Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2010 / Notices 62627 

withhold as little as a portion of one 

page to multiple boxes of documents. 

NHTSA estimates that it will take on 

average approximately eight (8) hours 

for an entity to prepare a submission 

requesting confidential treatment. This 

estimate will vary based on the size of 

the submission, with smaller and 

voluntary submissions taking 

considerably less time to prepare. The 

agency based this estimate on the 

volume of requests received over the 

past three years. 

NHTSA estimates that it will receive 

approximately 450 requests for 

confidential treatment annually. This 

figure is based on the average number of 

requests received over the past three 

years. We selected this period because 

it provides an estimate based on 

incoming requests for the most recent 

three years. The agency estimates that 

the total burden for this information 

collection will be approximately 3,600 

hours, which is based on the number of 

requests (450) multiplied by the 

estimated number of hours to prepare 

each submission (8 hours). 

Since nothing in the rule requires 

those persons who request confidential 

treatment pursuant to Part 512 to keep 

copies of any records or requests 

submitted to us, recordkeeping costs 

imposed would be zero hours and zero 

costs. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued on: October 4, 2010. 

O. Kevin Vincent, 

Chief Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25485 Filed 10–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Cancellation of Preparation 

of Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Tucson International Airport, 

Tucson, Pima County, AZ 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of 

preparation of environmental impact 

statement. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) announces that it 

has decided to discontinue preparation 

of an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed relocation of 

Runway 11R/29L and associated 

development at Tucson International 

Airport. The FAA’s decision to 

discontinue preparation of the EIS is 

based upon the results from a planning 

effort completed by the Tucson Airport 

Authority (TAA), the owner and 

operator of the airport. This planning 

effort reveled the project purpose and 

need has changed significantly. As a 

result, FAA has determined the new 

runway proposal at Tucson 

International Airport is not ripe for 

decision at this time. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roxana Hernandez, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Western-Pacific Region, 

Los Angeles Airports District Office, 

P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 

90009–2007, Telephone: (310) 725– 

3614. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 13, 2005, the FAA, published in 

the Federal Register a Notice of Intent 

to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) and hold a Public 

Scoping Meeting at Tucson 

International Airport (Volume 70, 

Number 197, FR 59800–59801). The EIS 

and Public Scoping Meeting were to 

address the proposed relocation of 

Runway 11R/29L and associated 

development at airport. 

In 2005, the FAA based its decision to 

prepare the EIS on the procedures 

described in FAA Order 5050.4A, 

Airport Environmental Handbook, and 

FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures. FAA 

also based its decision to prepare a 

federal EIS primarily on TAA’s proposal 

to relocate Runway 11R/29L, 450 feet to 

the southwest, creating a centerline to 

centerline separation of 1,156 feet 

between the existing Runway 11L29R. 

The length of the relocated Runway 

11R/29L would have been 11,000 feet 

long by 150 feet wide. 

Recently, the TAA completed a 

planning effort that reveled that the 

project’s purpose and need changed 

significantly. Therefore, when the TAA 

submits a new Airport Layout Plan with 

a revised project depicted on it, the FAA 

will determine the appropriate National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

documentation necessary to assess the 

environmental effects of those 

improvements pursuant to FAA Order 

5050.4B, National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions 

for Airport Actions, and FAA Order 

1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: 

Policies and Procedures. 

Issued in Hawthorne, California on 

September 30, 2010. 

Debbie Roth, 

Acting Manager, Airports Division, Western— 

Pacific Region, AWP–600. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25483 Filed 10–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement; 

Davis County, UT 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: FWHA is issuing this notice 

to advise the public that an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

will be prepared for proposed 

transportation improvements in Davis 

County, Utah. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward Woolford, Environmental 

Program Manager, Federal Highway 

Administration, 2520 West 4700 South, 

Suite 9A, Salt Lake City, Utah 84118, 

Telephone: (801) 955–3500, e-mail 

Edward.Woolford@dot.gov; or Charles 

Mace, Project Manager, Utah 

Department of Transportation, Region 

One Office, 166 West Southwell Street, 

Ogden, UT 84404–4194, Telephone: 

(801) 620–1685, e-mail 

cmace@utah.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FWHA, in 

cooperation with the Utah Department 

of Transportation (UDOT), will prepare 

an EIS on a proposal to address current 

and projected traffic demand on 1800 

North (SR–37) in the cities of Clinton 

and Sunset in Davis County, Utah. The 

proposed project area extends from 2000 

West to I–15 along 1800 North, a 

distance of approximately 2 miles. 

Transportation improvements in this 

area are needed to address current and 

projected 2040 traffic demand along the 

existing two-lane 1800 North corridor, 

provide better east-west access, and 

improve safety. 

The FHWA will consider a reasonable 

range of alternatives that meet the 

project purpose and need and are based 

on agency and public input. These 

alternatives include: (1) Taking no 

action; (2) using alternate travel modes; 

(3) upgrading and adding lanes to the 

existing roadway network, including 

1800 North; (4) a grade separation at the 

Union Pacific Railroad crossing on 1800 

North; (5) a new interchange on I–15 at 

1800 North; (6) improving adjacent 

interchanges on I–15; (7) combinations 

of any of the above; and (8) other 

feasible alternatives identified during 

the scoping process. 

A Coordination Plan is being prepared 

to define the agency and public 

participation procedure for the 

environmental review process. The plan 

will outline how agencies and the 

public will provide input during the 

scoping process, the development of the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES