81328 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 

5309. An Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) for this 

regulation was issued on January 30, 

2006, (71 FR 22841). A Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was 

issued on August 3, 2007, (72 FR 

43328). The NPRM was withdrawn on 

February 17, 2009, due to an intervening 

statutory change resulting from the 

passage of the SAFETEA–LU Technical 

Corrections Act in June 2008. Another 

ANPRM for the regulation was issued 

on June 2, 2010 (75 FR 31383). FTA is 

reviewing the comments received on the 

ANPRM, and at this time a date for 

publication of the NPRM is not known. 

FTA has a longstanding requirement to 

evaluate proposed projects against a 

prescribed set of statutory criteria at 

specific points during the projects’ 

development including when they seek 

to enter preliminary engineering, final 

design, and a Full Funding Grant 

Agreement. In addition, FTA must 

report on its evaluations and ratings 

annually to Congress. The Surface 

Transportation and Uniform Relocation 

Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA) 

established in law a set of criteria that 

proposed projects had to meet in order 

to be eligible for federal funding. The 

requirement for summary project ratings 

has been in place since 1998. Thus, the 

requirements for project evaluation and 

data collection for New Starts projects 

are not new. One addition included in 

SAFETEA–LU is the Small Starts 

program. The Small Starts program 

enables smaller cost projects with a 

smaller requested share of Section 5309 

major capital investment funds to 

progress through a simplified and 

streamlined project evaluation and data 

collection process. In general, the 

information used by FTA for New and 

Small Starts project evaluation and 

rating should arise as a part of the 

normal planning process. 

FTA has been collecting project 

evaluation information from project 

sponsors under the existing OMB 

approval for this program (OMB No. 

2132–0561). However, due to 

modifications in the project evaluation 

criteria and FTA evaluation and rating 

procedures for the New Starts program 

and the addition of the Small Starts 

program, it became apparent that some 

information now required might be 

beyond the scope of ordinary planning 

activities. In particular, SAFETEA–LU 

creates additional requirements for 

before-and-after data collection as a 

condition of obtaining a Full Funding 

Grant Agreement (FFGA) or a Project 

Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA). 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

37,070 hours. 

ADDRESSES: All written comments must 

refer to the docket number that appears 

at the top of this document and be 

submitted to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725—17th 

Street, NW. Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: FTA Desk Officer. 

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 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. 

Issued On: December 20, 2010. 

Ann M. Linnertz, 

Associate Administrator for Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32336 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

Intent To Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Metro Gold 

Line Foothill Extension, Azusa to 

Montclair in Los Angeles and San 

Bernardino Counties, CA 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), as the federal 

lead agency, and the Metro Gold Line 

Foothill Extension Construction 

Authority (Construction Authority) 

intend to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed 

transit improvements in the Foothill 

Extension Transit Corridor. FTA is the 

lead Federal agency with the 

Construction Authority as a co-lead 

agency for the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) process because the 

Construction Authority is seeking 

Federal funding for the proposed 

project. The proposed project is an 

extension of the existing Metro Gold 

Line light rail transit line, from Azusa 

to Montclair, with proposed stations in 

Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, 

Pomona, Claremont and Montclair. The 

proposed project will improve mobility 

in eastern Los Angeles County and 

western San Bernardino County by 

introducing high-frequency transit 

service options; enhance the regional 

transit network by interconnecting 

existing and planned rail and bus transit 

lines; provide an alternative mode of 

transportation for commuters who 

currently use the congested I–210 

corridor; improve transit accessibility 

for residents and employees who live 

and/or work along the corridor; and 

encourage a mode shift to transit, 

reducing air pollution and greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

The EIS will be prepared in 

accordance with the requirements of 

NEPA and its implementing regulations. 

Prior to commencement of a Final EIS, 

a locally preferred alternative (LPA) will 

be identified and adopted by the 

Construction Authority Board and 

included in the Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

(LACMTA) Constrained Long Range 

Transportation Plan (LRTP). LACMTA 

and the Construction Authority do not 

currently anticipate applying for 43 

U.S.C. 5309 New Starts funding. 

The Construction Authority will be 

preparing a joint EIS/EIR document to 

comply with NEPA and the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The 

purpose of this notice is to alert 

interested parties regarding the intent to 

prepare the EIS, to provide information 

on the nature of the proposed project 

and possible alternatives, to invite 

public participation in the EIS process 

(including providing comments on the 

scope of the Draft EIS), to announce that 

public scoping meetings will be 

conducted, and to invite participating 

and cooperating agencies. 

DATES: Written comments on the scope 

of the EIS, including the project’s 

purpose and need, the alternatives to be 

considered, the impacts to be evaluated, 

and the methodologies to be used in the 

evaluations should be sent to the 

Construction Authority on or before 

February 2, 2011 at the address below. 

See ADDRESSES below for the address to 

which written public comments may be 

sent. Public scoping meetings to accept 

comments on the scope of the EIS/EIR 

will be held on the following dates: 

• Wednesday, January 12, 2011; 6 to 

8 p.m. at the Ganesha Community 

Center, 1575 North White Avenue, 

Pomona, CA. 

• Thursday, January 13, 2011; 6 to 8 

p.m. at the Glendora Teen and Family 

Center, 241 West Dawson Street, 

Glendora, CA. 

• Wednesday, January 19, 2011; 6 to 

8 p.m. at the Oakmont Elementary 

School, 120 West Green Street, 

Claremont, CA. 

• Thursday, January 20, 2011; 6 to 8 

p.m. at the Ekstrand Elementary School, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 81329 

400 North Walnut Avenue, San Dimas, 

CA. 

The prior planning work, the project’s 

purpose and need, and the description 

of alternatives will be presented at these 

meetings. The buildings used for the 

scoping meetings are accessible to 

persons with disabilities. Any 

individual who requires special 

assistance, such as a sign language 

interpreter, to participate in a scoping 

meeting should contact Ms. Lisa Levy 

Buch, Director of Public Affairs, Metro 

Gold Line Foothill Extension 

Construction Authority, at (626) 305– 

7004, or 

llevybuch@foothillextension.org. 

Scoping materials will be available at 

the meetings and are available on the 

Construction Authority’s Web site 

(http://www.foothillextension.org). Hard 

copies of the scoping materials may also 

be obtained from Ms. Sylvia Beltran, 

Community Outreach Coordinator, 

Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension 

Construction Authority, at (626) 305– 

7012, or sbeltran@foothillextension.org. 

An interagency scoping meeting will 

be held on Thursday, January 13, 2011, 

at 2 p.m. at the Glendora Teen and 

Family Center, 241 West Dawson Street, 

Glendora, CA. Representatives of Native 

American tribal governments and of all 

federal, state, regional and local 

agencies that may have an interest in 

any aspect of the project will be invited 

to be participating or cooperating 

agencies, as appropriate and participate 

in the National Historic Preservation 

Act Section 106 Process. 

ADDRESSES: Comments will be accepted 

at the public scoping meetings or they 

may be sent to Ms. Lisa Levy Buch, 

Director of Public Affairs, Metro Gold 

Line Foothill Extension Construction 

Authority, 406 E. Huntington Drive, 

Suite 202, Monrovia, CA 91016–3633, or 

via e-mail at 

llevybuch@foothillextension.org. The 

locations of the public scoping meetings 

are given above under DATES. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ray Tellis, Team Leader, Los Angeles 

Metropolitan Office, Federal Transit 

Administration, 888 South Figueroa 

Street, Suite 1850, Los Angeles, CA 

90017, phone (213) 202–3950, e-mail 

ray.tellis@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

A Draft EIS/EIR for Gold Line Phase 

II Pasadena to Montclair Foothill 

Extension was issued in April 2004 

(‘‘2004 DEIS/EIR’’). A Notice of 

Availability was published in the 

Federal Register on May 7, 2004. 

Following the release of the 2004 DEIS/ 

EIR, the public comment period, and 

input from the cities along the 

alignment, the Construction Authority 

Board approved a Locally Preferred 

Alternative (LPA) in August 2004 for the 

Pasadena to Azusa extension of the Gold 

Line Phase II Project. In March 2005, a 

Project Definition Report (PDR) was 

prepared to refine the station and 

parking lot locations, grade crossings, 

two rail grade separations, and traction 

power substation locations. Following 

the PDR, the Construction Authority 

Board approved a Revised LPA in June 

2005. Between March and August 2005, 

station options in Claremont were 

added. 

Subsequent to circulation of the 2004 

DEIS/DEIR the Construction Authority 

decided to fund the Pasadena to Azusa 

extension of the Gold Line Phase II 

Project without Federal funding and the 

environmental impact assessment for 

Phase II no longer proceeded as a joint 

NEPA/CEQA document but as a CEQA 

document. The Pasadena to Azusa 

Extension project of the Gold Line Phase 

II Pasadena to Montclair Extension was 

certified under CEQA by the 

Construction Authority and a FEIR was 

completed in February 2007. Because 

the Construction Authority decided to 

fund the Pasadena to Azusa extension of 

the Gold Line Phase II Project without 

Federal funding, the FTA subsequently 

withdrew the Gold Line Phase II DEIS 

on June 25, 2010. 

The Construction Authority will be 

seeking Federal funding for the Metro 

Gold Line Foothill Extension from 

Azusa to Montclair and an EIS will be 

prepared. To avoid confusion expressed 

about the terminology used in the 2004 

DEIS/EIR (e.g. Phase I; Phase II, 

Segments 1 and 2), the proposed project 

described by this NOI, which was 

previously named Gold Line Phase II 

Segment 2, is now referred to as the 

Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension, 

Azusa to Montclair Project. 

The proposed Metro Gold Line 

Foothill Extension, Azusa to Montclair 

Project, is included in the strategic 

unfunded element of the LACMTA 2009 

LRTP. Various transit improvements 

were explored and opportunities 

identified in other studies such as the 

Gold Line Phase II Extension Pasadena 

to Claremont Alternatives Analysis, 

Final Draft Report (January 9, 2003), 

and the Gold Line Phase II Pasadena to 

Montclair Foothill Extension Final 

Environmental Impact Report (2007) 

which are available for review at the 

LACMTA Transportation Library, 15th 

Floor, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, 

CA 90012, the Metro Gold Line Foothill 

Extension Construction Authority, 406 

E. Huntington Drive, Suite 202, 

Monrovia, CA 91016–3633, and on the 

Construction Authority’s Web site 

(http://www.foothillextension.org). 

Project Initiation and Scoping 

The FTA and the Construction 

Authority will prepare an EIS/EIR for 

the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension 

Azusa to Montclair Project pursuant to 

23 U.S.C. 139 and CEQA. The 

Construction Authority is serving as the 

local lead agency for purposes of CEQA. 

FTA is serving as the Federal lead 

agency and the Construction Authority 

as a co-lead agency for purposes of 

NEPA. FTA and the Construction 

Authority will invite interested Federal, 

State, Tribal, regional and local 

government agencies to be participating 

agencies under the provisions of Title 

23 CFR 771.111. 

Scoping is the process of determining 

the scope, focus, and content of an EIS. 

FTA and the Construction Authority 

invite all interested individuals and 

organizations, public agencies, and 

Native American Tribes to comment on 

the scope of the EIS, including the 

project’s purpose and need, the 

alternatives to be studied, the impacts to 

be evaluated, and the evaluation 

methods to be used. Comments should 

focus on: (1) Feasible alternatives that 

may better achieve the project’s need 

and purposes with fewer adverse 

impacts, and (2) any significant 

environmental impacts relating to the 

alternatives. NEPA ‘‘scoping’’ has 

specific and fairly limited objectives, 

one of which is to identify the 

significant issues associated with 

alternatives that will be examined in 

detail in the document, while 

simultaneously limiting consideration 

and development of issues that are not 

truly significant. 

Purpose and Need for the Project 

The purpose of this project is to 

provide a high-capacity transportation 

improvement that responds to problems 

associated with the I–210, a freeway that 

is not able to accommodate current and 

forecasted peak-hour travel demands; 

respond to the limited bus routes and 

commuter rail service available in the 

study corridor; respond to problems 

associated with the corridor’s congested 

arterial network; respond to issues 

associated with population and 

employment conditions and forecasts; 

respond to goals of the region and 

corridor to improve air quality and 

avoid or minimize impacts to natural 

and manmade environments. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
81330 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 

Project Location and Environmental 

Setting 

The proposed project is located in Los 

Angeles and San Bernardino Counties 

encompassing six adjoining cities that 

are located along I–210 and a railroad 

right-of-way, between the eastern 

boundary of Azusa on the west and 

Montclair on the east. The project area 

includes the cities of Glendora, San 

Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, and 

Claremont in Los Angeles County. In 

San Bernardino County, it includes the 

city of Montclair. 

The Build Alternative is a Light Rail 

Transit (LRT) system that would begin 

at the current terminus of the Metro 

Gold Line at the Azusa-Citrus Station 

continuing east to Montclair. 

Alternatives 

The Gold Line Phase II Extension 

Pasadena to Claremont Alternatives 

Analysis, Final Draft Report (January 9, 

2003), prepared for the Construction 

Authority, studied a number of 

alternatives within the study area. This 

analysis looked at a wide range of 

alignment and technology options 

aimed at serving the corridor 

transportation needs. These included a 

No-Build Alternative, a Transportation 

System Management (TSM) Alternative, 

as well as various modal alternatives. 

The initial analysis looked at enhanced 

bus service, bus rapid transit, LRT, 

commuter rail, diesel multiple units, 

high occupancy vehicle facilities, and 

fixed-guideway facilities. The alignment 

alternatives included the existing 

railroad right-of-way, the I–210 freeway, 

and local major arterials. Operations 

alternatives varied by mode starting 

with five-minute headways. 

The three alternatives being evaluated 

include the No Build Alternative, TSM, 

and the Build Alternative. The freight 

rail alignment identified in the 

Alternatives Analysis Report with the 

LRT technology is the Build Alternative 

that will be analyzed. In addition, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.14, the EIS 

will analyze any reasonable alternatives 

identified during scoping. 

No-Build Alternative: The No-Build 

Alternative includes all highway and 

transit projects and operations that the 

region and LACMTA expect to be in 

place in 2035. The No-Build Alternative 

would not require construction of 

ancillary facilities other than those 

included in the projects comprising the 

alternative. The No-Build Alternative is 

LACMTA’s 2009 LRTP adopted in 

October 2009. This 2009 LRTP includes 

a balance of vehicle and transit 

improvements, including an expanded 

bus and rail network. Projects within 

the 2009 LRTP that are relevant to the 

corridor are stated below. 

• Transit projects include countywide 

(Los Angeles and San Bernardino 

Counties) bus service improvements; 

commuter rail (Metrolink) 

improvements; and light rail and heavy 

rail transit improvements. 

• Freeway improvements include 

projects on freeways such as the 

extension of freeway Route 30/I–210 

from Foothill Boulevard to I–15 (now 

completed) and the continuing 

extension of I–15 to I–215 in the future. 

• Smart street projects include 

improvements such as synchronized 

traffic signals, on-street parking 

removal, frontage road and grade 

separation construction, and key 

intersection improvements to improve 

traffic flow. 

• Arterial improvement projects 

include improvements to existing 

roadways. 

Transportation System Management 

(TSM) Alternative: The EIS/EIR will 

evaluate transportation and 

environmental effects of modest 

improvements in the highway and 

transit systems beyond those in the NoBuild Alternative. The TSM Alternative 

would include low-cost improvements 

to the No-Build Alternative to reduce 

delay and enhance mobility. The TSM 

Alternative would emphasize 

transportation system upgrades, such as 

intersection improvements, minor road 

widening, traffic engineering actions, 

bus route restructuring, shortened bus 

headways, expanded use of articulated 

buses, reserved bus lanes, expanded 

park-and-ride facilities, express and 

limited-stop service, signalization 

improvements, and timed-transfer 

operations. 

Build Alternative: The Build 

Alternative utilizes the existing 

LACMTA/Construction Authority and 

San Bernardino Associated 

Governments rights of way through the 

San Gabriel Valley for LRT service. The 

Build Alternative would extend the 

Metro Gold Line LRT system from the 

eastern boundary of Azusa to the 

Montclair TransCenter (approximately 

11.4 miles) located in Montclair, 

bordering the city of Upland. The same 

LRT technology and the same types of 

system components would be used as 

the existing Metro Gold Line. The Build 

Alternative would include six new 

stations, with one in each of the cities 

along the corridor; Glendora, San 

Dimas, La Verne, Pomona, Claremont 

and Montclair. Potential station 

locations have been defined in 

consultation with the corridor cities. 

Parking facilities would be provided at 

each new station. 

Eight traction power substations 

(TPSSs) would be constructed along the 

route in order to provide electrical 

power to the line. Where possible, TPSS 

sites would be located near a station. 

TPSS sites would be located within 

existing rail right of way or within 

properties to be acquired for stations or 

parking. The Build Alternative would 

include two LRT tracks throughout, and 

one freight track between the eastern 

boundary of Azusa and Pomona. In 

Pomona, the single freight track would 

then join up with the double Metrolink 

tracks and continue through to 

Montclair and beyond. 

Probable Effects 

The purpose of this EIS process is to 

study, in a public setting, the effects of 

the proposed project and its alternatives 

on the physical, human, and natural 

environment. The FTA and the 

Construction Authority will evaluate all 

significant environmental, social, and 

economic impacts of the construction 

and operation of the proposed project. 

The probable impacts will be 

determined as part of the project 

scoping. Unless further screening 

illuminates areas of possible impact, 

resource areas will be limited to those 

identified during scoping. Measures to 

avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse 

impacts will also be identified and 

evaluated. 

FTA Procedures 

The regulations implementing NEPA, 

as well as provisions of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU), calls for public 

involvement in the EIS process. Section 

6002 of SAFETEA–LU requires that FTA 

and the Construction Authority do the 

following: (1) Extend an invitation to 

other Federal and non-Federal agencies 

and Native American tribes that may 

have an interest in the proposed project 

to become ‘‘participating agencies;’’ (2) 

provide an opportunity for involvement 

by participating agencies and the public 

to help define the purpose and need for 

a proposed project, as well as the range 

of alternatives for consideration in the 

EIS; and (3) establish a plan for 

coordinating public and agency 

participation in, and comment on, the 

environmental review process. An 

invitation to become a participating or 

cooperating agency, with scoping 

materials appended, will be extended to 

other Federal and non-Federal agencies 

and Native American tribes that may 

have an interest in the proposed project. 

It is possible that FTA and the 

Construction Authority will not be able 

to identify all Federal and non-Federal 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 81331 

1The line is between milepost 7.19, a point 

approximately 100 feet north of Interstate Highway 

I–694 in White Bear Township, and milepost 6.52, 

a point approximately 50 feet north of Beam 

Avenue in the City. 

agencies and Native American tribes 

that may have such an interest. Any 

Federal or non-Federal agency or Native 

American tribe interested in the 

proposed project that does not receive 

an invitation to become a participating 

agency should notify at the earliest 

opportunity the Community Outreach 

Coordinator identified above under 

ADDRESSES. 

The EIS will be prepared in 

accordance with NEPA and its 

implementing regulations issued by the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508) and with the 

FTA/Federal Highway Administration 

regulations ‘‘Environmental Impact and 

Related Procedures’’ (23 CFR part 771). 

Related environmental procedures to be 

addressed during the NEPA process, 

include, but are not limited to the 

project-level air quality conformity 

regulation of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR part 

93); the regulation implementing 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (36 CFR part 800); 

Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act (23 CFR part 774); 

and Executive Order 12898 on 

environmental justice. 

Issued on: December 17, 2010. 

Leslie T. Rogers, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX, Federal 

Transit Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32337 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. FD 35450] 

City of Maplewood, MN.—Acquisition 

Exemption—Right To Restore Rail 

Service Over a Railbanked Right-ofWay in Ramsey County, MN. 

The City of Maplewood, Minn. (the 

City), a noncarrier, has filed a verified 

notice of exemption under 49 CFR 

1150.31 to acquire from BNSF Railway 

Company (BNSF) the right to restore rail 

service over a rail banked right-of-way, 

a distance of .67 miles, extending from 

milepost 7.19 to milepost 6.52 (the 

line),1 in Ramsey County, Minn. 

In the notice of exemption in BNSF 

Railway Company—Abandonment 

Exemption—in Ramsay County, Minn., 

AB 6 (Sub.-No. 429X) (STB served Aug. 

10, 2005), BNSF was authorized to 

abandon the line. Subsequent to that 

notice, BNSF and the City reached an 

agreement for rail banking the line. The 

agreement included a provision that, in 

exchange for payment of value, BNSF 

would convey to the City BNSF’s right 

to restore service over the line’s right-ofway. 

Subsequently, in a quitclaim deed 

dated September 26, 2005, BNSF 

conveyed the line to the City along with 

BNSF’s right to restore service over the 

right-of-way. The City explains that it 

did not know, at the time, that Board 

authorization was necessary for the City 

to acquire the right to restore rail 

service. The City now, after the fact, 

invokes the Board’s authorization for 

that acquisition through a notice of 

exemption. The City states that it or an 

operator contracted by the City would 

operate over the line if service is 

restored. 

In King County, Wash.—Acquisition 

Exemption—BNSF Railway Company, 

FD 35148, slip op. at 3–4 (STB served 

Sept. 18, 2009) (King County), the Board 

granted an individual exemption 

authorizing the conveyance of the right 

to restore rail service on a line to a 

county, explaining that the right to 

reactivate a rail banked line is not an 

exclusive right and would not preclude 

any other service provider from seeking 

Board authorization to restore rail 

service over the rail banked line if the 

county did not do so. In King County, 

slip op. at 4 n.5, both the county 

acquiring the right and the rail carrier 

selling that right ‘‘made clear that [the 

rail carrier did] not wish to retain any 

rights related to the segments.’’ 

Likewise, here the notice indicates that 

BNSF did not wish to retain rights 

related to the line because, by quitclaim 

deed, BNSF conveyed to the City both 

the right-of-way itself and the right to 

restore service over the right-of-way. 

The transaction is expected to be 

consummated on or after January 8, 

2010 (30 days after the exemption was 

filed). 

The City certifies that its projected 

annual revenues from the acquisition 

involved in this proceeding do not 

exceed those that would qualify it as a 

Class III carrier. 

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 to stay must be 

filed no later than December 30, 2010 (at 

least 7 days before the exemption 

becomes effective). 

An original and 10 copies of all 

pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 

35450, 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 Thomas F. 

McFarland, Thomas F. McFarland, P.C., 

208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1890, 

Chicago, IL 60604. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at 

http://www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: December 20, 2010. 

By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Andrea Pope-Matheson, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32297 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Fiscal Service 

Surety Companies Acceptable on 

Federal Bonds: Termination—Penn 

Millers Insurance Company 

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, 

Fiscal Service, Department of the 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 5 to 

the Treasury Department Circular 570; 

2010 Revision, published July 1, 2010, 

at 75 FR 38192. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874–6850. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that the Certificate of 

Authority issued by the Treasury to the 

above-named company under 31 U.S.C. 

9305 to qualify as an acceptable surety 

on Federal bonds is terminated 

immediately. Federal bond-approving 

officials should annotate their reference 

copies of the Treasury Department 

Circular 570 (‘‘Circular’’), 2010 Revision, 

to reflect this change. 

With respect to any bonds currently 

in force with this company, bondapproving officers may let such bonds 

run to expiration and need not secure 

new bonds. However, no new bonds 

should be accepted from this company, 

and bonds that are continuous in nature 

should not be renewed. 

The Circular may be viewed and 

downloaded through the Internet at 

http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570. 

Questions concerning this notice may 

be directed to the U.S. Department of 

the Treasury, Financial Management 

Service, Financial Accounting and 

Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES