2 of AC 150/5345–53B with 

the following exception. Paragraph 7 of 

Appendix 2 of that AC notes that 

‘‘substitution of stock electrical items 

such as resistors, capacitors, transistors, 

etc., which are identical in form, fit, and 

function and which are equal to or 

better in quality and rating is 

permissible.’’ This exemption is not 

extended automatically to non-OEM 

suppliers, as OEM specifications for 

stock items may be more stringent than 

those applied by the manufacturers of 

those items. However, this exemption 

may be granted at the third party 

certification body’s judgment. The 

requirements of Appendix 5, Lamp Life 

Test Procedure, in AC 150–5345–53B, 

will apply to replacement lamps. Upon 

the issuance of any permanent change to 

the certification program, the FAA will 

decide if substitute parts certified under 

this interim program will require further 

testing to retain certified status.

Issued in Washington DC, on November 4, 

2004. 

J.R. White, 

Director of Airport Safety and Standards.

[FR Doc. 04–25209 Filed 11–10–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: San 

Bernardino County, CA

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is republishing 

this notice to advise the public that an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

is being prepared for the proposed 

highway project along State Route 18 in 

San Bernardino County, California. It is 

being republished due to the length of 

time since the original Notice of Intent 

(NOI) was published, which was August 

30, 1990 (Federal Register, vol. 55, no. 

169) and project changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ce ́sar E. Pe ́rez, Team Leader—South 

Region, Federal Highway 

Administration, 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 

4–100, Sacramento, California 95814, 

Telephone: (916) 498–5065.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

FHWA, in cooperation with the 

California Department of 

Transportation, is preparing an EIS for 

the proposed Big Bear Lake Dam Bridge 

Replacement Project on State Route 18 

in San Bernardino County, California. 

The proposed project will facilitate 

completion of the Big Bear Dam 

spillway project, move vehicular traffic 

off the dam structure, and improve the 

geometrics of the approach roadways. 

Existing State Route 18, within the 

project limits (kilo-post miles 71.1/71.9 

[post miles 44.2/44.7]) has curves where 

the posted speed limit is less than 25 

miles per hour. These curves will be 

realigned and the overall roadway 

brought up to current design standards 

within the project limits. This includes 

a wider bridge with three lanes to 

accommodate existing and future travel 

demands within the Big Bear Lake area, 

as well as 10-foot shoulders to 

accommodate nonmotorized travel and 

better facilitate winter snow removal. 

The original NOI proposed four lanes. 

The U.S. Forest Service is a 

cooperating agency. Consultation with 

the U.S. Forest Services has been, and 

will continue to be, undertaken to 

minimize impacts to the surrounding 

San Bernardino National Forest 

associated with the construction of the 

proposed project. 

Alternatives currently under 

consideration are the result of the 1990 

public and agency scoping meetings, as 

well as comments received from 

multiple public information meetings/

open houses held in the Big Bear area. 

These alternatives include: Alternative 

1—No Action; Alternative 4—construct 

new bridge upstream of the existing 

bridge crossing over Big Bear Lake; and 

alternative 5—construct new bridge 

crossing over Bear Creek Canyon 

downstream of the existing bridge. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 were eliminated 

after initial scoping due to a higher level 

of anticipated impacts to properties 

eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places and a larger 

impact area and subsequent adverse 

impacts to biological and visual 

resources. In addition, Alternative 2 

would have replaced the roadway on 

the existing bridge. Seismic concerns 

and conflicts with operation of the dam 

also supported the decision to eliminate 

replacing the roadway on the existing 

bridge as was identified as an 

alternative in the 1990 NOI. 

Letters describing the proposed action 

and soliciting comments were 

previously sent to appropriate Federal, 

State, and local agencies, and to private 

organizations and citizens who have 

expressed, or are known to have, an 

interest in this proposal. A formal 

agency scoping meeting was held June 

5, 1990, in the City of Big Bear Lake, 

California. A public scoping meeting 

was held July 9, 1990, also in the City 

of Big Bear Lake, California. At the 

request of the Big Bear Kiwanis and Big 

Bear Lions Clubs, the proposed project 

was presented to the clubs in the City 

of Big Bear Lake, California, on May 15, 

1990, and August 16, 1990, respectively. 

On August 8, 1997, in the City of Big 

Bear Lake, California, a public 

participation meeting was held in 

accordance with the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation Regulations 

regarding section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act to discuss/

comment on the draft Finding of Effect. 

Public information meetings/open 

houses were held in the City of Big Bear 

Lake, California, on September 30, 1997, 

and May 3, 2001, to keep the public up 

to date and continue with the public 

information program. Finally, public 

agency coordination and update 

meetings were also held on May 2, 2002, 

and August 20, 2003. The public 

information program will continue 

throughout the environmental process. 

To ensure that the full range of issues 

related to this proposed action are 

addressed, and all significant issues are 

identified, comments and suggestions 

are invited from all interested parties. 

Comments or questions concerning this 

proposed action and the EIS should be 

directed to the FHWA at the address 

previously provided in this notice. The 

Draft EIS will be available for public 

and agency review and comment prior 

65496 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 218 / Friday, November 12, 2004 / Notices 

to the public hearing for the proposed 

action. It is anticipated that the Draft 

EIS will be available for review in early 

2005.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulation 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program)

Issued on: November 5, 2004. 

Mr. John E. Dewar, 

Acting Chief Operating Officer, Sacramento, 

California.

[FR Doc. 04–25194 Filed 11–10–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration 

Request for Comments

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice 

announces that the Information 

Collection Requirement (ICR) abstracted 

below has been forwarded to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and comment. The ICR describes 

the nature of the information collection 

and its expected burden. The Federal 

Register notice with a 60-day comment 

period soliciting comments on the 

following collection of information was 

published on September 2, 2004 (69 FR 

53765).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before December 13, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, 

Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS–

21, Federal Railroad Administration, 

1120 Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 25, 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 

493–6292), or Ms. Debra Steward, Office 

of Information Technology and 

Productivity Improvement, RAD–20, 

Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 

Vermont Ave., NW., Mail Stop 35, 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 

493–6139). (These telephone numbers 

are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Pub. L. No. 104–13, Section 2, 

109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised 

at 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), and its 

implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 

1320, require Federal agencies to issue 

two notices seeking public comment on 

information collection activities before 

OMB may approve paperwork packages. 

44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 

1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On September 2, 

2004, FRA published a 60-day notice in 

the Federal Register soliciting comment 

on ICRs that the agency was seeking 

OMB approval. 69 FR 53765. FRA 

received no comments in response to 

this notice. 

Before OMB decides whether to 

approve these proposed collections of 

information, it must provide 30 days for 

public comment. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 

CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires 

OMB to approve or disapprove 

paperwork packages between 30 and 60 

days after the 30 day notice is 

published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)–(c); 5 CFR 

1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, 

Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 

day notice informs the regulated 

community to file relevant comments 

and affords the agency adequate time to 

digest public comments before it 

renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 

29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should 

submit their respective comments to 

OMB within 30 days of publication to 

best ensure having their full effect. 5 

CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60 FR 44983, 

Aug. 29, 1995. 

The summary below describes the 

nature of the information collection 

requirement (ICR) and the expected 

burden, and is being submitted for 

clearance by OMB as required by the 

PRA. 

Title: Safety Appliance Concern 

Recommendation Report; Safety 

Appliance Standards Guidance 

Checklist Forms. 

OMB Control Number: 2130–NEW. 

Type of Request: New collection. 

Affected Public: Businesses. 

Abstract: In an ongoing effort to 

conduct more thorough and more 

effective inspections of railroad freight 

equipment and to further enhance safe 

rail operations, FRA has developed a 

safety concern recommendation report 

form, and a group of guidance checklist 

forms that will facilitate railroad, rail 

car owner, and rail equipment 

manufacturer compliance with agency 

Railroad Safety Appliance Standards 

regulations. In lieu of completing an 

official inspection form (FRA F 

6180.96), which takes subject railroad 

equipment out of service and disrupts 

rail operations, proposed new Form 

FRA F 6180.4a will enable Federal and 

State safety inspectors to report to 

agency headquarters systemic or other 

safety concerns. FRA headquarters 

safety specialists can then contact 

railroads, car owners, and equipment 

manufacturers to address the reported 

issue(s) in a timely fashion without 

unnecessarily having to take affected 

rail equipment out of service, unless 

deemed defective. Proposed forms FRA 

F 6180.4(b)–(m) will be used in 

conjunction with the Special Inspection 

of Safety Appliance Equipment form 

(Form FRA F 6180.4) to assist Motive, 

Power, and Equipment (MP&E) field 

inspectors in ensuring that critical 

sections of 49 CFR part 231 (Railroad 

Safety Appliance Standards), pertaining 

to various types of freight equipment, 

are complied with through the use of a 

check-off list. By simplifying their 

demanding work, check-off lists for 12 

essential sections of part 231 will ensure 

that FRA MP&E field personnel 

completely and thoroughly inspect each 

type of freight car for compliance with 

its corresponding section in part 231. 

The proposed Guidance Checklist forms 

may later be used by state field 

inspectors as well. FRA believes that the 

proposed collection of information will 

result in improved construction of 

newly designed freight cars and 

improved field inspections of all freight 

cars currently in use. This, in turn, will 

serve to reduce the number of accidents/

incidents and corresponding injuries 

and fatalities that occur every year due 

to unsafe or defective equipment that 

was not promptly repaired/replaced. 

Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 240 

hours. 

Addressee: Send comments regarding 

this information collection to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, 

DC, 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. 

Comments Are Invited on the 

Following: Whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Department, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

Department’s estimate of the burden of 

the proposed information collection; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

A comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register.

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.