25020 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices

Amendment No. City, State Amendment

approved date

Original approved net

PFC revenue

Amended approved net

PFC revenue

Original estimated charge

exp. date

Amended estimated charge

exp. date

94–02–U–02–TPA, Tampa, FL ............................................ 03/22/00 NA NA 04/01/01 07/01/02

95–01–C–02–HTS, Huntington, WV .................................... 03/23/00 99,932 368,432 04/01/00 10/01/01

94–01–C–01–CID, Cedar Rapids, IA .................................. 03/29/00 6,330,000 6,874,479 07/01/00 12/01/00

Dated: Issued in Washington, DC on April

17, 2000.

Eric Gabler,

Manager, Passenger Facility Charge Branch.

[FR Doc. 00–10546 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement

Prince George’s, County, MD

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

notice to advise the public that an

environmental impact statement will be

prepared for a proposed multi-modal

project in Prince George’s County,

Maryland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Pamela Stephenson, Environmental

Protection Specialist, Federal Highway

Administration, The Rotunda-Suite 220,

711 West 40th Street, Baltimore

Maryland 21211. Telephone: (410) 962–

4342.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA, in cooperation with the

Maryland State Highway

Administration, will prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

on a proposal to improve MD 210 in

Prince George’s County, Maryland. This

project will consider a balanced and full

range of Multi-Modal solutions,

including intersection improvements,

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes,

transit enhancement, and interchanges.

The limits of the project are from MD

228 (Berry Road) to the Capital Beltway

(I–95/I–495) a distance of approximately

10.2 miles.

MD 210 provides an essential

connection between the Washington,

D.C. metropolitan area, and residential

communities in southern Prince

George’s and northern Charles Counties,

accommodating both local and long

distance trips within the corridor. The

MD 210 corridor within the study limits

currently experience severe traffic

congestion during morning and evening

peak periods. Many commuters

currently divert to county and local

roadways to avoid traffic congestion

alone mainline MD 210. The local

roadway network in this area is not

designed to handle the high volumes of

through traffic being diverted from MD

210. The resulting congestion on the

local roadway network compromises

safety and contributes to the overall

congestion in the MD 210 corridor.

The expected growth in local traffic

from planned development in southern

Prince George’s and Charles Counties

will further aggravate existing

conditions and will result in travel

demand for exceeding the capacity of

the existing transportation system,

increasing congestion, travel times and

accidents rates within the study area.

This project will evaluate improvements

to MD 210, which will address safety

problems and accommodate existing

and projected travel demand, provide

the desired capacity and decrease travel

delays and congestion.

The alternatives under consideration

include (1) no-build, (2) intersection

improvements, (3) widening to provide

a fourth general—use lane, (4) widening

to provide a two-lane reversible HOV

facility in the median, and (5)

construction of interchanges at six

locations from Kirby Hill Road to Old

Fort Road South. It has been determined

that no single strategy could adequately

address the need for this project.

Therefore, a combination of the

alternatives discussed above, along with

multi-modal enhancements, such as

Park & Ride facilities and improvements

in the existing transit service, will be

considered.

Letters describing the proposed action

and soliciting comments will be sent to

appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies, private organizations, and to

citizens who have previously expressed

or are known to have an interest in this

project. A Public Hearing is tentatively

scheduled for Fall, 2000. Public notice

will be given of the time and place of

this hearing.

The Draft EIS will be available for

public and agency review and comment

prior to the Public Hearing. Public

notice will be given of the availability

of the Draft EIS for review. A Formal

scoping meeting was held for this

project on August 15, 1997.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to this proposed action are

addressed and all significant issues

identified, a focus group comprised of

local residents, business owners, elected

officials, county representatives and

SHA team members was formed in early

1997. The group has met regularly with

a total of fourteen meetings to date. The

group’s primary mission is to assist in

the development of possible solution for

the traffic congestion and safety

concerns along the MD 210 corridor. As

part of the ongoing alternatives

development process, SHA is also

maintaining extensive coordination

with Prince George’s County,

Metropolitan Washington Council of

Governments (MWCOG), Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

(WMATA) and Maryland Mass Transit

Administration regarding the

development of this project.

Comments or questions concerning

this proposed action and EIS should be

directed to the FHWA at the address

provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research,

Planning and Construction. The regulation

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation of

Federal programs and activities apply to this

program)

Pamela Stephenson,

Environmental Protection Specialist,

Baltimore, Maryland.

[FR Doc. 00–10615 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping

Requirements Agency Information

Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

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

announces that the Information

Collection Request (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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 83 / Friday, April 28, 2000 / Notices 25021

and its expected burden. The Federal

Register Notice with a 60-day comment

period soliciting comments on the

following information collection was

published on November 30, 1999 (64 FR

66961).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before May 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ron Ashby, (202) 358–7039, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance, Federal

Motor Carrier Safety Administration,

400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001. Office hours are from 7:30

a.m. to 4 p.m., e.t., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Financial Responsibility for

Motor Carriers of Passengers and Motor

Carriers of Property.

OMB Number: 2126–0008.

Type of Request: Renewal of

currently-approved information

collections.

Abstract: Upon OMB approval for

renewal of information collections, the

FMCSA is requesting to combine two

information collections into one as

titled above. The 60-day Federal

Register notice was published prior to

OMB’s assignment of new approval

numbers to accommodate the FMCSA.

Therefore, the Notice referenced the two

collections under their former Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) OMB

approval numbers as 2125–0074 and

2125–0518. They have subsequently

been renumbered as 2126–0005 and

2126–0008. FMCSA is requesting that a

combined collection maintain OMB

Approval No. 2126–0008 and that 2126–

0005 be canceled. The two collections,

which differ only in regulated

audiences, cover similar requirements

for motor carriers to document their

minimum levels of financial

responsibility. Combining these two

collections will not result in increased

burdens.

The Secretary of Transportation is

responsible for regulations which

establish minimal levels of financial

responsibility for (1) motor carriers of

property to cover public liability,

property damage, and environmental

restoration and (2) for-hire motor

carriers of passengers to cover public

liability and property damage. The

Endorsement for Motor Carrier Policies

of Insurance for Public Liability (Form

MCS–90/90B) and the Motor Carrier

Public Liability Surety Bond (Form

MCS–82/82B) contain the minimum

amount of information necessary to

document that these levels have been

obtained and are in effect. The

information within these documents is

used by the FMCSA and the public to

verify that a motor carrier of property or

passengers has obtained and has in

effect the required minimum levels of

financial responsibility.

Respondents: Insurance and surety

companies of motor carriers of property

(Form MCS–90 and Form MCS–82) and

motor carriers of passengers (Form

MCS–90B and Form MCS–82B).

Average Burden per Response: Two

minutes to complete the Endorsement

for Motor Carrier Policies of Insurance

for Public Liability or the Motor Carrier

Public Liability Surety Bond; one

minute to file the Motor Carrier Public

Liability Surety Bond; one minute to

have either document on board the

vehicle (foreign-domiciled motor

carriers only).

Estimated Total Annual Burden:

5,285 hours.

Frequency: Upon creation, change, or

replacement of an insurance policy or

surety bond.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: DOT

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. A comment to OMB is most

effective if OMB receives it within 30

days of publication of this Notice.

Issued on: April 20, 2000.

Brian M. McLaughlin,

Director Office of Policy, Plans, & Regulations,

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–10547 Filed 4–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petitions for Waiver of Compliance;

Date and Location of Public Hearings

The National Railroad Passenger

Corporation (Amtrak), Maryland Mass

Transit Administration (MTA), and San

Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI) each seek a

waiver of compliance from 49 CFR

238.203(d)(2) to allow the continued

temporary usage of certain railroad

passenger equipment that does not

comply with FRA’s requirements for

static end strength contained in 49 CFR

238.203(a)(1). Amtrak, MTA, and SDTI

have petitioned FRA for

‘‘grandfathering’’ approval of this

passenger equipment pursuant to 49

CFR 238.203(d), which allows the

temporary usage of railroad passenger

equipment not conforming to FRA’s

static end strength requirements to

continue while a petition for

grandfathering approval is being

processed, but not later than May 8,

2000, unless FRA has approved the

petition. Amtrak, MTA, and SDTI seek

to extend beyond the May 8, 2000 date

the period during which passenger

equipment that is the subject of the

grandfathering petitions may operate,

until a date that is 30 days after the date

on which FRA acts finally on their

grandfathering petitions. SDTI also

seeks a waiver from the requirement to

file a grandfathering petition before

November 8, 1999. FRA announces that

it will hold a public hearing on each of

these waiver requests, as discussed in

more detail below by railroad.

National Railroad Passenger

Corporation (Amtrak)

[Docket No. FRA–2000–7199]

By public notice published on April

11, 2000 (65 FR 19427), FRA announced

the receipt of a petition from Amtrak for

a waiver of compliance from the May 8,

2000 date specified in 49 CFR

238.203(d)(2) for cessation of the

temporary usage of non-compliant

railroad passenger equipment that is the

subject of a grandfathering petition filed

with FRA, absent FRA approval of the

petition by that date. This waiver

petition proceeding is identified as

Docket No. FRA–2000–7199. On

October 18, 1999, Amtrak had filed a

grandfathering petition with FRA in

which it requested approval to continue

using five trainsets that do not meet the

static end strength requirements

contained in 49 CFR 238.203(a)(1). (This

grandfathering petition proceeding is

identified as Docket No. FRA–1999–

6404.) In the April 11, 2000 notice, FRA

invited comments from interested

parties on Amtrak’s waiver request, and

explained that any interested party

requesting a public hearing on this

request must do so, in writing, by April

20, 2000.

On April 20, 2000, FRA received a

request from Bombardier, Inc., for a

public hearing in connection with

Amtrak’s waiver request in Docket No.

FRA–2000–7199. Bombardier stated that

a public hearing is essential on the basis

that the waiver request, as currently