54418 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 

Dissemination,’’ it states that ‘‘The 

Secretary shall conduct a highways for 

life technology transfer program.’’ It 

further states that ‘‘The Secretary shall 

establish a process for stakeholder input 

and involvement in the development, 

implementation, and evaluation of the 

Highways for LIFE Pilot Program. The 

process may include participation by 

representatives of the State departments 

of transportation and other interested 

persons.’’ Also, it states that, ‘‘The 

Secretary shall monitor and evaluate the 

effectiveness of any activity carried out 

under this section.’’ 

A critical element in accomplishing 

these goals is to ensure that the 

technologies being deployed by FHWA 

and implemented by the States actually 

fill a specific need. Therefore, it is 

important that FHWA obtain feedback 

both before and after specific 

technologies are transferred. If, for 

example, FHWA determined on its own 

that a particular innovation was 

important, yet never actually 

determined whether States would value 

such an innovation, much time and 

money would have been wasted. Or, if 

there were an innovation that was 

deployed to States, yet FHWA never 

followed up to determine if the effort 

was a success, or how it might be even 

more successful, lessons could not be 

learned and put into effect. 

In FHWA’s Strategic Plan, the first 

goal listed is ‘‘National Leadership.’’ 

Under that topic, the first objective is 

‘‘Advance Innovation: FHWA is 

recognized as a leader in the 

development and promotion of 

innovative solutions that address 

current and emerging transportation 

issues.’’ Item 1.1 is ‘‘Systematically 

identify emerging issues and needs that 

could impact transportation,’’ and item 

1.2 is ‘‘Identify, develop, promote, and 

rapidly implement new and proven 

technologies and innovative solutions to 

improve system performance.’’ These 

‘‘innovative solutions’’ cannot properly 

identify what might work without 

discussing the needs for such things 

with the user groups—the States. 

Likewise, it cannot promote and 

implement them without an appropriate 

understanding of how the user 

organizations—the States—feel about 

the particular innovations; and this can 

only come from a formal survey. 

Respondents: There are 260 

respondents, including 5 each from 50 

State Transportation Departments, the 

District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Frequency: Once a year, for three 

years. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Response: Each survey will require 15 

minutes to respond. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 65 hours. 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including: (1) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the U.S. 

DOT’s performance, including whether 

the information will have practical 

utility; (2) the accuracy of the U.S. 

DOT’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the collected information; 

and (4) ways that the burden could be 

minimized, including the use of 

electronic technology, without reducing 

the quality of the collected information. 

The agency will summarize and/or 

include your comments in the request 

for OMB’s clearance of this information 

collection. 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; 

and 49 CFR 1.48. 

Issued On: August 27, 2010. 

Juli Huynh, 

Chief, Management Programs and Analysis 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22166 Filed 9–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Public Notice for a Change in Use of 

Aeronautical Property Associated With 

Wiscasset Municipal Airport, 

Wiscasset, ME 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Request for public comments. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is requesting public 

comment on the Town of Wiscasset, 

Maine’s, request to change 1.38 acres of 

fee interest from aeronautical use to 

non-aeronautical use and to abandon .15 

acres of an easement. The property is 

located on Route 27 in Edgecomb, 

Maine (Map R2 Lot 12). The property 

was for a non-directional beacon the 

FAA has decommissioned. The Town 

proposes to lease or sell the 1.38 acres 

in fee. 

Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford 

Aviation Investment and Reform Act for 

the 21st Century (AIR 21) requires the 

FAA to provide an opportunity for 

public notice and comment to the 

‘‘waiver’’ or ‘‘modification’’ of a sponsor’s 

Federal obligation to use certain airport 

property for aeronautical purposes. 

The Town acquired the land FAA 

ADAP Project No. 7–27–0049–01. 

The disposition of proceeds from the 

disposal of airport property will be in 

accordance with FAA’s Policy and 

Procedures Concerning the Use of 

Airport Revenue, published in the 

Federal Register on February 16, 1999. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for 

review by appointment by contacting at 

Erving Deck at Wiscasset Municipal 

Airport, Telephone 207–882–5475 or by 

contacting Donna R. Witte, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 16 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, 

Massachusetts, Telephone 781–238– 

7624. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna R. Witte at the Federal Aviation 

Administration, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, 

Massachusetts 01803, Telephone 781– 

238–7624. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following is a legal description of the 

1.38 acres of fee interest of the property: 

Beginning at the Southwest corner of 

land described in deed from George H. 

Salley to George L. Worden it ux, dated 

May 29, 1968 and recorded in the 

Lincoln County Registry of Deeds, and 

at land now or formerly of Candace 

Sawyer; thence Northeasterly along land 

of said Sawyer and following a stone 

wall, to the Westerly side of Route #27; 

thence Northerly by and along said 

Route #27 (200) feet more or less to an 

iron rod; thence running at right angles 

to said Route #27 and in a Westerly 

direction, two hundred (200) feet, more 

or less to an iron rod; thence running 

Southerly and parallel to the above 

mentioned road to a stone wall which 

forms the Southerly boundary of the 

property described in the above cited 

deed; thence Southeasterly following 

said stone wall to the point of 

beginning. TOGETHER with a right of 

way to the above premises from the Old 

town road, so called. 

The following is a legal description of 

the .15 acre easement: 

Beginning at a pipe in rocks at the 

Northwest corner of land described in 

deed from George L. Worden and 

Martha Worden to the Inhabitants of the 

Town of Wiscasset, recorded May 15, 

1973 in Book 770, Page 226 in the 

Lincoln County Registry of Deeds; 

thence South 00° 40′ West one hundred 

thirty (130′) feet along land of said 

Wiscasset to a point; thence North 89° 

20′ West fifty (50′) feet to a point: thence 

North 00° 40′ East one hundred thirty 

(130’’) feet to a point; thence South 89° 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices 54419 

20′ East fifty (50′) feet to the point of 

beginning. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on 

August 25, 2010. 

LaVerne F. Reid, 

Manager, Airports Division, New England 

Region. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22110 Filed 9–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2010–0245; Notice No. 

10–6] 

Notice: Elimination of Expiration Dates 

for Classification Approvals 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In 2005, PHMSA initiated a 

policy imposing a 5-year expiration date 

on firework classification approvals to 

ensure that background information 

supporting the approval is current and 

applicable, information is up-to-date 

and complete, obsolete approvals are 

eliminated from the PHMSA database, 

and approvals are amended with new 

requirements and/or methods as 

necessary. In 2009, this policy was 

extended to include all types of 

classification approvals, including 

explosives, oxidizing substances, 

organic peroxide materials and selfreactive substances. PHMSA is changing 

its policy and eliminating expiration 

dates for classification approvals 

because the policy has had 

unanticipated effects since its 

implementation. For instance, 

explosives assigned EX numbers, and 

self-reactive materials and organic 

peroxide materials, assigned CA 

numbers, have a shelf life far beyond the 

5-year expiration date. Consequently, a 

product shipped in accordance with a 

classification approval with a 5-year 

expiration date becomes ineligible for 

domestic transport on the date the 

approval expires despite the product 

continuing to be safe for transport. 

Existing classification approvals with 

expiration dates will be reissued by 

PHMSA in accordance with the change 

of policy. While expiration dates for 

classification approvals will be 

eliminated, PHMSA retains the 

authority to issue approvals with 

expiration dates on a case-by-case basis. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of these amendments is September 7, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ryan Paquet, Technical Advisor, Office 

of Hazardous Materials Special Permits 

and Approvals, (202) 366–4512, 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Issued in Washington, DC on August 31, 

2010 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

part 1. 

Magdy El-Sibaie, 

Associate Administrator for Hazardous 

Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22138 Filed 9–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: 

Queens County, NY 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA, United States 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Revised notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this 

revised notice to advise the public that 

the FHWA will not be preparing an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the proposed Bridge Rehabilitation 

and Interchange Improvements Project 

on the Long Island Expressway (LIE) 

from the Grand Central Parkway (GCP) 

to the Van Wyck Expressway, Queens 

County, NY. A Notice of Intent to 

prepare an EIS was published in the 

Federal Register on March 12, 2004. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey W. Kolb, Division Administrator, 

Federal Highway Administration, New 

York Division, Leo W. O’Brien Federal 

Building, 9th Floor, Clinton Avenue and 

North Pearl Street, Albany, New York 

12207, Telephone: (518) 431–4127. 

or 

Phillip Eng, Regional Director, 

NYSDOT Region 11; Hunters Point 

Plaza, 47–40 21st Street, Long Island 

City, NY 11101, Telephone: 718–482– 

4526. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

FHWA, in cooperation with the New 

York State Department of 

Transportation previously intended to 

prepare an EIS for the Bridge 

Rehabilitation and Interchange 

Improvements Project on the Long 

Island Expressway from the Grand 

Central Parkway to the Van Wyck 

Expressway, Queens County, New York. 

The purpose of the original Project 

was to address various geometric, 

operational, and structural deficiencies 

associated with the interchange. The 

project proposed direct connector ramps 

and new structures. 

An Expanded Project Proposal (EPP) 

was issued in 2002 and the project was 

programmed with a cost estimate of 

$130 million. During preliminary 

design, the cost estimate increased to 

approximately $250 million and the 

operational improvements for the build 

alternatives were found not to be as 

effective in reducing congestion as 

expected. Also, the Region’s capital 

program has been reduced and available 

funding has been re-allocated to more 

critical needs. 

Currently, the bridges within the 

interchange have a number of severely 

deteriorated elements, including the 

concrete decks and superstructures, that 

require prompt treatment to keep them 

in service and to address urgent safety 

concerns. The bridges also do not meet 

current geometric standards. 

Since the proposed operational 

benefits from the build alternatives were 

found not to be as expected, it is 

proposed to terminate the EIS. However, 

the three bridges carrying the LIE and 

service roads over the GCP have 

significant deck and steel superstructure 

deterioration that require prompt 

treatment to keep them in service. The 

infrastructure improvements being 

considered will not have a significant 

impact on the environment. To address 

these bridge conditions, a reduced scope 

project will be progressed as a NEPA 

Class II Categorical Exclusion. 

Issued on August 25, 2010. 

Jeffrey W. Kolb, 

Division Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration, Albany, NY. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21768 Filed 9–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: 

Yellowstone County, MT 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of intent—revised. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this 

notice to advise the public that an 

environmental impact statement will be 

prepared for a proposed highway project 

in Yellowstone County, Montana. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Hasselbach, Right of Way and 

Environmental Programs Manager, 

Federal Highway Administration, 585 

Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601. 

Telephone: (406) 441–3908; or Fred 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1