Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Notices 30907 

disaster for the State of Kansas (FEMA–

1699—DR), dated 05/06/2007. 

Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, 

and Flooding. 

Incident Period: 05/04/2007 through 

05/18/2007. 

Effective Date: 05/25/2007. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 07/05/2007. 

EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 

02/06/2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing and 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. 

Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, 

Washington, DC 20416. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice 

of the Presidential disaster declaration 

for the State of Kansas, dated 05/06/ 

2007 is hereby amended to include the 

following areas as adversely affected by 

the disaster: 

Primary Counties: Clay, Cloud, 

Comanche, Leavenworth, Lyon, 

Reno, Rice, Saline, and Shawnee. 

Contiguous Counties: 

Kansas: Atchison, Chase, Coffey, 

Douglas, Geary, Greenwood, 

Harvey, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson, 

Marion, Mcpherson, Morris, Osage, 

Pottawatomie, Republic, Riley, 

Sedgwick, Wabaunsee, Washington, 

and Wyandotte. 

Missouri: Platte. 

Oklahoma: Harper, and Woods. 

All other information in the original 

declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers 59002 and 59008) 

Roger B. Garland, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–10709 Filed 6–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 5821] 

Culturally Significant Object Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: Paul 

Gaugin’s ‘‘The Purau Tree’’ and Paul 

Ce ́zanne’s ‘‘A Modern Olympia’’

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following determinations: Pursuant to 

the authority vested in me by the Act of 

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 

2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et 

seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 

October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority 

No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as 

amended, and Delegation of Authority 

No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], 

I hereby determine that the objects Paul 

Gaugin’s ‘‘The Purau Tree’’ and Paul 

Ce ́zanne’s ‘‘A Modern Olympia’’, 

imported from abroad for temporary 

exhibition within the United States, are 

of cultural significance. The objects are 

imported pursuant to loan agreements 

with the foreign owners or custodians. 

I also determine that the exhibition or 

display of Paul Gaugin’s ‘‘The Purau 

Tree’’ from on or about September 17, 

2007, until on or about September 30, 

2010, and the exhibition or display of 

Paul C?zanne’s ‘‘A Modern Olympia’’

from on or about September 17, 2007, 

until on or about January 30, 2011, in 

the Nineteenth-Century European 

Paintings and Sculpture Galleries, The 

Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 

New York, and at possible additional 

exhibitions or venues yet to be 

determined, is in the national interest. 

Public Notice of these Determinations is 

ordered to be published in the Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr 

Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of 

the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of 

State (telephone: (202) 453–8050). The 

address is U.S. Department of State, SA–

44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, 

Washington, DC 20547–0001. 

Dated: May 22, 2007. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department 

of State. 

[FR Doc. E7–10701 Filed 6–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

[Docket Number: FTA–2007–27172] 

Final Guidance on New Starts/Small 

Starts Policies and Procedures and 

Notice of Availability of Updated 

Reporting Instructions 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Final 

Guidance on New Starts/Small Starts 

Policies and Procedures and Updated 

Reporting Instructions. 

SUMMARY: This notice conveys the 

Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 

Final Guidance on New Starts/Small 

Starts Policies and Procedures. This 

Policy Guidance complements FTA’s 

previous Guidance on New Starts 

Policies and Procedures, dated May 22, 

2006, by providing further updates and 

enhancements to the procedures for 

project planning and development 

necessary to receive New or Small Starts 

funding. This notice also announces the 

availability of FTA’s Reporting 

Instructions for the Section 5309 New 

Starts Criteria, which must be followed 

when reporting New Starts information 

for evaluation during the FY 2009 

project evaluation cycle, as well as for 

any requests to enter into preliminary 

engineering, final design, or a full 

funding grant agreement until further 

notice. Finally, this notice provides the 

schedule for reporting of information for 

FTA’s FY 2009 New Starts budget 

evaluations. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: These policies and 

procedures will take effect on June 4, 

2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Fisher, Office of Planning and 

Environment, telephone (202) 366–

4033, Federal Transit Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 

Washington, DC 20590 or 

Ronald.Fisher@dot.gov. 

Availability of Comments Considered in 

the Development of this Guidance, and 

of the New Starts Reporting 

Instructions 

A copy of the notice of availability of 

the proposed Guidance, issued on 

February 12, 2007, and comments and 

material received from the public as a 

part of its review of the proposed 

Guidance, are part of docket FTA–2007–

27172 and are available for inspection 

or copying at the Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may 

retrieve the Guidance and comments 

online through the Document 

Management System (DMS) at: http:// 

dms.dot.gov. Enter docket number 

27172 in the search field. The DMS is 

available 24 hours each day, 365 days 

each year. Electronic submission and 

retrieval help and guidelines are 

available under the help section of the 

Web site. An electronic copy of this 

document may also be downloaded by 

using a computer, modem and suitable 

communications software from the 

Government Printing Office’s Electronic 

Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512–

1661. Internet users may also reach the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
30908 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Notices 

Office of the Federal Register’s home 

page at: http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and 

the Government Printing Office’s Web 

page at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ 

index.html. FTA’s Reporting 

Instructions for the Section 5309 New 

Starts Criteria is available on FTA’s Web 

site for New Starts planning and project 

development at http://www.fta.dot.gov/ 

planning/ 

planning_environment_5221.html. 

Schedule for Reporting the new Starts 

Project Justification and Local 

Financial Commitment Criteria for 

Evaluation in the FY 2009 Annual 

Report on Funding Recommendations 

The formal deadline for reporting 

information on the New Starts and 

Small Starts project justification and 

local financial commitment criteria—

i.e., the New and Small Starts templates 

and supporting land use and financial 

information—for evaluation in the FY 

2009 Annual Report on Funding 

Recommendations is September 7, 2007. 

In addition, FTA requests, for projects 

already in the New Starts or Small Starts 

‘‘pipeline’’ (projects in preliminary 

engineering, final design, or Small Starts 

project development), that information 

related to travel forecasts, operating and 

maintenance cost methodologies, and 

service annualization factors as 

appropriate be submitted by July 30, 

2007 if this information is different from 

what was submitted last year. This 

advanced submission of information 

helps FTA staff to understand the 

information underlying the New or 

Small Starts project justification criteria, 

and helps to ensure that the information 

reported in the formal New or Small 

Starts templates is sufficient for FTA’s 

evaluation and rating of candidate 

projects. Both the ‘‘advanced’’ and 

formal submission of information 

should be sent to the FTA Office of 

Planning and Environment (TPE), 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 

Washington, DC, 20590. In addition, 

FTA’s consultants for financial and land 

use reviews will be contacting sponsors 

of projects in the pipeline in late-August 

2007 to provide additional direction on 

transmitting specific information to 

them for these reviews. 

As conveyed in the Policy Guidance, 

which follows, only projects that are 

candidates for a funding 

recommendation (i.e., seeking either an 

FFGA or PCGA), or which have 

undergone significant scope, cost, or 

financial changes, need submit 

information for evaluation. 

FTA considers requests for project 

entry into preliminary engineering, final 

design, or Small Starts project 

development at any time of the year. For 

sponsors who hope to have their 

proposed New Starts project approved 

into preliminary engineering or Small 

Starts project approved into project 

development in time for inclusion in the 

FY 2009 Annual Report, a complete 

request (with previously FTA-accepted 

travel forecasts, baseline alternative, 

build and baseline capital costs, and 

achievement of other project readiness 

requirements, as appropriate) must be 

submitted to FTA no later than 

September 7, 2007. FTA encourages 

sponsors of such projects to contact FTA 

as soon as possible to assess their 

readiness for preliminary engineering 

and project development and to prepare 

their request for advancement. Projects 

supported by incomplete or premature 

requests will not be considered for 

inclusion in the FY 2009 Annual 

Report. 

FTA encourages sponsors of 

candidate New Starts projects to follow 

the Reporting Instructions closely, and 

to submit complete information 

according to the deadlines established 

above. FTA’s period for completing its 

FY 2009 budget evaluations is very 

short. FTA staff is committed to working 

closely with project sponsors to resolve 

any questions or issues with their 

submittals, but cannot guarantee the 

acceptance and inclusion of any revised 

or updated information after September 

30, 2007 in time for the FY 2009 

evaluation. Project sponsors should 

contact the FTA Office of Planning and 

Environment, or their FTA Regional 

Office, if they have any questions 

regarding the submission of information 

for evaluation, or the process for 

developing such information. 

Response to Comments and New and 

Small Starts Program Changes 

The purpose of this notice is to 

convey the Final Guidance on New 

Starts/Small Starts Policies and 

Procedures, reflecting the changes 

implemented as a result of comments 

received on the February 12, 2007 

notice of availability. FTA finds that 

there is good cause to make this 

guidance effective upon publication of 

this notice because sponsors of projects 

seeking New and Small Starts funding 

must have adequate time to prepare 

information that FTA will use to 

evaluate projects for inclusion in the 

President’s FY 2009 budget request to 

Congress. 

1. Information Required of Grantee 

a. Operating Efficiencies and 

Environmental Benefits 

FTA adopts as final its proposal to no 

longer require the submission by New 

Starts project sponsors of information 

on FTA’s measures for operating 

efficiencies and environmental benefits. 

The elimination of these two 

requirements is intended to reduce the 

reporting effort of New Starts project 

sponsors. FTA has not found that 

current measures for these two 

evaluation criteria distinguish, in any 

meaningful way, the differences 

between projects. Moreover, FTA 

believes that the operating efficiencies 

of New Starts projects are essentially 

captured under FTA’s current measure 

for cost effectiveness. Until measures 

can be developed that provide salient 

information for the environmental 

benefits criterion that better 

differentiates the characteristics of 

projects, grantee submission of the 

information is not required. FTA’s 

Reporting Instructions for the Section 

5309 New Starts Criteria have been 

updated to reflect this change. 

Comments: Nearly all of the 

respondents agreed with this proposal, 

although many expressed support for 

the eventual development by FTA of a 

more effective measure for 

environmental benefits. 

Response: FTA agrees that New Starts 

projects can make important and 

meaningful contributions to an 

improved environment, and believes 

that their environmental benefits ought 

to be better captured in the evaluation 

and rating process. To that end, FTA has 

been studying a number of potential 

environmental benefits measures which 

better distinguish New Starts projects 

from each other. These measures will be 

proposed some time in the future and 

FTA will seek comment on them at that 

time. At this time, however, FTA will 

continue to use its current evaluation 

measure of the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s ambient air quality 

rating. 

b. Transit Supportive Land Use Patterns 

and Policies 

FTA adopts as final its proposal that 

the resubmission of information on 

transit supportive land use patterns and 

policies for the purposes of the Annual 

Report on Funding Recommendations 

be optional for both New Starts and 

Small Starts. 

While land use ratings rarely change 

over the course of a project’s 

development, project sponsors have the 

option of submitting information for this 

criterion should they believe that the 

new information would improve their 

project’s rating. 

Comments: Most respondents agreed 

with the proposal, with some additional 

suggestions. Several respondents felt 

that in the absence of an annual 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Notices 30909 

requirement FTA should make clear that 

land use remains an important part of 

FTA’s evaluation and continue to 

encourage local governments, with 

transit agency support, to take 

supportive land use actions during the 

course of project development. Others 

suggested that FTA should continue to 

raise the standard for land use ratings as 

a project advances, and require that a 

project sponsor submit land use 

information prior to being permitted 

entry into final design. Finally, a few 

respondents requested that FTA 

consider new information for reevaluation at any time if a sponsor 

believes that this information will result 

in improving its project’s land use 

rating. 

Response: FTA’s proposal to no 

longer require annual land use reporting 

should not be construed in any way as 

a diminishment of its support for good 

transit-oriented land use planning. 

Indeed, FTA will re-evaluate a project’s 

transit-supportive land use plans and 

policies annually if its sponsor desires 

to submit significant new information. 

While annual re-evaluations will be at 

the discretion of project sponsors, FTA 

will continue to evaluate and rate 

transit-supportive land use at the time 

of a request to enter preliminary 

engineering, and will require a formal 

re-evaluation and rating of transitsupportive land use at the time of a 

sponsor’s request to advance a project 

into final design. 

c. Annual Report on Funding 

Recommendations 

FTA adopts as final its proposal to no 

longer require New Starts and Small 

Starts project sponsors to submit 

information for evaluation for the 

Annual Report on Funding 

Recommendations if their project is not 

likely to be ready for a funding 

recommendation. Such information is 

required, however, for New Starts 

projects in or near final design, or for 

projects which have experienced a 

significant change since its last 

evaluation. 

This policy change is intended to 

reduce the reporting burden for 

candidate New and Small Starts projects 

in their earlier stages of development 

while at the same time better align 

FTA’s annual project evaluation 

responsibilities with its statutorilyrequired Annual Report on Funding 

Recommendations. 

Comments: Most of those commenting 

on this proposal agreed with it. A few 

respondents suggested that FTA should 

make reporting optional in cases where 

local funding processes and conditions 

would make a new rating necessary or 

desirable. A few others expressed 

concern about what FTA would report 

in the absence of a formal resubmission 

of the information supporting the New 

Starts criteria. Questions on the 

proposal included what would 

constitute a ‘‘significant’’ change 

requiring a new evaluation and rating 

for projects not being considered for 

funding; how far in advance FTA would 

notify sponsors of the need to resubmit 

updated information; and what criteria 

FTA would use to determine if a project 

is a candidate for a funding 

recommendation. 

Response: FTA views its Annual 

Report on Funding Recommendations as 

a complementary document to the 

Administration’s annual budget request. 

FTA’s proposal was intended to reduce 

the annual reporting burden on 

candidate New Starts project sponsors 

which have not yet reached a level of 

development necessary to warrant 

consideration for a funding 

recommendation. So long as a project 

sponsor submits information when 

requesting approval into preliminary 

engineering and final design (or, for 

Small Starts, project development) and 

the project continues to advance on 

schedule with insignificant changes to 

its scope, cost, and/or financial plan, 

additional submissions and a formal reevaluation (until the time of its 

consideration by FTA for funding), 

strikes FTA as unnecessary. However, 

when a project experiences a significant 

event e.g., a loss of local revenues that 

brings into question its local financial 

commitment; a change in project scope 

that would have a significant impact on 

its operation and hence transportation 

benefits; or an increase in its cost 

estimate that requires a re-examination 

of its financial plan and/or threatens the 

project’s cost effectiveness—a formal reevaluation and re-rating will be 

required. The examples above serve as 

general guidelines that might trigger a 

re-evaluation; the decision on the need 

for such an evaluation will be made by 

FTA on a case-by-case basis. The 

decision to re-rate a project would be 

made and transmitted by FTA in the 

previous year’s Annual Report on 

Funding Recommendations or by letter 

no later than April 30 prior to the Fall 

preparation of the next Annual Report, 

thus providing the sponsor ample time 

to address any causes of concern and 

prepare updated information for 

evaluation. 

On the other hand, and at the 

discretion of project sponsors, FTA will 

re-evaluate projects that have taken 

positive steps since preliminary 

engineering, such as gaining additional 

funding commitments or reducing 

project costs that are expected to 

improve the project’s rating for the 

Annual Report on Funding 

Recommendations. 

In the case where a re-evaluation is 

not necessary, FTA will report all recent 

relevant and validated information on a 

candidate project for the Annual Report. 

The primary focus will be placed on 

reporting the progress demonstrated by 

the project sponsor in terms of meeting 

its schedule, addressing NEPA 

requirements and design uncertainties, 

and garnering local funding 

commitments. For projects advancing 

under a project development agreement 

(PDA) with FTA, adherence to the 

milestones included in the PDA will be 

noted. Modest changes to the project 

scope and cost estimate will also be 

reported (as noted above, major changes 

would require a formal re-evaluation 

and rating). It is anticipated that most of 

this information will be collected over 

the course of the year as part of FTA’s 

normal project oversight 

responsibilities. In limited cases it may 

be necessary for project sponsors to 

submit supporting documentation on 

changes in the local financial 

commitment for their project, although 

it is not expected that a full financial 

plan would need to be submitted. 

Projects that demonstrate readiness 

for a funding recommendation will be 

required to submit updated New Starts 

criteria and be evaluated and rated, thus 

ensuring complete information for 

decision-making. In the absence of any 

comments on the criteria proposed by 

FTA to determine when a project will be 

considered for funding, FTA will 

continue to utilize the threshold it 

currently follows: That is, projects 

expected to be approved into final 

design by the Spring after the Fall 

preparation of Annual Report on 

Funding Recommendations. Small 

Starts projects that have completed 

NEPA by the Fall preparation of the 

Annual Report would also be 

considered to be a funding candidate 

and would be subject to reporting and 

evaluation. 

2. FTA Review of Key Documents 

FTA will not adopt at this time the 

proposed requirement that potential 

New Starts and Small Starts project 

sponsors in alternatives analysis 

provide a timely opportunity for FTA 

comment on documents describing the 

alternatives at their conceptual, 

detailed, and final stages of 

development. FTA is inclined, however, 

to establish this requirement at such 

time that it has the resources and 

systems in place to address stakeholder 

concerns with the proposal. In addition, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
30910 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Notices 

FTA may propose as a requirement at 

some time in the future the review of, 

and comment upon, other key products 

of the alternatives analysis study 

process. 

The intent of this proposal was to 

ensure that FTA be involved early in a 

corridor planning study that might 

result in the selection of a candidate 

New or Small Starts project. FTA 

believes that such involvement 

produces a number of benefits to the 

study effort, including the provision of 

technical assistance for improving the 

information available to support local 

decision-making and the management of 

both FTA and local expectations for 

advancement of the study and the 

resulting locally-preferred alternative. 

This proposed requirement supports 

FTA’s goal of working closely with 

sponsors of alternatives analysis studies 

to ensure that communication of Federal 

and local concerns occurs at the 

appropriate time so that they can be 

resolved quickly and avoid negative 

impact of the study’s progress and cost. 

Comments: Comments received on 

this proposal generally recognized the 

benefit of engaging FTA early in the 

project development process, but 

expressed significant concerns about 

making such engagement a formal 

requirement whereby FTA would 

officially review and approve the 

documents mentioned. Concerns 

expressed by the majority of 

commenters included the perceived 

insertion of FTA into the local decisionmaking process, the timeliness of FTA’s 

review of the materials, and the 

potential time and costs these 

requirements could add to the project 

development process. 

Response: SAFETEA–LU gives FTA 

the responsibility to ensure that 

reasonable alternatives are considered 

in alternative analyses for a project to be 

eligible for New Starts funding, and that 

these alternatives are developed in such 

a way that their costs, benefits, and 

impacts can be properly presented to 

decision makers and stakeholders. 

Documentation and submission to FTA 

of the descriptions of alternatives at the 

conceptual, detailed, and final level of 

definition assists FTA in carrying out 

this responsibility. FTA believes that 

such a Federal-local partnership better 

protects the public interest, which FTA 

places as its over-arching goal for the 

New and Small Starts program. FTA’s 

proposal was not intended to 

undermine local decision-making 

authority, which FTA holds to be a core 

principle of alternatives analysis 

studies. 

Furthermore, FTA’s proposal never 

contemplated an approval of the 

alternatives (except for FTA’s longstanding approval of the New Starts 

‘‘baseline’’ alternative). Rather, FTA’s 

reviews would simply highlight for 

study sponsors the issues surrounding 

the development of the alternatives that 

must be addressed in order for a locally 

preferred alternative to advance into 

preliminary engineering as quickly as 

possible. 

Nevertheless, FTA is concerned that 

enforcing this requirement without 

being able to commit to a timeframe for 

its review would fail to give project 

sponsors important information for their 

project schedules. Therefore, over the 

next several months, FTA will collect 

information on existing review times 

that will help inform us of a reasonable 

period for the reviews of various 

products of alternatives analysis studies. 

Moreover, FTA is currently researching 

the use of enhanced, technology-based 

information management systems to 

improve the efficiency, accountability, 

and transparency of FTA reviews. In the 

meantime, FTA will continue to 

strongly encourage project sponsors to 

submit documents to FTA for review on 

the descriptions of alternatives and 

technical methods and results, as 

described in FTA guidance and 

workshops. FTA assures study sponsors 

that the timely review of these 

documents is an agency priority. 

3. Travel Forecasts 

a. Validation Against Travel Patterns 

FTA adopts as final the proposal—for 

implementation in May 2009—that 

travel forecasts for both New and Small 

Starts submitted in support of a request 

to enter preliminary engineering (PE) or 

project development (PD) be based on 

travel models that have been validated 

against data sufficient to describe 

current ridership patterns. 

The purpose of this policy is to ensure 

that sufficient data on current ridership 

patterns are available to understand the 

key markets served by the existing 

transit system and to check the grasp of 

those markets by the local travel 

forecasting procedures. Without 

adequate data, the identification of 

purpose and need for a major transit 

project is substantially limited by the 

absence of insight into the functions and 

limitations of the existing transit 

system. Further, the inability to test the 

travel forecasting procedures for their 

understanding of those functions and 

limitations reduces the credibility of 

forecasts for transit alternatives in the 

future. 

Comments: Comments reflected a 

variety of topics ranging from funding to 

survey bias, with no topic receiving 

more than one-third of the nineteen 

total responses. There was concern that 

collecting data and then calibrating 

travel models every five years was 

costly; that five years was an arbitrary 

timeline; and that by the time the travel 

models were calibrated, it would be 

time to begin data collection efforts 

again. Other comments indicated that 

alternative methods of data collection 

such as automated counts, farebox 

counts, vehicle location systems and/or 

telephone surveys should substitute for 

or supplement system-wide ridership 

surveys. Comments also noted the 

difficulty of eliminating survey bias and 

the need to provide survey requirements 

to ensure that data is collected 

uniformly by project sponsors. 

Response: During the past five years, 

a large number of project sponsors have 

proceeded through alternatives analysis 

without any useful data on current 

ridership patterns. The locally preferred 

alternatives emerging from those 

analyses have included guidewayexpansion projects whose forecasts were 

prepared without any insight into the 

ridership patterns on recently opened 

initial guideway projects in the 

metropolitan area. Other project 

sponsors have proceeded with forecasts 

for initial projects that would depend 

heavily on park-ride access but without 

any data on park-ride facilities and 

express-bus services opened relatively 

recently in the area. In these 

circumstances, the forecasting 

procedures are uninformed by readily 

available information on travel markets 

that are key to understanding the 

benefits of proposed major investments 

in transit facilities. Consequently, the 

uncertainties in the forecasts are large 

and the risks are significant that the 

forecasts—and therefore the project 

evaluation and ratings—will be 

substantially in error. 

In these circumstances, any 

unexpected characteristics in the 

forecasts become cause for concern and 

potential delay as project sponsors 

struggle—without data—to document 

the reasonableness of the unusual 

characteristics or to correct the 

forecasting tools. Therefore, FTA thinks 

it in the best interest of all parties to 

have sufficient data on key travel 

markets, travel forecasting procedures 

that are tested with those data, and a 

clear understanding of current ridership 

patterns as they inform the purpose and 

need for a major transit project. Further, 

FTA views the costs of such data 

collection as very small relative to the 

value of the information obtained, to the 

costs of other tasks (engineering, 

environmental, and others) necessary to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Notices 30911 

project development, and to the costs of 

the projects proposed for funding. 

FTA agrees that a 5-year horizon—or 

any fixed point in time—is arbitrary and 

potentially not useful in many cases. In 

metropolitan areas with relatively slow 

growth in population and employment, 

and with a relatively stable transit 

system and transit ridership, a 10-yearold on-board survey plus current on-off 

counts may well be sufficient to prepare 

useful information on current ridership 

patterns. Conversely, in rapidly growing 

areas that have opened the initial 

guideway facility in the past three years, 

a 4-year-old survey of bus riders may 

well be an insufficient basis for 

understanding the potential 

performance of a second guideway line. 

Therefore, FTA will consider the 

adequacy of data on existing ridership 

patterns on a case-by-case basis. Project 

sponsors are advised to discuss with 

FTA—well in advance of a planned 

alternatives analysis—the nature, extent, 

timing, and quality of local data sources 

on current transit ridership patterns. 

Finally, this policy requires the 

availability of sufficient data on current 

travel patterns but not the specific 

method(s) for obtaining that data. 

Methods for obtaining information from 

individual riders might include 

personal interviews with a very limited 

number of questions, phone surveys, 

intercepts of riders at stations/stops 

rather than on board, and other 

emerging methods. Further, advances in 

automated passenger counters, farecard 

systems, automatic vehicle locator 

systems, and other data-collection 

methods may reduce the need for 

information from individual riders. 

Detailed on-off passenger counts, for 

example, might be used to update the 

sample expansion of an older on-board 

survey. In other circumstances, those 

counts might be used to estimate 

station-to-station trip tables, informed 

by a limited amount of rider-specific 

information. In general, FTA anticipates 

that project sponsors will tailor the 

strategy for data assembly to their 

individual circumstances to ensure that 

sufficient useful information is available 

as efficiently as possible. 

b. Mode-Specific Effects 

FTA adopts as final its proposal to 

allow project sponsors that seek to 

introduce a new transit mode to an area 

to claim credits (implemented through 

what is commonly called a modespecific constant) for the user benefits 

caused by attributes of that mode 

beyond the travel time and cost 

measures currently available in the local 

travel model. FTA will continue to work 

closely with sponsors of projects that 

have calibrated mode-specific constants 

to ensure that they are using constants 

that are generally consistent with the 

methods and values permitted for 

sponsors of projects which are new to an 

area. 

This policy establishes a reasonable 

approach to crediting alternatives that 

represent new transit modes locally 

with the mobility benefits caused by 

changes in transit service characteristics 

that are universally omitted from 

current travel forecasting methods. The 

policy applies to both the transit 

guideways identified as locally 

preferred alternatives and to guidewaylike elements of baseline alternatives 

used to evaluate proposed projects. The 

approach gives credit—and additional 

user benefits—based on the specific 

attributes of the alternative as they are 

perceived by travelers. FTA will assign 

credits for characteristics in three 

categories: (1) Guideway-like 

characteristics (equivalent to a 

maximum of eight minutes of traveltime savings); (2) span of good service 

(up to three minutes); and (3) passenger 

amenities (up to four minutes). Further, 

FTA will define a discount of up to 20 

percent on the weight applied to time 

spent on the transit vehicle. These 

credits and discount are applied to the 

calculation of user benefits only; 

ridership forecasts will not be affected. 

This policy is effective immediately 

except in the case of baseline 

alternatives in areas that are considering 

expansion of existing guideway systems. 

The policy will apply to those 

alternatives beginning in May 2008 so 

that project sponsors have sufficient 

time to modify their travel forecasting 

procedures. 

FTA will issue technical guidance on 

the application of this policy in the May 

2007 Reporting Instructions. 

Comments: The most frequent 

comment was a request that walk access 

be given a similar user benefit credit as 

park and ride access trips. Other 

comments expressed the concern that 

these credits would penalize both 

transit agencies seeking to expand an 

existing mode as well as those agencies 

with an already well validated travel 

model. Respondents requested greater 

transparency on the process of 

calculating user benefit credits. In 

addition, respondents would like to 

utilize local information to supplement 

the calculation of credits to user benefits 

in their region. 

Response: Because of the large size of 

the ‘‘transportation analysis zones’’ used 

in travel models to represent the 

geography of metropolitan areas, nearly 

all current travel models overestimate 

the potential walk access market for 

fixed guideways. Many of the walk-toguideway and walk-from-guideway trips 

represented in these models would 

actually require a bus connection. 

Because a walk-guideway-walk trip is 

subject to this error at both ends of the 

guideway trip—and the errors are 

multiplicative—FTA cannot grant 

credits for walk-only travel on 

guideways where the size of that travel 

market is inevitably and grossly 

overstated. However, in an effort to 

capture all credible benefits and reward 

good practice in local travel models, 

FTA will consider the full crediting of 

these benefits for walk-access as well as 

drive-access transit trips when the local 

travel models support accurate 

accounting of walk to guideway walk 

trips. Therefore, project sponsors may 

propose the full set of credits where 

they believe that the local travel models 

handle walk-access to fixed guideways 

with sufficient accuracy. 

This policy in no way penalizes areas 

that have existing guideway transit 

systems and have calibrated forecasting 

procedures with transit-mode-specific 

constants and coefficient discounts for 

guideway transit. The policy remedies a 

large disadvantage previously faced by 

sponsors of an initial guideway project 

in a given metropolitan area. 

Technical assistance in the 

application of the constants can be 

requested of FTA by contacting the FTA 

Office of Planning and Environment at 

(202) 366–4033. 

4. Evaluation Criteria 

a. Overall Project Justification Rating 

FTA adopts as final its proposal to 

replace the current three-tiered overall 

project rating scale of ‘‘low,’’

‘‘medium,’’ and ‘‘high’’ with a fivetiered rating scale of ‘‘low,’’ ‘‘mediumlow,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ ‘‘medium-high,’’ and 

‘‘high’’ as directed in SAFETEA–LU. 

This policy was intended to modify 

the current overall ratings to be 

consistent with the ratings specified in 

SAFETEA–LU, which requires that 

projects be given an overall rating based 

on a five-tier scale of ‘‘high,’’ ‘‘mediumhigh,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ ‘‘medium-low,’’ and 

‘‘low.’’ The application of this modest 

change will be documented in a 

separate summary document on the FY 

2009 New Starts Evaluation and Rating 

Process, to be issued by June 30, 2007. 

Comments: Almost all comments 

received were supportive of the 

proposed change to the five-tiered rating 

scale. A few commenters asked for 

clarification on the decision rules. 

Response: The overall rating is 

determined by the average of the rating 

for project justification and for local 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
30912 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Notices 

financial commitment. When the 

average of these ratings is unclear (e.g., 

project justification rating of ‘‘mediumhigh’’ and local financial commitment 

rating of ‘‘medium’’), FTA will round up 

the overall rating to the higher rating 

(e.g., project justification rating of 

‘‘medium-high’’ and local financial 

commitment rating of ‘‘medium’’ yields 

an overall rating of ‘‘medium-high’’) 

except in the following circumstances: 

• A ‘‘medium’’ overall rating requires 

a rating of at least ‘‘medium’’ for both 

project justification and local financial 

commitment. 

• A ‘‘medium-low’’ overall rating 

requires a rating of at least ‘‘mediumlow’’ for both project justification and 

local financial commitment. 

b. Simplified Rating of Local Financial 

Commitment 

FTA adopts as final its policy to add 

a decision rule that Small Starts and 

Very Small Starts projects that meet the 

conditions for a simplified financial 

rating be given a rating of ‘‘high’’ if their 

sponsors request no more than a 50% 

Small Starts share, while those 

requesting between 50% and 80% share 

receive no less than a ‘‘medium’’ rating. 

Agencies currently receive a 

simplified financial rating of ‘‘medium’’

if they can demonstrate they have a 

reasonable plan to secure funding for 

the local share of capital costs; that the 

additional operating and maintenance 

costs of the project are less than 5% of 

the agency’s operating budget; and that 

the agency is in good operating 

condition. By giving higher ratings to 

projects seeking less Small Starts 

funding, FTA is providing an incentive 

for a project to request a lower 

percentage of Small Starts funding, thus 

allowing for the program to benefit more 

localities. 

Comments: Nearly half of the 

respondents supported this proposal. Of 

those who did not, comments cited this 

incentive would make it difficult to put 

together entry level projects; it would 

dilute other financial considerations of 

a project sponsor and it may 

disadvantage high quality projects as 

measured by other criteria. In addition, 

other comments requested greater 

flexibility in the amount of local match 

or the ability to consider the economic 

health of the area while still competing 

for a ‘‘high’’ financial rating. 

Response: Projects which meet the 

aforementioned conditions for 

streamlined evaluation and rating will 

in every case receive a rating sufficient 

to advance in development and be 

considered for Small Starts funding, 

regardless of the local share. FTA 

believes that the ability of project 

sponsors to contribute a higher nonSmall Starts funding share represents a 

measure of local commitment to a 

project that should be recognized in the 

ratings. FTA further believes that 

providing higher ratings for requests of 

less Small Starts funding is entirely 

consistent with SAFETEA–LU 

provisions that specify local share as an 

evaluation consideration. Finally, by 

specifying that projects seeking Small 

Starts funding must be under $250 

million in total cost and $75 million in 

Small Starts funding, SAFETEA–LU 

constrains higher cost projects to less 

than 50 percent in Small Starts funding. 

c. Mobility Measures for Transit 

Dependents 

FTA adopts as final its proposal to 

replace the current measure of mobility 

benefits for transit dependents with 

three easily computed measures: (1) The 

share of user benefits that accrue to 

transit dependents; (2) user benefits per 

project passenger mile for transit 

dependents; and (3) the number of 

project riders who are transit 

dependent. 

This policy addresses the dimensions 

of a project’s improvements to mobility: 

(1) The extent that it benefits transit 

dependents compared to their 

representation in the metropolitan area; 

(2) the magnitude of the increase in 

mobility for each traveler normalized by 

the length of their journey on the 

project; and (3) the number of travelers 

affected. The overall rating for mobility 

for transit dependents will be based on 

the ratings of each of these three 

dimensions of mobility. The procedures 

for developing these measures are 

provided in FTA’s updated Reporting 

Instructions for the Section 5309 New 

Starts Criteria, available simultaneously 

with this notice. 

Comments: Three-quarters of the 

respondents were concerned that these 

measures do not take into account the 

evolving definition of a transit 

dependent. Thus, project sponsors who 

attempt to improve service to those who 

choose to be transit dependent may not 

be able to capture this segment by 

income or employment data. Further, 

respondents noted that measuring 

benefits per passenger mile may skew 

the results to favor long haul transit. In 

addition, several respondents cited that 

the NEPA documentation assesses the 

project benefits to low income and 

minority populations and may be a 

more meaningful tool in addressing 

overall transit equity. 

Response: Because travel models 

stratify the metropolitan population by 

either auto ownership or income, the 

current state of the practice can 

ascertain the mobility impacts of a 

project on carless households or the 

lowest income group used in a travel 

model. Carless and lower income 

households are reasonable surrogates for 

transit dependents. Forecasts of benefits 

for some other definition would require 

a new methodology to be implemented 

for every area seeking Small Starts 

funding, instead of relying on existing 

travel models. As noted, long haul 

transit with infrequent stops may rate 

well for the user-benefit-per-mile 

measure. Finally, using NEPA 

documents to address transit dependent 

mobility improvements is problematic 

given that there is no standardized 

approach for reporting project benefits 

in NEPA documentation. 

d. Subfactors for Local Financial 

Commitment 

FTA adopts as final the three 

proposed changes to the evaluation and 

rating of local financial commitment for 

both New and Small Starts, all of which 

are related to the sub-factors used to 

develop the ratings for the stability and 

reliability of the capital and operating 

finance plans. These changes include 

for both the capital and operating plans: 

(1) Eliminating the completeness subfactor; (2) merging the existing capacity 

and cost estimates and planning 

assumptions sub-factors together; and 

(3) re-weighting the remaining subfactors. 

This policy is intended to both 

simplify FTA’s evaluations of local 

financial commitment and better align 

considerations of the uncertainty 

associated with financial planning 

assumptions with the factor they affect. 

The application of this modest change 

will be documented in a separate 

summary document on the FY 2009 

New Starts Evaluation and Rating 

Process, and FTA’s Guidelines and 

Standards for Assessing Local Financial 

Commitment. Both documents will be 

available no later than June 30, 2007. 

Comments: All comments received 

were supportive of the proposed 

changes to the evaluation and rating of 

local financial commitment. 

Response: FTA will reduce the 

number of subfactors used to develop 

the ratings for the stability and 

reliability of the capital and operating 

finance plans from five to three. The 

three subfactors will be weighted as 

follows to arrive at a summary capital/ 

operating rating: (1) Current capital/ 

operating condition (25%); (2) 

commitment of capital/operating funds 

(25%); and (3) cost estimates/planning 

assumptions/capacity (50%). 

The three measures used to determine 

the overall local financial commitment 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Notices 30913 

rating and their weights will be 

maintained at: (1) The share of non-New 

Starts funding (20%); (2) the stability 

and reliability of the capital finance 

plan (50%); and (3) the stability and 

reliability of the operating finance plan 

(30%). All FTA decision rules for 

determining a rating for local financial 

commitment will remain in place as 

well. 

e. Innovative Contractual Agreements 

for Operations 

FTA adopts as final its policy that the 

degree to which a project employs 

innovative contractual agreements will 

be considered in the evaluation and 

rating of the operating finance plan for 

both New and Small Starts. 

This policy is intended to encourage 

project sponsors to examine innovative 

operating arrangements that might result 

in cost savings. FTA will increase the 

operating plan rating one level from 

‘‘medium’’ to ‘‘medium-high’’ or from 

‘‘medium-high’’ to ‘‘high’’ if the project 

sponsor can demonstrate it has provided 

the opportunity for the operation and 

maintenance of the project to be 

contracted out. The operating plan 

rating will not increase if the operating 

finance plan rating is below a medium. 

FTA will revise its guidance documents, 

including the Guidelines and Standards 

for Addressing Local Financial 

Commitment, to reflect this change. 

Comments: Nearly half of the 

respondents requested that similar 

considerations be made for transit 

agencies that have studied such 

innovative arrangements, regardless of 

whether the arrangement was 

implemented or not. Other comments 

cited the concern that this proposal 

could disrupt existing labor union 

contracts. The last set of comments cited 

the lack of statutory basis to provide an 

additional weight for this consideration. 

Response: The operating plan rating 

will be increased for project sponsors 

that can provide evidence that the 

operations and maintenance of the 

project will be contracted out or that 

simply an opportunity has been given 

for contracting out but that there were 

substantive reasons for not doing so. 

FTA believes that current statutes do 

not prohibit the implementation of this 

proposal. 

f. Rating Information in Planning 

Studies 

FTA adopts as final its proposal that 

alternatives analysis (AA) final reports 

and AA/Draft Environmental Impact 

Statements (Draft EISs) must present—

for all alternatives—the information 

used by FTA to assign New or Small 

Starts ratings if that information has 

been vetted by FTA. If the information 

has not been vetted with FTA, then the 

absence of the information must be 

highlighted in the document. 

The intent of this policy is to comply 

with FTA requirements for AAs and the 

Council on Environmental Quality for 

DEISs by identifying information 

relevant and important to a decision on 

a locally preferred alternative. If this 

requirement cannot be met, publication 

of the AA or AA/DEIS would not be 

delayed; rather, the absence of the 

information and its relevance must be 

explained in the AA or AA/DEIS. 

Comments: Many opposed the 

proposal stating that the NEPA and New 

Starts process should be independent. 

Others opposed the proposal because of 

potential project delays citing the lack 

of FTA staff to review the information. 

Others agreed that FTA should allow 

that a disclosure statement be used in 

alternatives analysis documents when 

fully vetted information is not available, 

which would summarize the New Starts 

process and explain that information 

addressing the criteria has not yet been 

completed. 

Response: It has been FTA’s long 

standing policy to integrate the NEPA 

and New Starts processes because they 

share common goals. The Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations state 

that ‘‘an environmental impact 

statement should at least indicate those 

considerations, including factors not 

related to environmental quality, which 

are likely to be relevant and important 

to a decision.’’ For projects seeking New 

or Small Starts funding, rating 

information that determines whether the 

project can qualify for funding is 

‘‘relevant and important to a decision.’’

Regarding concerns over project delays, 

this policy will not delay a document/ 

project if information on the New Starts 

criteria has not been vetted with FTA. 

In such cases, the absence of such 

information would simply be 

acknowledged without prejudice with a 

statement that it has not yet been fully 

vetted with FTA and therefore no 

assurances can be given that the 

alternatives considered, including the 

locally preferred alternative, would be 

eligible or competitive for New or Small 

Starts funding. The inclusion of such a 

statement simply provides the public 

and local decision makers full 

disclosure of the actions necessary to 

advance the preferred alternative into 

the New or Small Starts project 

development process. 

g. Other Factors 

FTA adopts as final its proposal to 

incorporate under ‘‘other factors’’ two 

specific considerations. First, if a 

proposed New or Small Starts project is 

a principal element of a congestion 

management strategy, in general, and 

an auto pricing strategy, in particular, 

the project justification rating could be 

increased. Second, if a New or Small 

Starts project addresses significant 

transportation problems or 

opportunities in a corridor and the 

appropriateness of the preferred 

alternative as a response, FTA will 

consider the contents of the ‘‘make-thecase document’’ as a standard criterion 

under ‘‘other factors.’’ A ‘‘high’’ makethe-case rating could increase the 

project’s overall rating and a ‘‘low’’

make-the-case rating could decrease the 

overall rating. FTA further continues to 

encourage the reporting, under ‘‘other 

factors,’’ of information on a project’s 

economic development impacts. 

Particularly compelling information 

may be used by FTA to increase a 

project’s ‘‘project justification’’ rating. 

Each of the considerations has the 

potential of changing the overall project 

justification rating. The first 

consideration can only increase the 

rating while the second can either 

increase or decrease the rating. The 

details of how these factors will be 

applied, along with consideration of the 

economic development factor will be 

described in an update to its summary 

document on the New Starts Evaluation 

and Rating Process, available no later 

than June 30, 2007. 

Comments: In response to the first 

consideration, comments indicated that 

a congestion pricing strategy is not 

effective except in large cities with 

substantial investment in transit 

infrastructure. The second consideration 

was largely supported with just over 

half of the respondents citing their 

support. Of those who opposed the 

consideration, the reason cited was that 

FTA would be evaluating a document 

and not the project itself. 

Response: The first consideration 

supports the Department’s initiative to 

address congestion using pricing 

strategies. Successful pricing strategies 

have been introduced in medium-sized 

cities. The purpose of the second 

consideration, the make-the-case 

document, is intended to marshal the 

best available arguments for the 

proposed project based on the analytical 

results of planning and project 

development findings. As such, FTA 

believes that it provides important 

information in assessing project merit 

that complements the mechanical 

application of ratings and numbers. FTA 

will base its rating on the extent to 

which a compelling case is made that 

addresses this purpose. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
30914 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Notices 

Issued on: May 30, 2007. 

James S. Simpson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 07–2774 Filed 5–31–07; 11:09 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

May 25, 2007. 

The Department of Treasury has 

submitted the following public 

information collection requirement(s) to 

OMB for review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the 

submission(s) may be obtained by 

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 

Officer listed. Comments regarding this 

information collection should be 

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed 

and to the Treasury Department 

Clearance Officer, Department of the 

Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20220. 

Dates: Written comments should be 

received on or before July 5, 2007 to be 

assured of consideration. 

Federal Consulting Group 

OMB Number: 1505–0196. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Litigation Management—

Information Collection Regarding 

Proposed Settlements. 

Form: TRIP 03. 

Description: Section 103(a) and 104 of 

the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 

2002 (Pub. L. 107–297) authorize the 

Department of the Treasury to 

administer and implement the 

temporary Terrorism Risk Insurance 

Program established by the Act. Section 

107 contains specific provisions 

designed to manage litigation arising out 

of or resulting from a certified act of 

terrorism. The Terrorism Risk Insurance 

Extension Act of 2005, Public Law 109–

144, added section 107(a)(6) to TRIA, 

which provides that procedures and 

requirements established by the 

Secretary under 31 CFR 50.82, as in 

effect on the date of issuance of that 

section in final form [July 28, 2004], 

shall apply to any Federal cause of 

action described in section 107(a)(1). 

Section 50.82 of the regulations requires 

insurers to submit to Treasury for 

advance approval certain proposed 

settlements involving an insured loss, 

any part of the payment of which the 

insurer intends to submit as part of its 

claim for Federal payment under the 

Program. The collection of information 

in the notice of proposed settlement in 

Section 50.83 that insurers must submit 

to implement the settlement approval 

process prescribed by Section 50.82. 

Respondents: Business and other forprofit institutions. 

Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 

5,141 hours. 

OMB Number: 1505–0197. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Recordkeeping Requirements 

for Insurers Compensated Under 

Terrorism Risk Insurance Program. 

Description: Sections 103(a) and 104 

of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 

2002 (Pub. L. 107–297) (as extended by 

the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension 

Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–144) authorize 

the Department of the Treasury to 

administer and implement the 

Terrorism Risk Insurance Program 

established by the Act. In 31 CFR part 

50, subpart F (Sec. 50.50–50.55) 

Treasury established requirements and 

procedures for insurers that file claims 

for payment of the Federal share of 

compensation for insured losses 

resulting from a certified act of terrorism 

under the Act. Section 50.60 allows 

Treasury access to records of an insurer 

pertinent to amounts paid as the Federal 

share of compensation for insured losses 

in order to conduct investigations, 

confirmations and audits. Section 50.61 

requires insurers to retain all records as 

are necessary to fully disclose all 

material matters pertaining to insured 

losses. This collection of information is 

the recordkeeping requirement in 

§ 50.61. 

Respondents: Business and other forprofit institutions. 

Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 

833 hours. 

Clearance Officer: Howard Leiken, 

(202) 622–7139, Department of the 

Treasury, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., 

Room 2113, Washington, DC 20220. 

OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt 

(202) 395–7316, Office of Management 

and Budget, Room 10235, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503. 

Robert Dahl, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–10690 Filed 6–1–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4811–37–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request for Form 1041–ES 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, invites the general public and 

other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on proposed 

and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is 

soliciting comments concerning Form 

1041–ES, Estimated Income Tax for 

Estates and Trusts. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before August 3, 2007 to 

be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Glenn P. Kirkland, Internal Revenue 

Service, room 6516, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the form and instructions 

should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala 

at Internal Revenue Service, room 6516, 

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20224, or at (202) 622–

3634, or through the internet at 

RJoseph.Durbala@irs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Estimated Income Tax for 

Estates and Trusts. 

OMB Number: 1545–0971. 

Form Number: Form 1041–ES. 

Abstract: Internal Revenue Code 

section 6654(1) imposes a penalty on 

trusts, and in certain circumstances, a 

decedent’s estate, for underpayment of 

estimated tax. Form 1041–ES is used by 

the fiduciary to make the estimated tax 

payments. The form provides the IRS 

with information to give estates and 

trusts proper credit for estimated tax 

payments. 

Current Actions: There are no changes 

being made to the form at this time. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

1,200,000. 

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 2 

hours, 38 minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 3,161,236. 

The following paragraph applies to all 

of the collections of information covered 

by this notice: 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless the collection of information 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

Books or records relating to a collection 

of information must be retained as long 

as their contents may become material 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES