Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Notices 83545 

The project is identified in UDOT’s 

adopted 2024–2029 State Transportation 

Improvement Program as project 

number 19854 with funding identified 

for final design and construction. The 

project is also included in the Wasatch 

Front Regional Council’s (WFRC) 2023– 

2050 Wasatch Front Regional 

Transportation Plan approved in May 

2023. 

The actions by UDOT, and the laws 

under which such actions were taken, 

are described in the EIS and the ROD 

(Combined Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and Record of Decision for I– 

15; Farmington to Salt Lake City Project, 

in Davis and Salt Lake Counties, Utah, 

Project No. S–I15–7(369)309 approved 

on October 3, 2024, and other 

documents in the UDOT project records. 

The EIS and ROD is available for review 

at the UDOT Central Complex, 4501 

South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

In addition, the EIS and ROD 

documents can be viewed and 

downloaded from the project website at 

https://i15eis.udot.utah.gov/. This 

notice applies to the EIS, the ROD, and 

all other UDOT and Federal agency 

decisions and other actions with respect 

to the project as of the issuance date of 

this notice and all laws under which 

such actions were taken, including but 

not limited to the following laws 

(including their implementing 

regulations): 

1. General: National Environmental 

Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4321–4351]; 

Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 U.S.C. 109 

and 23 U.S.C. 128]; MAP–21, the 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act [Pub. L. 112–141]. 

2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401– 

7671(q)]. 

3. Land: Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]; Landscaping and 

Scenic Enhancement (Wildflowers) [23 

U.S.C. 319]. 

4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act 

[16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and section 1536], 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act [16 

U.S.C. 661–667(d)]; Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703–712]; The 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

[16 U.S.C. 668]. 

5. Historic and Cultural Resources: 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 

U.S.C. 470(aa)–470(ll)]; Archeological 

and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 

469–469(c)]; Native American Grave 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001–3013]. 

6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)– 

2000(d)(1)]; American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act [42 U.S.C. 1996]; Farmland 

Protection Policy Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 

4201–4209]. 

7. Wetlands and Water Resources: 

Clean Water Act (section 404, section 

401, section 319) [33 U.S.C. 1251–1377]; 

Coastal Zone Management Act [16 

U.S.C. 1451–1465]; Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF) [16 U.S.C. 

4601–4604]; Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) [42 U.S.C. 300(f) –300(j)(6)]; 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33 

U.S.C. 401–406]; Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act [16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931]; 

TEA–21 Wetlands Mitigation [23 U.S.C. 

103(b)(6)(M, 133(b)(11)]; Flood Disaster 

Protection Act [42 U.S.C. 4001–4128]. 

8. Hazardous Materials: 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act [42 U.S.C. 9601–9675]; Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

of 1986; Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act [42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k)]. 

9. Noise: Federal-Aid Highway Act of 

1970, Public Law 91–605 [84 Stat. 

1713]; [23 U.S.C. 109(h) & (i)]. 

10. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 

Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 

Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and 

Enhancement of Cultural Resources; 

E.O. 13287 Preserve America; E.O. 

13175 Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 

11514 Protection and Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112 

Invasive Species. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139 (l)(1). 

Ivan Marrero, 

Division Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23820 Filed 10–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

Safety Advisory 24–1 Proterra Bus/ 

Phoenix Motorcars Technical Service 

Bulletin 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of safety advisory. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) is issuing Safety 

Advisory 24–1 to alert transit agencies 

that Phoenix Motorcars (Phoenix) is 

voluntarily recalling certain 2020–2021 

800V Catalyst and 2020–2022 ZX5 

transit buses. FTA is recommending 

corrective actions to avoid and mitigate 

the risk to public transportation posed 

by the safety defect. The FTA’s Safety 

Advisory 24–1, ‘‘Proterra Bus/Phoenix 

Motorcars Safety Recall,’’ is available in 

its entirety on the agency’s public 

website. The National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) recall 

number is 24V–655. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Philip Herbert, Senior Accident 

Investigator for Transit Safety and 

Oversight, telephone (202) 366–5451 or 

Philip.Herbert@dot.gov. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329; 49 CFR 

1.91 and 670.29. 

Veronica Vanterpool, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23865 Filed 10–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Agency Request for Information; State 

Property Damage Only (PDO) Data 

Collection Practices 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: This notice requests 

information from interested parties to 

assist the agency in researching property 

damage only (PDO) crash data collection 

practices across the United States. State 

statutes dictate that law enforcement 

should complete a crash report for PDO 

crashes meeting a set of criteria 

including when damage is above a 

certain dollar threshold that varies by 

State. When a crash is below the 

reportable threshold, States may allow 

civilians to complete a crash report 

designed specifically for them. In some 

cases, jurisdictions within States have 

stopped collecting PDO crashes in an 

effort to save officer time and/or money. 

Other jurisdictions have stopped 

sending sworn officers to respond to 

PDO crashes. However, the impacts of 

these changes on crash data collection 

are not well documented or understood. 

NHTSA is seeking to identify States and 

jurisdictions that have modified their 

PDO crash reporting threshold or are 

using citizen or non-sworn officers to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
83546 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Notices 

report PDO crashes, and to determine 

the impacts of these practices on crash 

data analyses and agencies’ budgets and 

time. NHTSA seeks comments from all 

interested parties, including State crash 

data owners, highway safety offices, law 

enforcement, and other stakeholders to 

help inform NHTSA’s research into 

State PDO crash data collection 

practices. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 16, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

using the Federal Docket Management 

System Docket ID NHTSA–2024–0023 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Send comments to: Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12– 

140, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: Written comments may be 

faxed to (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: If you plan to 

submit written comments by hand or 

courier, please do so at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern 

time, Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Please submit all comments to the 

Docket by December 16, 2024. 

When you submit your comments, 

please remember to mention the agency 

and the docket number of this document 

within your correspondence. Please 

note that all comments received will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comments (or signing the comments, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78) or at https://

www.transportation.gov/privacy. 

Confidential Information: If you wish 

to submit any information under a claim 

of confidentiality, you should submit 

three copies of your complete 

submission, including the information 

you claim to be confidential business 

information, to the Chief Counsel, 

NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. In addition, you 

should submit two copies, from which 

you have deleted the claimed 

confidential business information, to 

Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. When 

you send a comment containing 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information, you should 

include a cover letter setting forth the 

information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation (49 CFR part 512). 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read the proposed changes to MMUCC, 

background documents, or comments 

received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov at any time and 

follow the online instructions for 

accessing the dockets. Or go to West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Please contact Beau Burdett, National 

Center for Statistics and Analysis, 

NHTSA (telephone: 202–366–7338 or 

email: beau.burdett@dot.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: From a 

national perspective, data comparability 

among States is important to 

practitioners’ understanding of trends 

and countermeasure effectiveness. 

However, the United States does not 

have a single, uniform crash reporting 

standard. Fatal crashes are reported to 

the Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS) using a uniform set of data 

elements and case-inclusion criteria. A 

common way that States code crash 

severity is using the KABCO scale. 

KABCO is an abbreviation for the 

different levels of injury severity: Killed 

(fatal injury), A-level (suspected serious) 

injury, B-level (suspected minor) injury, 

C-level (possible) injury, or Property 

Damage Only (no injury). Though not all 

States use the KABCO scale, all are 

required to use a uniform definition for 

both fatalities and serious (A-level) 

injuries. The Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) Safety 

Performance Management Measures (23 

CFR part 490) and the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration’s 

(NHTSA) Uniform Procedures for State 

Highway Safety Grant Programs (23 CFR 

part 1300) establish a single, national 

definition for States to report serious (Alevel) injuries per the Model Minimum 

Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). 

MMUCC supplies voluntary standard 

definitions of other crash severity levels 

(B- and C-level injuries, and property 

damage only—PDO). 

Crash reporting criteria vary widely 

among States, especially concerning 

PDO crashes. Variations include 

differences in reporting threshold 

amounts, the use of full or abbreviated 

reports, the reporter’s identity (sworn 

officers, non-law enforcement 

investigators, or citizens), and factors 

other than monetary value, like 

towaway necessity. The impact of 

practice variations on crash data quality, 

particularly PDO reporting, is unclear. 

To better understand State PDO data 

collection practices NHTSA began a 

research project. To date the research 

project has compiled State PDO 

thresholds as outlined in State statutes 

for the past 15 years, investigated the 

use of abbreviated reports for PDO 

crashes, and conducted a literature 

review on the extent and costs of PDO 

crashes, crash reporting thresholds, and 

alternatives to PDO reporting by sworn 

officers. The next phase of this research 

effort moves from examining existing 

literature and State statutes on PDO data 

collection practices to speaking with 

select States and agencies regarding 

their practices and conducting crash 

data analyses to investigate the impact 

of different PDO data collection 

practices on data quality and safety 

analyses. 

This notice requests information from 

interested parties, including State crash 

data owners, highway safety offices, law 

enforcement, and other stakeholders to 

assist NHTSA in conducting research to 

investigate different PDO crash data 

collection practices across the United 

States and the impacts of these PDO 

data collection practices (e.g., economic 

impacts such as cost or time savings, 

impacts to traffic safety analyses, 

impacts to vulnerable road users, etc.). 

NHTSA plans to utilize the information 

provided under this Request for 

Information to enhance and support the 

development of the next phase in the 

research project. 

Request for Information 

The agency is interested in 

information that would help develop 

and implement the next phase of 

research into State PDO data collection 

practices. This includes information 

about States’ PDO thresholds (the 

research team is examining all changes 

in the property-damage aspects of 

reporting thresholds: changes in the 

minimum dollar amount of damage, 

changes from a dollar-amount threshold 

to a towaway threshold, and elimination 

of the threshold altogether); the use of 

citizen/driver report forms; and whether 

States utilize non-sworn officers to 

report PDO crashes. NHTSA hereby 

seeks further information based on the 

below questions. This list is not 

exhaustive, and we encourage 

commenters to provide any further 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2024 / Notices 83547 

information that they believe is relevant 

to inform the agency as it seeks to 

conduct the next phase of research into 

State PDO data collection practices. 

(1) How does your State/jurisdiction 

determine if a crash report came from a 

sworn law enforcement officer or from 

a non-sworn officer? 

a. Ideally, this would be a data 

element in the crash report database 

showing the type of person who 

generated the report/data. If there are 

codes for sworn officer, non-sworn 

officer, and citizen (involved party), that 

would answer this question and 

Question #3 as well. However, having 

the indicator for sworn or non-sworn is 

important for this first question. Does 

your crash database include a data 

element that supports this? 

b. Officer badge number could be a 

second possible way to differentiate 

crash reports from sworn- versus nonsworn officers. Do you have badge 

numbers in the crash report/crash 

database and badge number lists 

identifying the type of officer (sworn 

versus non-sworn)? 

c. Can you provide information on 

any training differences for sworn 

versus non-sworn officers related to 

their crash reporting processes, 

knowledge, or duties? 

(2) Can your State supply summary 

statistics of crash data surrounding the 

most recent change in the crash 

reporting threshold (i.e., the frequency 

of crashes before and after the change)? 

a. We are most concerned with 

threshold changes in the past 15 years 

(i.e., 2009 or more recent). We would 

hope to get the frequency of crashes for 

each KABCO severity for 5 years before 

and after the change. If your State 

changed its threshold in 2009, for 

example, we would ask for data from 

two periods: 2004 to 2008, and 2009 to 

2013. Based on that example, can your 

system supply summary statistics of 

crash data for the period 5 years before 

and 5 years after the last threshold 

change? 

b. If the reporting threshold change 

took place mid-year (rather than on 

January 1st), we would need to know 

the implementation date for the change. 

In that case, we would like to receive 

the frequency of crashes for the year the 

change took place plus data for 5 years 

before and 5 years after the change (11 

years’ data total, including the change 

year). Can your system provide data to 

meet that request? 

c. If it has been fewer than 5 years 

since your most recent threshold 

change, can you provide any available 

post-change crash frequency data and 

can we also obtain the crash frequency 

for 5 years before that change? 

d. If there has been more than one 

change in threshold in the past 15 years, 

can you please describe the before- and 

after-change periods for each of the 

successive threshold changes and tell us 

if crash frequency data would be 

available for those periods? 

(3) Does your State use citizen/driver 

report forms for crash reporting? 

a. How does your State collect the 

data from crash-involved persons? 

b. How is the data from these reports 

stored? Specifically, is it added to the 

statewide crash database and, if so, are 

those reports tagged in some way to 

indicate that the data comes from a 

citizen/driver report? 

c. How is the data from citizen/driver 

reports used? Specifically, is it used in 

safety analyses and, if so, which types 

of analyses (e.g., safety analyses of 

locations, analyses of driver 

contributing factors, indications of belt 

use, other)? 

d. If a crash results in both a report 

written by a law enforcement officer 

(sworn or non-sworn) and a citizen 

report, are both versions stored in the 

statewide crash database? Are both used 

in safety analyses? Are the data blended 

from both sources (and if so, how)? 

This notice is for information 

purposes only. The agency will review 

and consider information provided in 

response to this notice as it conducts the 

next phase of research into State PDO 

data collection practices but will not 

respond to comments. 

Chou-Lin Chen, 

Associate Administrator for the National 

Center for Statistics and Analysis. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23099 Filed 10–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

[Docket No.: OFAC–2024–0005] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request for Rough 

Diamonds Control Regulations 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, 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 comment on 

proposed or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

Currently, the Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) within the Department 

of the Treasury is soliciting comments 

concerning OFAC’s information 

collection requirements contained 

within OFAC’s Rough Diamonds 

Control Regulations. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before December 16, 

2024 to be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

via the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions on the website for 

submitting comments. Refer to Docket 

Number OFAC–2024–0005. 

Email: OFACreport@treasury.gov with 

Attn: Request for Comments (Rough 

Diamonds Control Regulations). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and refer 

to Docket Number OFAC–2024–0005 

and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) control number 1505– 

0198. All comments, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, will become part of the public 

record and subject to public disclosure. 

Sensitive personal information, such as 

account numbers or Social Security 

numbers, should not be included. 

Comments generally will not be edited 

to remove any identifying or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Assistant Director for Licensing, 202– 

622–2480; Assistant Director for 

Regulatory Affairs, 202–622–4855; 

Assistant Director for Compliance, 202– 

622–2490 or https://ofac.treasury.gov/ 

contact-ofac. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Rough Diamonds Control 

Regulations. 

OMB Number: 1505–0198. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Description: The collections of 

information are contained in section 

592.301(a)(3) of OFAC’s Rough 

Diamonds Control Regulations. The 

person identified as the ultimate 

consignee on the Customs Form 7501 

Entry Summary or its electronic 

equivalent is required to report that 

person’s receipt of a shipment of rough 

diamonds to the relevant foreign 

exporting authority within 15 calendar 

days of the date that the shipment 

arrived at the U.S. port of entry. 

Forms: Section 592.301(a)(3) states 

that the report filed by the ultimate 

consignee need not be in any particular 

form and may be submitted 

electronically or by mail or courier. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1