### 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 °


### 54419 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 7, 2010 / Notices

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