6510 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Notices 

archives pertaining to the internal 

armed conflict; and 

(C) The Guatemalan Air Force, Navy, 

and Army Corps of Engineers are 

cooperating with the International 

Commission Against Impunity in 

Guatemala (CICIG) by granting access to 

CICIG personnel, providing evidence to 

CICIG, and allowing witness testimony. 

This Certification shall be published 

in the Federal Register, and copies shall 

be transmitted to the appropriate 

committees of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2523 Filed 2–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–29–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Availability of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) for the Airfield Improvement 

Program at Palm Beach International 

Airport, West Palm Beach, FL 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Location of Proposed Action: The 

Palm Beach International Airport (PBIA) 

is located in east Palm Beach County, 

Florida, adjacent to the City of West 

Palm Beach and immediately east of the 

Town of Haverhill. 

SUMMARY: The FAA announces that the 

FEIS for the proposed Airfield 

Improvement Program (AIP) at PBIA is 

available for public review. 

The FEIS includes the Section 106 

consultation with the Florida State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 

and the Keeper of the National Register 

of Historic Places (Keeper) regarding the 

National Register eligibility of 

properties within the EIS Area of 

Potential Effect (APE) and the proposed 

action’s potential effect to historic 

resources eligible for, or listed-in, the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Pursuant to the Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as 

amended, the proposed AIP is being 

evaluated in the FEIS for consistency 

with the Florida Coastal Management 

Program (FCMP). Comments regarding 

the compatibility of the No-Action 

Alternative, the AIP, and Alternative 2 

with regard to Section 106 resources 

and the Florida’s Coastal Management 

Program are encouraged by the FAA. 

The FAA is seeking comments on 

those sections of the FEIS that have 

been updated and/or contain 

information that has become available 

since the release of the DEIS. Please see 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for more information. 

Updated information regarding the 

forecasts of aviation operations at PBIA 

became available and was published 

following the public availability of the 

September, 2008 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS). Also, Palm 

Beach County (the Airport Sponsor) 

submitted to the FAA a revised 

implementation plan and schedule for 

the proposed AIP after the publication 

of the DEIS. The FAA determined that 

this information should be considered 

by the agency and be disclosed to the 

public in the FEIS. 

All comments on the FEIS are to be 

submitted to Mr. Bart Vernace of the 

FAA, at the address shown in the 

section below entitled For Further 

Information or to Submit Comments 

Contact. The FAA is providing a fortyfive (45) day comment period for the 

public to comment on the FEIS. The 

comment period begins on the date of 

the publication of this Notice of 

Availability (NOA) in the Federal 

Register, and will close on March 21, 

2011. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA, 

as the lead Federal agency, has prepared 

the EIS for the proposed AIP at PBIA. 

The FAA published a DEIS in 

September, 2008. The DEIS was 

prepared pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). The DEIS comparatively 

assessed and disclosed the potential 

future impacts of the No-Action 

Alternative (no development at PBIA 

besides that which has already been 

planned, environmentally reviewed, 

and/or that are needed for safety, 

security or maintenance reasons), and 

two proposed action alternatives, 

designated as the Airport Sponsor’s AIP 

(Proposed Project) and Alternative 2. 

The primary capacity enhancement 

elements of these two proposed action 

alternatives consists of the following: 

AIP—relocate existing Runway 10R/28L 

100 feet south of its existing location 

and expand the runway to a length of 

8,000 feet and a width of 150 feet; 

Alternative 2—construct new Runway 

10L/28R located 800 feet north of 

existing Runway 10L/28R to a length of 

10,000 feet and a width of 150 feet. Both 

the AIP and Alternative 2 include other 

less substantial airport-related projects 

that are either associated with the 

primary runway development 

components of each alternative or are 

stand-alone projects that could be 

constructed by the Airport Sponsor 

outside of the EIS process. 

Since the publication of the DEIS, the 

economic recession has resulted in a 

decrease in aviation activity at PBIA and 

changes in the FAA’s forecasts of 

aviation activity for both PBIA and for 

the national system. The actual and 

forecast decrease in aircraft operations 

at PBIA have been, and are expected to 

continue to be, substantial enough to 

bring into question the initially 

proposed timing for implementation of 

the airport improvement program 

studied in the DEIS. As a result, the 

FAA made a determination that the 

2006 PBIA Master Plan Update forecasts 

approved for use in the DEIS, and which 

were used as the basis for the 

justification for the airport capacity 

enhancement component of the Airport 

Sponsor’s AIP, were no longer 

appropriate for use in determining the 

timing for the implementation of the 

AIP and Alternative 2. After the 

publication of the DEIS, and the review 

of comments on the DEIS, the FAA 

determined that a more recent forecast 

of aviation activity that is representative 

of the changed conditions at PBIA 

should be used for the FEIS. 

Subsequently, the FAA decided that the 

agency’s own 2009 Terminal Area 

Forecast (2009 TAF) would be the most 

applicable forecast of aviation activity 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICESEN04FE11.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Notices 6511 

for use in the FEIS. The 2009 TAF 

shows that future aircraft activity at 

PBIA would likely increase at only a 

modest annual rate when compared to 

the 2006 PBIA Master Plan Update 

Forecasts. 

After consultation with the FAA and 

review of the 2009 TAF, the Airport 

Sponsor concluded, and the FAA 

agreed, that the airfield capacity 

enhancement elements of the AIP and 

Alternative 2, the primary components 

of which is the relocation and 

expansion of Runway 10R/28L, would 

not be needed at PBIA by the year 2013, 

which was the proposed AIP and 

Alternative 2 implementation year 

identified and evaluated by the FAA in 

the DEIS. 

As a result, the Airport Sponsor 

proposed to the FAA a revised 

implementation plan and schedule for 

the AIP. The revised plan and schedule 

consists of developing the AIP in two 

components, which are designated in 

the FEIS as the Near-Term AIP Project 

and the Long-Term AIP Project. The 

FAA subsequently evaluated in the FEIS 

both the Airport Sponsor’s AIP and 

Alternative 2 based on the revised 

implementation plan and schedule. 

The Near-Term AIP Alternative 

component consists of the development 

of general aviation (GA) facilities in the 

northwest quadrant of PBIA; widening 

Taxiway ‘‘L’’ from 50 feet to 75 feet, and 

the acquisition of approximately 13.2 

acres of property along the western 

PBIA property line. The Long-Term AIP 

Alternative component consists of the 

expansion of Runway 10R/28L as 

described above, the shortening of the 

southeast end of Runway 14/32 by 3,412 

feet, the extension of the northwest end 

of Runway 14/32 by 480 feet, GA facility 

relocation, other connected actions to 

the Runway 10R/28L project, and other 

minor stand alone airport improvement 

projects. 

The Near-Term Alternative 2 

component consists of essentially the 

same projects as the Near-Term AIP 

Alternative component, with the 

exception of a revised configuration for 

the GA development area in the 

northwest quadrant of PBIA. The LongTerm Alternative 2 component consists 

of the development of new Runway 

10L/28R as described above, the closure 

of Runway 14/32, relocation of portions 

of Concourses ‘‘B’’ and ‘‘C’’, relocation of 

the ARFF and Air Cargo Building, other 

connected actions to the Runway 10L/ 

28R project, and other minor stand 

alone airport improvement projects. 

The Airport Sponsor is requesting the 

FAA’s ‘‘unconditional’’ approval of the 

Near-Term AIP Project through the 

FAA’s findings and determinations in 

its Record of Decision (ROD) on the 

FEIS. If ‘‘unconditional’’ approval is 

granted by the FAA in its ROD, the 

Airport Sponsor anticipates that the 

Near-Term AIP Projects would be 

constructed and operational by the year 

2015. However, the FAA acknowledges 

that the development schedule for 

future GA facilities would be influenced 

by prevailing market conditions, the 

demand for additional GA facilities, and 

respective business decisions by the 

Airport Sponsor and Fixed Base 

Operators (FBO’s). Therefore, the buildout of the Near-Term AIP or Near-Term 

Alternative 2 GA facilities could occur 

sometime before or after the FEIS NearTerm study year of 2015. 

Through the EIS process and the 

FAA’s subsequent ROD, the Airport 

Sponsor is also requesting the FAA’s 

‘‘conditional’’ approval of the Long-Term 

AIP Project. The Long-Term AIP Project 

consists of the primary airfield capacity 

enhancement components of the AIP, 

which includes the relocation and 

expansion of Runway 10R/28L and 

connected actions, as well as other 

minor stand-alone airport improvement 

projects. The Long-Term AIP Project 

would be considered by the FAA for 

unconditional approval only when the 

number of aircraft operations at PBIA 

returns to the levels that would cause 

unacceptable aircraft operational delay. 

At such time that this occurs, the FAA 

will consider the appropriate level of 

additional NEPA processing and 

environmental analysis/documentation 

that may be needed to fully evaluate and 

disclose the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the Long-Term 

AIP Project and its connected actions. 

Public Comment: Because of the 

amount of time that has elapsed since 

the publication of the DEIS, the 

consideration of revised forecasts 

(FAA’s 2009 TAF) in the FEIS, and the 

Airport Sponsor’s revised 

implementation plan and schedule for 

the proposed project, the FAA is seeking 

comments on its FEIS for a period of 45 

days following the publication of the 

NOA of the FEIS in the Federal 

Register. After review and consideration 

of the comments received on the FEIS, 

and sometime after the 45-day comment 

period on the FEIS has ended, the FAA 

will issue its ROD. The public comment 

period on the FEIS will begin on 

February 4, 2011 and will close on 

March 21, 2011. Copies of the FEIS are 

available for review at the following 

locations during regular business hours: 

• Palm Beach County Library 

Greenacres Branch, 3750 Jog Road, 

Greenacres, FL 33467. 

• Palm Beach County Library 

Okeechobee Boulevard Branch, 5689 

West Okeechobee Boulevard, West Palm 

Beach, FL 33417. 

• West Palm Beach Public Library, 

411 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, 

FL 33401. 

A limited number of copies of the 

FEIS will be available for review by 

appointment only during regular 

business hours at the following 

locations: 

• Federal Aviation Administration, 

Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 

Hazeltine National Drive Citadel 

International Building, Suite 400, 

Orlando, Florida. Contact Bart Vernace 

at (407) 812–6331. 

• Palm Beach International Airport, 

Palm Beach County Department of 

Airports, 846 Palm Beach International 

Airport, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Contact Gary Sypek at (561) 471–7412. 

An electronic copy of the FEIS will be 

available for review and download from 

the EIS Web site (http://www.pbiaeis.com) beginning February 4, 2011. 

Written comments on the FEIS may be 

mailed or e-mailed to Mr. Bart Vernace 

of the FAA at the address shown in the 

section below entitled For Further 

Information or to Submit Comments 

Contact. All comments must be 

postmarked by March 21, 2011. 

Comments should be as specific as 

possible and address the analysis of 

potential environmental impacts, the 

adequacy of the proposed action, or the 

merits of alternatives and the mitigation 

being considered. Reviewers should 

organize their participation so that it is 

meaningful and makes the agency aware 

of the viewer’s interests and concerns 

using quotations and other specific 

references to the text of the FEIS and 

related documents. This commenting 

procedure is intended to ensure that 

substantive comments and concerns are 

made available to the FAA in a timely 

manner so that the FAA has an 

opportunity to address them in its ROD. 

Comments can only be accepted with 

the full name and address of the 

individual commenting. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

e-mail address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, be advised that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask the FAA in your comment 

to withhold from public review your 

personal identifying information, the 

FAA cannot guarantee that it will be 

able to do so. 

For Further Information or to Submit 

Comments Contact: Mr. Bart Vernace, 

PE, Assistant Manager, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Orlando Airports 

District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
6512 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2011 / Notices 

Drive, Citadel International Building, 

Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822. 

Phone: (407) 812–6331. E-mail: pbiaeis@urscorp.com. 

Issued in Orlando, Florida on January 25, 

2011. 

W. Dean Stringer, 

Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2065 Filed 2–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2011– 

0010] 

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Request for public comment on 

an extension of a currently approved 

collection. 

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can 

collect certain information from the 

public, it must receive approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Under procedures established 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, before seeking OMB approval, 

Federal agencies must solicit public 

comment on proposed collections of 

information, including extensions and 

reinstatement of previously approved 

collections. 

This document describes one 

collection of information for which 

NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 5, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the 

docket notice numbers cited at the 

beginning of this notice and be 

submitted to Docket Management, Room 

W12–140, Ground level, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590 by any of the following methods. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web Site: http:// 

dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments on the Docket 

Management System. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 

1–800–647–5527. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this proposed collection of 

information. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://dms.dot.gov including any 

personal information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room 

W12–140 on the ground level of the 

DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal Holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Complete copies of each request for 

collection of information may be 

obtained at no charge from Carlita 

Ballard, NHTSA 1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE., Room W43–439, NVS–131, 

Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard’s 

telephone number is (202) 366–0846. 

Please identify the relevant collection of 

information by referring to its OMB 

Control Number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

before an agency submits a proposed 

collection of information to OMB for 

approval, it must first publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

providing a 60-day comment period and 

otherwise consult with members of the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

each proposed collection of information. 

The OMB has promulgated regulations 

describing what must be included in 

such a document. Under OMB’s 

regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an 

agency must ask for public comment on 

the following: 

(i.) Whether the proposed collection 

of information is necessary for the 

proper performance of the functions of 

the agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(ii.) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(iii.) How to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected and; 

(iv.) How to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including the use 

of appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g. permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

In compliance with these 

requirements, NHTSA asks for public 

comments on the following proposed 

collections of information: 

Title: Procedures for Selecting Lines 

to be Covered by the Theft Prevention 

Standard (49 CFR 542) 

OMB Control Number: 2127–0539 

Form Number: None. 

Affected Public: Motor vehicle 

manufacturers. 

Requested Expiration Date of 

Approval: Three years from approval 

date. 

Abstract: Manufacturers of light duty 

trucks must identify new model 

introductions that are likely to be hightheft lines as defined in 49 U.S.C. 

33104. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 315 hours. 

Number of Respondents: 7. 

In 1984, Congress enacted the Motor 

Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (the 

1984 Theft Act). As a means to prevent 

the theft of motor vehicles for their 

parts, the 1984 Theft Act required 

vehicle manufacturers to mark the major 

parts of ‘‘high-theft’’ passenger cars and 

the major replacement parts for those 

cars. The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 

(ACTA) amended the 1984 Theft Act to 

extend its provisions to multipurpose 

passenger vehicles (MPVs) and light 

duty trucks (LDTs). 

The 1984 Theft Act, as amended by 

ACTA, requires NHTSA to promulgate a 

theft prevention standard for the 

designation of high-theft vehicle lines. 

The specific lines are to be selected by 

agreement between the manufacturer 

and the agency. If there is a 

disagreement of the selection, the 

statute states that the agency shall select 

such lines and parts, after notice to the 

manufacturer and an opportunity for 

written comment. NHTSA’s procedures 

for selecting high theft vehicle lines are 

contained in 49 CFR part 542. 

In a final rule published on April 6, 

2004, the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard was extended to 

include all passenger cars and 

multipurpose passenger vehicles with a 

gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 

pounds or less, regardless of whether 

they were likely to be high or low theft, 

and to light duty trucks with major parts 

that are interchangeable with a majority 

of the covered major parts of 

multipurpose passenger vehicles. The 

final rule became effective September 1, 

2006. 

As a result of this amendment, 

determination of high theft status is 

required only for LDTs manufactured on 

or after that date. There are seven 

vehicle manufacturers who produce 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES