Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2010 / Notices 75539 

(D2) Section 4(f) Documentation— 

MOU Section 5.1.1 affirms that Caltrans 

is subject to the same procedural and 

substantive requirements that apply to 

DOT in carrying out the responsibilities 

assumed under the Pilot Program. The 

SER Chapter 20, Section 4(f) and 

Related Requirements, sets forth 

procedures for documenting impacts to 

Section 4(f) properties in Caltransassigned environmental documents, 

while the Forms and Templates section 

of the SER contains annotated outlines 

for such documents, including 

appropriate language for addressing de 

minimis impacts (49 U.S.C. 303(d); 23 

U.S.C. 139(b); 23 CFR 774.17). As was 

also noted in the fourth FHWA audit of 

the Pilot Program, project file reviews 

and interviews with staff during this 

audit identified inconsistencies in the 

documentation requirements for 

carrying out the Section 4(f) provisions. 

These included: 

(a) For a bridge replacement project 

located within a National Forest, no 

documentation was provided in the EA 

document or in the project file regarding 

the Section 4(f) status of the recreational 

facilities in the immediate project 

vicinity or any possible project impacts 

to those resources; 

(b) A project file contained a letter 

from the official with jurisdiction over 

the Section 4(f) recreational resource 

stating the impacts to the resource 

would be de minimis. Neither the EA 

document nor the project file contained 

the supporting documentation for that 

determination, as required under 23 

CFR 774.7(b). 

(c) The Section 4(f) discussion in the 

environmental document of another 

project (for which no NEPA approval 

had been made at the time of the audit) 

was unclear as to which type of Section 

4(f) documentation and approval was 

being contemplated. The applicable 

section of the EA included the 

discussion of four different types of 

Section 4(f) approvals: 

1. The EA described the project as 

qualifying for a Nationwide 

Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation, 

but did not reach a conclusion pursuant 

to the applicable Programmatic. 

2. The document then included a 

discussion similar to what is used in an 

individual Section 4(f) Evaluation, 

including impacts to Section 4(f) 

properties, avoidance alternatives, and 

measures to minimize harm, ending by 

stating that no preferred alternative had 

been identified for the project. 

3. The EA also contained a Section 

4(f) constructive use discussion, which 

reached no conclusion. 

4. Finally, the project file contained 

an e-mail stating that although the EA 

was missing expected language 

regarding de minimis impacts and a 

concurrence letter from the officials 

with jurisdiction, the Caltrans Branch 

Chief would sign the QA/QC sheets 

‘‘with the assurance that the above items 

will be completed.’’ 

(D3) QA/QC Certification Process— 

MOU Section 8.2.5 and SER Chapter 38 

require Caltrans staff to review each 

environmental document in accordance 

with the policy memorandum titled, 

‘‘Environmental Document Quality 

Control Program under the NEPA Pilot 

Program’’ (July 2, 2007). Incomplete and 

incorrectly completed QC certification 

forms continue to be identified. During 

project file reviews by the audit team, 

the following instances of incomplete or 

incorrect QC certification forms since 

the July 2009 audit were observed: 

(a) An Environmental Assessment and 

Section 4(f) Evaluation was approved 

contingent on changes that still needed 

to be made to the document; 

(b) One QC certification form was 

approved by the Quality Control 

Reviewer, Preparer, and Branch Chief 

without the technical reviewer’s 

signature due to pending comments; 

(c) Five other QC certification forms 

contained undated review signatures or 

the signatures were not obtained in the 

proper sequence in accordance with the 

Caltrans established QA/QC processes; 

(d) Two QC certification forms were 

missing the signatures of required 

reviewers. In those cases, a memo was 

included in the files documenting this 

oversight. One memo noted that the 

NEPA document that was approved for 

the project had been incomplete. No 

additional explanation was provided; 

and 

(e) Two external QC certification 

forms contained signatures that were 

obtained after the internal QC 

certification form signatures. The SER 

Chapter 38 process requires the QC 

external certification form to be 

completed before the internal 

certification review can be initiated. 

(D4) Maintenance of Project and 

General Administrative Files—MOU 

Section 8.2.4 requires Caltrans to 

maintain project and general 

administrative files pertaining to its 

discharge of the responsibilities 

assumed under the Pilot Program. 

Caltrans has instituted specific 

procedures for maintaining project files 

and has provided training on these 

procedures. Previous audits identified 

inconsistencies with the application of 

these procedures (i.e., missing required 

documents, missing UFS tabs) and 

inconsistencies throughout the Districts 

visited in this audit were also identified. 

This audit also identified 

inconsistencies with file maintenance in 

at least 15 of the approximately 80 

project files reviewed. Examples of 

these include: 

(a) Various types of required project 

documentation were missing from 

project files. Examples of missing 

documents included: 

• Signed final environmental 

documents; 

• Noise abatement decision report; 

• Historic Properties Survey Report; 

• Environmental Commitment 

Records; 

• Internal and external QC 

certification forms (some signed but 

undated); 

• Signed copies of the PEAR/PES 

forms; 

• Section 106 Memorandum of 

Agreement; and 

• Information on the types of Section 

4(f) resources and the projects’ impacts 

upon them. 

(b) Two instances in which the project 

files were not available for review; in 

one case, the file has been improperly 

disposed, while in the other case, it was 

uncertain whether the project file had 

been misplaced or had never been set 

up. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30326 Filed 12–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0380] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Revision of a CurrentlyApproved Information Collection 

Request: Training Certification for 

Drivers of Longer Combination 

Vehicles 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), FMCSA announces its plan to 

submit the Information Collection 

Request (ICR) described below to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for its review and approval. The 

FMCSA requests approval to revise and 

extend an information collection request 

(ICR) entitled, ‘‘Training Certification for 

Drivers of Longer Combination 

Vehicles.’’ This ICR is necessary because 

the training certificates drivers are 

required to present to prospective 

employers serve as proof the drivers 

have successfully completed the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

75540 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2010 / Notices 

training to operate Longer Combination 

Vehicles (LCVs) safely on the Nation’s 

highways. Motor carriers are required to 

maintain a copy of the training 

certification in each LCV driver’s 

qualification file, which may be 

reviewed by Federal or State 

enforcement officials. This ICR is being 

revised due to an anticipated increase in 

the estimated number of LCV drivers 

submitting training certificates to 

employers resulting in a change to the 

estimated information collection burden 

for this training task. On September 9, 

2010, FMCSA published a Federal 

Register notice allowing for a 60-day 

comment period on the ICR. No 

comment was received. 

DATES: Please send your comments by 

January 3, 2011. OMB must receive your 

comments by this date in order to act 

quickly on the ICR. 

ADDRESSES: All comments should 

reference Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS) Docket Number 

FMCSA–2010–0380. Interested persons 

are invited to submit written comments 

on the proposed information collection 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget. Comments 

should be addressed to the attention of 

the Desk Officer, Department of 

Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, and sent via 

electronic mail to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov, or faxed 

to (202) 395–6974, or mailed to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 

725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier 

Operations Division, Department of 

Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, West Building 

6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

202–366–4325; e-mail 

tom.yager@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Training Certification for 

Drivers of Longer Combination Vehicles. 

OMB Control Number: 2126–0026. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently-approved information 

collection. 

Respondents: Drivers who complete 

LCV training each year, current LCV 

drivers who submit the LCV DriverTraining Certificate to a prospective 

employer, and motor carriers receiving 

and filing the certificates. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

31,500 drivers and motor carriers (700 

new LCV drivers plus 15,050 current 

LCV drivers plus 15,750 motor carriers). 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

31,500 (700 new LCV drivers plus 

15,050 current LCV drivers plus 15,750 

motor carriers). 

Estimated Time per Response: 10 

minutes for preparation of LCV DriverTraining Certificate and an additional 

10 minutes for the use of the LCV 

Driver-Training Certificate during the 

hiring process each year. 

Expiration Date: February 28, 2011. 

Frequency of Response: At various 

times during the year. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

2,742 hours. The total number of drivers 

per year for whom this activity will 

occur consists of newly-trained LCV 

drivers (700) and current LCV drivers 

changing employers (15,050), a total of 

15,750 drivers. The total annual 

information collection burden is 

estimated to be 2,742 hours: Preparation 

of LCV Driver-Training Certificate [700 

newly trained LCV drivers × 10 minutes 

÷ 60 minutes], and use of the certificate 

during the hiring process [15,750 total 

LCV drivers × 10 minutes ÷ 60 minutes]. 

Background: Section 4007(b) of the 

Motor Carrier Act of 1991 (Title IV of 

the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Public 

Law 102–240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2152; 49 

U.S.C. 31307) requires the Secretary of 

Transportation to establish Federal 

minimum training requirements for 

drivers of LCVs. The responsibility for 

implementing the statutory requirement 

was subsequently delegated to FMCSA 

(49 CFR 1.73). The FMCSA, in a final 

rule entitled, ‘‘Minimum Training 

Requirements for Longer Combination 

Vehicle (LCV) Operators and LCV 

Driver-Instructor Requirements’’ 

adopted implementing regulations for 

minimum training requirements for the 

operators of LCVs (March 30, 2004; 69 

FR 16722). 

The 2004 final rule created an 

information collection burden 

concerning the certification of new, 

current and non-grandfathered LCV 

drivers. An LCV is any combination of 

a truck-tractor and two or more semitrailers or trailers, which operates on the 

National System of Interstate and 

Defense Highways (as defined in 23 CFR 

470.107) and has a gross vehicle weight 

greater than 80,000 pounds. The 

purpose of this rule is to enhance the 

safety of LCV operations on our nation’s 

highways. 

By regulation, motor carriers cannot 

allow a driver to operate an LCV 

without ensuring that the driver has 

been properly trained in accordance 

with the requirements of 49 CFR 

380.113. LCV drivers must present their 

LCV Driver-Training Certificate to 

prospective employers as proof of 

qualification to drive LCVs. Motor 

carriers must maintain a copy of the 

LCV Training Certificate in order to be 

able to show Federal, State or local 

officials that drivers operating LCVs are 

certified to do so. 

Definitions: The LCV training 

regulations under 49 CFR part 380 are 

applicable only to drivers of ‘‘longer 

combination vehicles,’’ defined as ‘‘any 

combination of a truck-tractor and two 

or more trailers or semi-trailers, which 

operate[s] on the National System of 

Interstate and Defense Highways 

(defined in 23 CFR 470.107) with a gross 

vehicle weight greater than 80,000 

pounds’’ (49 CFR 380.105). 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including: (1) 

Whether the proposed collection is 

necessary for the performance of 

FMCSA’s functions; (2) the accuracy of 

the estimated burden; (3) ways for 

FMCSA to enhance the quality, 

usefulness, and clarity of the collected 

information; and (4) ways that the 

burden could be minimized without 

reducing the quality of the collected 

information. The Agency will 

summarize or include your comments in 

the request for OMB’s clearance of this 

information collection. 

Issued on: November 23, 2010. 

Kelly Leone, 

Associate Administrator, Research and 

Information Technology. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30382 Filed 12–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0387] 

Identification of Interstate Motor 

Vehicles: The Port Authority of New 

York and New Jersey’s Drayage Truck 

Registry Sticker Display 

Requirements; Petition for 

Determination 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, Department of 

Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of petition for 

determination; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA invites all interested 

persons to comment on a petition that 

the New Jersey Motor Truck Association 

(NJMTA) submitted requesting that 

FMCSA declare the Port Authority of 

New York and New Jersey’s (Port 

Authority) Drayage Truck Registry 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES