71024 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Notices 

August 1995, TVA issued a ROD stating 

the agency decision to complete WBN 

Unit 1. In 1998, TVA prepared an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) for a project to provide 

supplemental condenser cooling water 

to WBN for the purpose of increasing 

power generation from Unit 1 that was 

constrained by cooling tower 

performance. 

TVA participated as a cooperating 

agency with the Department of Energy 

(DOE) on an environmental review 

evaluating the production of tritium at 

one or more commercial light water 

reactors (CLWRs) to ensure safe and 

reliable tritium supply for U.S. defense 

needs. In March 1999, the Secretary of 

the DOE designated the TVA Watts Bar 

and Sequoyah Nuclear Plants as the 

Preferred Alternative for CLWR tritium 

production in the CLWR EIS. DOE 

issued its Record of Decision (ROD) in 

May of 1999. TVA subsequently issued 

its own Notice of Adoption and ROD for 

the Final EIS in May of 2000. Tritium 

production subsequently began at WBN 

Unit 1 in 2003. TVA’s proposed 

completion and operation of WBN Unit 

2 does not include provision for tritium 

production, however pertinent 

information on spent nuclear fuel 

management is included in the CLWR 

EIS. As appropriate, TVA intends to 

incorporate, utilize, and update 

information from these earlier plantspecific analyses for the present 

Supplemental EIS. 

In December 1995, TVA also 

completed a comprehensive 

environmental review of alternative 

means of meeting demand for power on 

the TVA system through the year 2020. 

This review was in the form of a Final 

EIS titled the Integrated Resource Plan 

—Energy Vision 2020. Completion of 

WBN Unit 2 was evaluated in this Final 

EIS. To address future demand for 

electricity, TVA decided to rely on a 

portfolio of energy resource options, 

including new generation and 

conservation. Because of uncertainties 

about performance and cost, completion 

of WBN Unit 2 was not included in the 

portfolio of resource options. In the 

Integrated Resource Plan, TVA made 

conservative assumptions about the 

capacity factor (roughly how much a 

unit would be able to run) nuclear units 

generally would achieve and this 

capacity factor was used in conducting 

the economic analyses of nuclear 

resource options. TVA nuclear units, 

consistent with U.S. nuclear industry 

performance, now routinely exceed this 

earlier assumed capacity factor, which 

changes the earlier analyses and will be 

taken into account in the current 

consideration of completing WBN Unit 

2. 

In February of 2004, TVA issued a 

Final EIS for its Reservoir Operations 

Study (ROS) evaluating the potential 

environmental impacts of alternative 

ways for operating the agency’s 

reservoir system to produce overall 

greater public value for the people of the 

Tennessee Valley. That Final EIS review 

included provision of adequate water 

supply for reliable, efficient operation of 

TVA generating facilities, such as WBN, 

within their operating limits of National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) and other permits. A ROD for 

the ROS Final EIS was subsequently 

issued in May of 2004. 

TVA will incorporate assumptions for 

reservoir operations resulting from the 

ROS Final EIS review in the present 

evaluation. 

Proposed Action and Need for Power 

The proposal under consideration by 

TVA is to meet the demand for 

additional baseload capacity on the 

TVA system and maximize the use of 

existing assets by completing and 

operating WBN Unit 2 alongside its 

sister unit, WBN Unit 1 that has been 

operating since 1996. The 

environmental impacts of other energy 

resource options were evaluated as part 

of TVA’s Energy Vision 2020 Final EIS. 

As part of the present supplemental 

environmental review, TVA will update 

the Need for Power analysis, as well as 

consider any new environmental 

information. 

Preliminary Identification of 

Environmental Issues 

This Supplemental EIS will discuss 

the need to complete WBN Unit 2 and 

will update information on existing 

environmental, cultural, recreational, 

and socioeconomic resources, as 

appropriate. The Supplemental EIS will 

also update the analysis of potential 

environmental impacts resulting from 

construction, operation, and 

maintenance of WBN Unit 2, and the 

total impacts occurring with concurrent 

operation of WBN Unit 1. The update of 

potential environmental impacts will 

include, but not necessarily be limited 

to, the potential impacts on water 

quality, vegetation, wildlife, aquatic 

ecology, endangered and threatened 

species, floodplains, wetlands, land use, 

cultural and historic resources, 

socioeconomics, spent fuel 

management, and radiological impacts, 

as well as an analysis of severe accident 

mitigation alternatives. Information 

from TVA’s and NRC’s previous 

environmental reviews (described 

above) that is relevant to the current 

assessment would be incorporated by 

reference and appropriately summarized 

in the Supplemental EIS. 

Public and Agency Participation 

This Supplemental EIS is being 

prepared to update information and to 

inform decision-makers and the public 

about the potential environmental 

impacts of completing and operating 

WBN Unit 2. The Supplemental EIS 

process also will provide the public an 

opportunity to comment on TVA’s 

analyses. Other federal, state, and local 

agencies and governmental entities will 

be asked to comment, including the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the Tennessee 

Department of Environmental and 

Conservation. 

TVA will invite the public and 

agencies to submit written, verbal or email comments on the draft 

Supplemental EIS. It is anticipated the 

draft Supplemental EIS will be released 

in the spring of 2007. Notice of 

availability of the Supplemental EIS 

will be published in the Federal 

Register, as well as announced in local 

news media. TVA expects to release a 

final Supplemental EIS in the summer 

of 2007. 

Dated: November 28, 2006. 

Kathryn J. Jackson, 

Executive Vice President, River System 

Operations & Environment. 

[FR Doc. E6–20761 Filed 12–6–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8120–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2006–

26251] 

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: 60-day Notice—Request for 

public comment on proposed collection 

of information. 

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 

(PRA), before seeking OMB approval, 

Federal agencies must solicit public 

comment on proposed collections of 

information. In this case, the 

information collection consists of a load 

carrying capacity label applied to all 

motor homes and recreation vehicle 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Notices 71025 

(RV) trailers and a load carrying 

capacity modification label which 

corrects original load carrying capacity 

information on all RVs and light 

vehicles when significant additional 

weight is added between final vehicle 

certification and first retail sale. The 

load carrying capacity modification 

label is an alternative to current 

methods of information correction 

which requires the original label to be 

replaced. A PRA 60-day notice was 

included with the published notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on 

October 31, 2005 (70 FR 51707), 

however, since the original notice was 

a year old and the PRA burden 

information has been updated, NHTSA 

decided to publish a second 60-day 

notice. This notice is related only to 

obtaining OMB information collection 

approval under the PRA and is not part 

of or a substitute for the final rule 

amending FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 by 

adding load carrying capacity 

requirements which should be 

published in the near future. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 5, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted in writing to: Docket 

Management, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

20590. Alternatively, comments may be 

submitted electronically by logging onto 

the Docket Management System. The 

Web site can be accessed at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help’’ to view 

instructions on how to make an 

electronic submission. Regardless of 

how comments are submitted, the 

docket number of this document must 

be mentioned. The Docket Management 

Office hours are from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday except Federal 

holidays and may be contacted by 

calling 202–366–9324. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William D. Evans, NHTSA, NVS–123, 

Room 5320i, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20590. Mr. Evans may 

also be reached by calling 202–366–

2272. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

before an agency submits a 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 (5 

CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for 

public comment on the following: 

(i) Whether the proposed collection of 

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; 

(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. 

In compliance with these 

requirements, NHTSA asks for public 

comments on the following proposed 

collection of information for which the 

agency is seeking OMB approval. 

Title: Load Carrying Capacity Label 

for Motor Homes and RV Trailers. 

OMB Control Number: New. 

Affected Public: Manufacturers and 

Dealers of Motor Homes and RV 

Trailers. 

Form Number: No standard form will 

be used in this collection. 

Abstract: Information collection 

under this proposal consists of a load 

carrying capacity label applied to all 

motor homes and recreation vehicle 

(RV) trailers. The information collection 

also involves a load carrying capacity 

modification label which corrects 

original load carrying capacity 

information on all RVs and light 

vehicles when significant additional 

weight is added between final vehicle 

certification and first retail sale. The 

load carrying capacity modification 

label is a voluntary alternative to 

current requirements which states that 

the original label or placard must be 

replaced when additional weight is 

added. A PRA 60-day notice was 

included with the published NPRM on 

August 31, 2005 (70 FR 51707), 

however, since the original notice was 

a year old and the PRA burden 

information has been updated, NHTSA 

decided to publish a second 60-day 

notice. This notice is related only to 

obtaining OMB information collection 

approval under the PRA and is not part 

of or a substitute for the final rule 

amending FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120 by 

adding load carrying capacity 

requirements which should be 

published in the near future. 

Our estimates of the burden that this 

rulemaking imparts on all motor home 

and RV trailer manufacturers and 

manufacturers of light vehicles other 

than motor homes are given below. 

There is no burden to the general 

public. RV estimates are based on the 

fact that approximately 95% of all RV 

manufacturers currently belong to RVIA 

and already voluntarily apply load 

carrying capacity labels to the vehicles 

they produce. When this proposal 

becomes a final rule and the final rule 

becomes effective, it is predicted that 

these 95% of RVs will replace the 

current voluntary label with the NHTSA 

label at no additional cost. Therefore, 

any additional cost for information 

collection imparted by this final rule is 

a result of the remaining 5% of RV 

manufacturers to apply load carrying 

capacity labels and the cost to RV 

dealers/service facilities that choose to 

apply the load carrying capacity 

modification label. The cost to 

manufacturers of light vehicles other 

than RVs is minimal as most vehicles 

will not exceed a predetermined 

threshold for compliance that dealers/ 

service facilities will not be required to 

update load carrying capacity 

information. The additional cost for 

information collection to light vehicle 

manufacturers other than RV 

manufacturers result from those who 

choose to correct load carrying capacity 

information by applying the load 

carrying capacity modification label. 

The label is not mandatory; it is simply 

an alternative to correcting load carrying 

capacity information by replacing or 

updating the original tire placard/label 

when the added weight threshold is 

exceeded. 

The following are the cost and hour 

burden estimates resulting from the 

proposed load carrying capacity 

information requirements. Numbers are 

based on 2005 estimates. 

RV manufacturers and manufacturers 

of light vehicles other than RVs already 

have the following knowledge, 

information and resources and therefore 

these items will not impose any 

additional cost and/or hour burden. 

Vehicle gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR). 

Means to print or procure labels. 

Scale system for weighing vehicles. 

Estimated annual hour burden to the 

5% of RV manufacturers that are not 

RVIA members to weigh an RV in order 

to determine unloaded vehicle weight 

(UVW): 

Estimated labor hours to weigh an RV 

= .16 hours/RV. 

Approximately 419,500 RVs shipped 

in 2005. 

It is estimated that 5%, or 20,975 RVs/ 

year, currently do not voluntarily 

display CCC information, as their 

manufacturers are not members of 

RVIA. 

20,975 RVs/year × .16 hours/RV = 

3,356 hours/year. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
71026 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 2006 / Notices 

1The MTA lease term expires on February 28, 

2274. MTA uses the Harlem-Hudson Line to 

provide commuter service through its subsidiary, 

Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company. 

2Simultaneously with the filing of this notice, 

Midtown has filed a motion to dismiss the notice 

of exemption in this proceeding, arguing that the 

Board lacks jurisdiction over the proposal. The 

motion will be addressed in a subsequent Board 

decision. 

Estimated annual cost to the 5% of 

RV manufacturers that are not RVIA 

members to procure or produce motor 

home load carrying capacity labels and 

RV trailer cargo carrying capacity 

labels: 

Estimated cost to produce labels = 

$0.15/RV. 

Approximately 419,500 RVs shipped 

in 2005. 

It is estimated that 5%, or 20,975 RVs/ 

year, currently do not voluntarily 

display CCC information, as their 

manufacturers are not members of 

RVIA. 

20,975 RVs/year × $0.15/RV = $3,146/ 

year. 

Estimated annual hour burden to the 

5% of RV manufacturers that are not 

RVIA members to install motor home 

load carrying capacity labels and RV 

trailer cargo carrying capacity labels: 

Estimated labor hours to install labels 

= .02 hours/RV. 

Approximately 419,500 RVs shipped 

in 2005. 

It is estimated that 5%, or 20,975 RVs/ 

year, currently do not voluntarily 

display CCC information, as their 

manufacturers are not members of 

RVIA. 

20,975 RVs/year × .02 hours/RV = 420 

hours/year. 

Estimated annual cost to RV 

manufacturers to procure or produce 

the load carrying capacity modification 

labels when necessary: 

Estimated cost to procure or produce 

labels = $0.05/RV. 

Approximately 419,500 RVs shipped 

in 2005. 

An estimated 25%, or 104,875 RVs/ 

year, will receive the CCC modification 

label. 

104,875 RVs/year × $0.05/RV = 

$5,245/year. 

Estimated annual hour burden to RV 

manufacturers to install the load 

carrying capacity modification labels 

when necessary: 

Estimated labor hours to install labels 

= .02 hours/RV. 

Approximately 419,500 RVs shipped 

in 2005. 

An estimated 25%, or 104,875 RVs/ 

year, will receive the CCC modification 

label. 

104,875 RVs/year × .02 hours/RV = 

2,098 hours/year. 

Estimated annual cost to light vehicle 

manufacturers to procure or produce 

the load carrying capacity modification 

labels when necessary: 

Estimated cost to procure or produce 

labels = $0.05/light vehicle. 

Approximately 17,000,000 light 

vehicles shipped in 2005. 

An estimated 1%, or 170,000 light 

vehicles/year, will receive the CCC 

modification label. 

170,000 light vehicles/year × $0.05/ 

light vehicle = $8,500/year. 

Estimated annual hour burden to light 

vehicle manufacturers to insert values 

and install the load carrying capacity 

modification labels when necessary/ 

desired: 

Estimated labor hours to install labels 

= .02 hours/light vehicle. 

Approximately 17,000,000 light 

vehicles shipped in 2005. 

An estimated 1%, or 170,000 light 

vehicles/year, will receive the CCC 

modification label. 

170,000 light vehicles/year × .02 

hours/light vehicle = 3,400 hours/year. 

Total estimated Annual Burden: 9,274 

hours. 

Number of Respondents: 99. 

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 1, 2006. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 06–9560 Filed 12–6–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 34953] 

Midtown TDR Ventures LLC—

Acquisition Exemption—American 

Premier Underwriters, Inc., The 

Owasco River Railway, Inc., and 

American Financial Group, Inc. 

Midtown TDR Ventures LLC, a 

noncarrier, filed a notice of exemption 

under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire 156 

miles of rail line and certain assets 

related to Grand Central Terminal in 

New York City (collectively, Properties) 

from American Premier Underwriters, 

Inc. (APU), a noncarrier, APU’s wholly 

owned subsidiary, The Owasco River 

Railway, Inc., a noncarrier, and APU’s 

parent, American Financial Group, Inc., 

a noncarrier, (collectively, Sellers). The 

acquired rail line, referred to as the 

‘‘Harlem-Hudson Line,’’ extends from 

milepost 0.0 at Grand Central Terminal 

in New York City to milepost 5.2 at Mott 

Junction, thereafter, diverging in two 

directions, with one line running north 

to milepost 75.7 at Poughkeepsie, NY, 

and a second line proceeding east to 

milepost 11.8 at Woodlawn Junction, 

then north to milepost 82.0 at Wassaic, 

NY. 

Midtown will acquire a fee simple 

interest in the Properties, subject to an 

existing long-term lease to Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority (MTA), which 

grants MTA exclusive control over the 

Harlem-Hudson Line (MTA lease).1

Midtown indicates that it will not 

provide any transportation services or 

acquire a common carrier obligation to 

provide freight rail service on the 

Properties.2

Freight rail service over the HarlemHudson Line is provided pursuant to 

trackage rights agreements MTA has 

entered into with CSX Transportation, 

Inc. (CSXT), and the Delaware and 

Hudson Railway Company, Inc. (D&H). 

Midtown indicates that, like the MTA 

lease, the CSXT and D&H trackage rights 

agreements will remain in place 

following the consummation of the 

proposed transaction, and will be 

unaffected by this transaction. 

Midtown certifies that its projected 

annual freight revenues as a result of 

this transaction will not exceed $5 

million, and will not result in the 

creation of a Class II or Class I rail 

carrier. 

If the verified 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 transaction. 

An original and 10 copies of all 

pleadings, referring to STB Finance 

Docket No. 34953, must be filed with 

the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 

K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each 

pleading must be served on George W. 

Mayo, Jr., Hogan & Hartson LLP, 555 

Thirteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20004–1109. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: November 30, 2006. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES