37402 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

detailed in this request, that FTA should 

consider in supporting the assessment 

and mitigation of identified transit 

safety risks? 

(5) Should data sources outside of 

those maintained by transit agencies 

and FTA, such as geographic or 

demographic data, be considered to 

support the identification of safety 

concerns and assessment and mitigation 

of safety risk? If so, which data sources, 

and why? 

Examples 

(6) What are examples of safety 

concerns evaluated by a transit agency 

that can be shared with FTA? 

(7) What are examples of high-impact 

data that support the identification of 

safety concerns and hazards and the 

corresponding safety risk assessment 

and mitigation that can be shared with 

FTA? 

(8) Is there anything else FTA should 

know regarding the identification of 

safety concerns for the SRM process? 

Please clearly indicate which 

question(s) you address in your 

response and any evidence to support 

assertions, where practicable. 

Public Participation 

How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

To ensure that your comments are 

filed correctly, please include the 

docket number provided [FTA–2021– 

0011] in your comments. 

Please submit one copy of your 

comments, including any attachments, 

to the docket following the instructions 

given above under ADDRESSES. Please 

note, if you are submitting comments 

electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, 

these documents must be scanned using 

an Optical Character Recognition 

process, thus allowing the Agency to 

search and copy certain portions of 

submissions. 

Will FTA consider late comments? 

FTA will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above under DATES. To the extent 

practicable, the Agency will also 

consider comments received after that 

date. 

How can comments submitted by other 

people be read? 

Comments received may be read at 

the Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. The hours 

of the docket are indicated above in the 

same location. Comments may also be 

located on the internet, identified by the 

docket number at the heading of this 

notice, at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Please note, this RFI will serve as a 

planning document. The RFI should not 

be construed as policy, a solicitation for 

applications, or an obligation on the 

part of the Government. 

Nuria I. Fernandez, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15078 Filed 7–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

Request for Information Concerning 

the Capital Investment Grants Program 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Request for Information. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration is seeking suggestions 

from all transit stakeholders (transit 

authorities, planning officials, States, 

cities, the private sector, and the public) 

on improvements that could be made to 

the evaluation process for projects 

seeking funding from the Capital 

Investment Grants (CIG) Program. 

Specifically, FTA seeks input on 

evaluation measures and data sources 

that can better capture the benefits and 

costs of transit and how the CIG 

program can facilitate outcomes that 

maximize those benefits. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

on or before October 13, 2021. FTA will 

consider comments filed after this date 

to the extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: All responses MUST be 

submitted electronically to Docket No. 

FTA–2021–0010 at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Day, Director, Office of Capital 

Project Development, (202) 366–5159, or 

Elizabeth.Day@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: To receive discretionary 

Capital Investment Grants (CIG) 

program funding from the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA), an 

applicant must complete the multi-year, 

multi-step process outlined in law at 49 

U.S.C. 5309 for the proposed transit 

capital project. The law specifies 

evaluation criteria covering project 

justification and local financial 

commitment that FTA must use to 

develop a project rating on a five-point 

scale from low to high. It also specifies 

that a project must receive a Medium or 

better overall rating to advance through 

the process and receive CIG program 

funding. The law establishes three 

categories of projects eligible under the 

CIG program, which are known as New 

Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity 

Improvement projects. Each project type 

has a unique set of requirements and 

evaluation criteria in law, although 

many similarities exist among them. 

For New Starts and Core Capacity 

Improvement projects, the steps in the 

CIG process include project 

development, engineering, and 

construction. The CIG process for Small 

Starts projects includes only project 

development and construction. New 

Starts and Core Capacity Improvement 

projects receive construction funds from 

the CIG program through a full funding 

grant agreement (FFGA) that defines the 

scope of the project and specifies the 

total multi-year Federal commitment to 

the project. Small Starts projects receive 

construction funds through a single-year 

grant or a Small Starts grant agreement 

(SSGA) that defines the scope of the 

project and specifies the Federal 

commitment to the project. 

There are six statutory project 

justification criteria that FTA must 

evaluate and rate individually for 

projects pursuing CIG funding that 

differ slightly between the three 

categories of projects. The law requires 

each project justification criterion to be 

given a ‘‘comparable, but not necessarily 

equal, numerical weight’’ when FTA 

develops a summary project justification 

rating. The law also requires FTA to 

evaluate local financial commitment. 

For New Starts and Core Capacity, the 

law requires FTA to determine whether: 

(A) The proposed financial plan 

provides for the availability of 

reasonable contingency to cover 

unanticipated cost increases or funding 

shortfalls; (B) each proposed local 

source of capital and operating 

financing is stable, reliable, and 

available within the proposed project 

timetable; and (C) local resources are 

available to recapitalize, maintain, and 

operate the overall existing and 

proposed public transportation system, 

including essential feeder bus and other 

services necessary to achieve the 

projected ridership levels, without 

requiring a reduction in existing public 

transportation services or level of 

service to operate the proposed project. 

For Small Starts projects the law 

requires FTA to determine that, ‘‘each 

proposed local source of capital and 

operating financing is stable, reliable, 

and available within the proposed 

project timetable.’’ 

Lastly, the law requires FTA to issue 

policy guidance on the CIG review and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37403 

evaluation process each time FTA 

makes significant changes to the process 

or criteria, but not less frequently than 

once every two years. When there are 

significant guidance changes proposed, 

the document is subject to notice and 

comment procedures. 

For more information on the existing 

CIG process and evaluation criteria, 

please see the CIG Policy Guidance 

found at https://www.transit.dot.gov/ 

funding/grant-programs/capitalinvestments/final-capital-investmentgrant-program-interim-policy. 

Through this request for information 

(RFI), FTA seeks input on the CIG 

process and evaluation criteria to inform 

the development of proposed changes to 

the existing CIG policy guidance that 

would undergo formal notice and 

comment in the future. The timing for 

publication of proposed CIG policy 

guidance is not certain and could be 

impacted by enactment of 

reauthorization legislation. FTA looks 

forward to feedback from all interested 

parties. 

CIG Process (New Starts, Small Starts 

and Core Capacity Improvements) 

1. The law currently specifies that the 

Project Development phase for New 

Starts and Core Capacity Improvement 

projects must be completed within two 

years, signifying Congress’ intent that 

projects move through the CIG process 

expeditiously. However, the law allows 

project sponsors to seek, and FTA to 

approve, an extension of the two-year 

timeframe. Is there a maximum amount 

of time beyond two years that FTA 

should allow a project sponsor to extend 

Project Development to remain 

consistent with the statutory intent? 

2. In addition to the requirements 

specified in law that must be completed 

to advance from one phase of the CIG 

process to the next, FTA has also issued 

CIG policy guidance. For example, FTA 

specifies in the guidance that a 

minimum of 30 percent design be 

completed and a minimum of 30 

percent of the non-CIG funding be 

committed or budgeted before a New 

Start or Core Capacity Improvement 

project may advance from the Project 

Development phase to the Engineering 

phase. FTA also specifies in the 

guidance that all types of CIG projects 

(New Starts, Small Starts, and Core 

Capacity) have all of the non-CIG 

funding committed or budgeted, all 

critical third-party agreements 

completed, and a firm and reliable cost, 

scope, and schedule developed before a 

construction grant is awarded. Should 

FTA alter any provisions of its CIG 

guidance? Please be specific as to the 

reason for the response and any 

proposed alterations. 

Economic Development Criterion (New 

Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity 

Improvements) 

FTA currently evaluates the Economic 

Development criterion for New Starts 

and Small Starts projects based on the 

extent to which a proposed project is 

likely to induce additional, transitsupportive development in the future. 

The evaluation is based on: (1) The 

transit-supportive plans and policies in 

place (e.g., growth management plans, 

transit-supportive corridor policies; 

supportive zoning regulations near 

transit stations; and tools to implement 

land use policies); (2) the performance 

and impacts of those policies; and (3) 

the tools in place to maintain or 

increase the share of affordable housing 

in the project corridor (e.g., evaluation 

of project corridor-specific affordable 

housing needs and supply, or plans or 

policies to preserve and increase 

affordable housing). 

3. Should FTA consider under the 

Economic Development criterion 

whether a proposed CIG project is 

located in a federally designated 

community development zone (e.g., 

designated opportunity zones, promise 

zones, empowerment zones, or choice 

neighborhoods)? Please provide reasons 

for answering yes or no. [See https://

www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/ 

opportunity-zones-frequently-askedquestions#designated; https://

www.hud.gov/program_offices/field_

policy_mgt/fieldpolicymgtpz; https://

www.hud.gov/hudprograms/ 

empowerment_zones, and https://

www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_

indian_housing/programs/ph/cn.] 

4. Should FTA consider other ways of 

assessing whether local plans and 

policies are transit supportive and 

encourage affordable housing under the 

Economic Development criterion? 

Please be specific as to what different or 

additional metrics could be used, and 

what thresholds for these metrics could 

be deemed as transit-supportive. 

Land Use Criterion (New Starts and 

Small Starts) 

The Land Use criterion examines 

what exists in the project corridor today. 

FTA currently evaluates Land Use for 

New Starts and Small Starts projects 

based primarily on existing station area 

population densities, total existing 

employment served by the project, and 

the percentage of existing ‘‘legally 

binding affordability restricted’’ housing 

within a 1⁄2 mile of station areas as 

compared to the counties in which the 

corridor is located. 

5. For equity considerations, should 

FTA evaluate measures under the Land 

Use criterion that are easy to calculate 

using census data, such as the minority 

population or the number of households 

in poverty along the alignment? 

6. Should FTA consider ‘‘access to 

opportunity’’ under the Land Use 

criterion? If so, how specifically could 

FTA measure it? For example, should 

access provided by the project to 

education facilities, health care 

facilities, or food stores be considered? 

Please identify measures/data sources 

that would be readily available 

nationwide without requiring an undue 

burden on project sponsors to gather 

and FTA to verify the information. 

7. In a Memorandum on Redressing 

Our Nation’s and the Federal 

Government’s History of Discriminatory 

Housing Practices and Policies (January 

26, 2021), President Biden highlighted 

the Federal government’s history of 

disconnecting neighborhoods from 

access to high-quality housing, jobs, 

public transit, and other resources. 

Should FTA consider under the Land 

Use criterion whether the project 

corridor has been affected by major 

transportation projects in the past that 

destroyed, divided, or isolated 

neighborhoods? If so, how should FTA 

analyze and evaluate those impacts and 

consider them in the Land Use 

criterion? 

8. The more measures used to develop 

a criterion rating, the less influence each 

measure has on the outcome. How many 

measures are appropriate to include in 

total under the Land Use criterion given 

the questions above? Should the use of 

multiple, strongly correlated measures 

be avoided? 

Environmental Benefits Criterion (New 

Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity 

Improvements) 

FTA currently evaluates 

Environmental Benefits for New Starts 

projects based on the dollar value of the 

anticipated direct and indirect benefits 

of the project resulting from the change 

in air quality criteria pollutants, change 

in energy use, change in greenhouse gas 

emissions, and change in safety divided 

by the annualized capital and operating 

cost of the proposed project. These 

benefits are computed based on the 

change in vehicle miles traveled 

resulting from implementation of the 

proposed project. The Environmental 

Benefits measure for Small Starts 

projects is currently the dollar value of 

the anticipated direct and indirect 

benefits to safety, energy, and air quality 

calculated in the same way as for New 

Starts projects but divided by the 

annualized Federal share of the project. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
37404 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 

Core Capacity Improvement projects 

receive an automatic Medium rating on 

the Environmental Benefits criterion 

unless the sponsor requests to be 

evaluated using the New Starts 

measures. 

9. As mentioned in the existing CIG 

policy guidance, FTA intended to 

include the direct and indirect benefits 

to human health resulting from 

implementation of a proposed project in 

the Environmental Benefits measures, 

but has had difficulty in determining 

how to do so. How should FTA 

calculate the health benefits of transit 

projects? Please provide specific 

proposed measures and data sources 

that would be readily available across 

the nation without requiring an undue 

burden on project sponsors to gather the 

information or on FTA to verify the 

information. 

10. Should FTA also consider impacts 

to water quality under the 

Environmental Benefits criterion? Please 

provide any available research or data 

on the impact of a transit project on 

water quality. Please identify measures/ 

data sources that would be readily 

available across the nation without 

requiring an undue burden on project 

sponsors to gather the information and 

FTA to verify the information. 

Cost Effectiveness Criterion (New 

Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity 

Improvements) 

FTA currently evaluates CostEffectiveness by measuring the annual 

capital and operating and maintenance 

cost per trip on the project (New Starts); 

the annualized capital Federal share of 

the project per trip on the project (Small 

Starts); or the annualized Core Capacity 

Improvement share of the project per 

trip (Core Capacity). 

11. As an incentive to encourage 

project sponsors to consider ‘‘green’’ 

elements in their proposed CIG projects, 

FTA currently allows the additional 

costs of such elements to be excluded 

from the Cost-Effectiveness calculation 

for New Starts projects. Specifically, 

FTA allows 50 percent of the purchase 

cost of ‘‘green’’ buses and 2.5 percent of 

the cost of facilities designed to achieve 

U.S. Green Council Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) or a comparable third-party 

certification to be excluded. Because the 

Core Capacity Improvement and Small 

Starts Cost-Effectiveness calculations 

are based only on the CIG share or 

Federal share and not the total 

annualized project cost, a similar 

incentive is not provided for those types 

of projects. 

(a) How could FTA further incentivize 

project sponsors to incorporate 

environmentally sustainable project 

elements into CIG projects? Please be 

specific in any suggestions provided. 

(b) Are there lifecycle cost savings or 

other benefits that transit agencies have 

realized from implementing ‘‘green’’ 

elements (i.e., evidence of fuel, 

maintenance, or parts savings)? Please 

provide examples or data. 

Mobility Improvements (New Starts 

and Small Starts) 

FTA currently evaluates Mobility 

Improvements on the total number of 

linked trips estimated to use the 

proposed CIG project, with a weight of 

two given to trips that would be made 

on the project by transit-dependent 

persons. 

12. Should more emphasis be placed 

on trips made by transit-dependent 

persons? Why or why not? 

Capacity Needs (Core Capacity 

Improvements) 

The law specifies that to be eligible as 

a Core Capacity Improvement, a 

proposed project corridor must be at 

capacity today or will be in five years 

and the project must increase capacity 

by at least 10 percent. FTA currently 

uses space per passenger in the peak 

hour in the peak direction to evaluate 

Capacity Needs for light rail projects 

and seated load in the peak hour in the 

peak direction to evaluate Capacity 

Needs for commuter rail projects. 

13. By what methods do transit 

agencies determine if a transit corridor 

is at capacity today or soon will be? 

Please be specific on the measures and 

calculations used. Are the measures 

based on readily available data routinely 

calculated by transit agencies or do they 

require a situation-specific analysis? 

Could the measures be applied in a 

national program evaluating various 

modes and corridors across the country? 

14. What load factor policies do 

transit agencies use to determine when 

additional vehicles are needed on a 

transit line? Please provide specific 

examples of what load factors are used, 

and how they are calculated? Please 

include load factors used for each mode. 

Congestion Relief (New Starts, Small 

Starts, and Core Capacity 

Improvements) 

For New Starts and Small Starts 

projects, FTA currently evaluates the 

number of new weekday linked trips 

resulting from implementation of the 

proposed project to determine 

Congestion Relief, which serves as an 

indirect measure of reduced traffic 

congestion because those trips typically 

represent people who have chosen to 

take transit rather than drive. For Core 

Capacity Improvement projects, FTA 

evaluates the percent increase in 

capacity in the corridor resulting from 

the proposed project to determine 

Congestion Relief. 

15. Should FTA evaluate Congestion 

Relief differently? If so, please identify 

measures/data sources that would be 

readily available at transit agencies 

across the nation without requiring an 

undue burden on project sponsors to 

gather the information and FTA to 

verify the information. 

Resiliency/Futureproofing (Not 

Currently Considered in the Evaluation 

Process) 

FTA regulations, at 49 CFR 602.5, 

define ‘‘resilience’’ as the ‘‘ability to 

anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to 

changing conditions and withstand, 

respond to, and recover rapidly from 

disruptions such as significant multihazard threats with minimum damage to 

social well-being, the economy, and the 

environment.’’ 

16. Do transit agencies measure and 

evaluate resilience benefits of proposed 

capital projects? Do they use a 

quantitative approach? Please provide 

examples of specific metrics or analyses 

used. 

17. Should resilience elements be 

formally incorporated into the CIG 

project evaluation process? If so, how 

might resilience be measured and 

incorporated? What thresholds would 

distinguish one project from another? 

Should FTA use its Hazard Mitigation 

Cost Effectiveness (HMCE) Tool to 

measure benefits and costs of resilience 

elements as it has done for projects 

considered for emergency relief funding 

(see https://www.transit.dot.gov/ 

funding/grant-programs/emergencyrelief-program/hazard-mitigation-costeffectiveness-hmce-tool)? Please be 

specific in your responses. 

18. The concept of ‘‘future-proofing’’ 

is often discussed along with resilience 

to ensure infrastructure projects will 

continue to be of value into the distant 

future and not become obsolete quickly. 

What emerging technologies may have 

an impact (positive or negative) on a 

transit system, and how can avoiding 

this situation be prepared for in the 

planning and design of CIG capital 

projects? 

Local Financial Commitment (New 

Starts, Small Starts and Core Capacity 

Improvements) 

Currently, FTA evaluates three factors 

when examining Local Financial 

Commitment: (1) The current financial 

condition of the project sponsor; (2) the 

amount of committed funds; and (3) the 

reasonableness of financial planning 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 133 / Thursday, July 15, 2021 / Notices 37405 

assumptions and the resulting financial 

capacity they demonstrate. After 

evaluation of those three factors and 

calculation of a rating for Local 

Financial Commitment, FTA considers 

the CIG share request. Specifically, if 

the CIG share request is less than 50 

percent and the calculated Local 

Financial Commitment rating is at least 

Medium, the rating is boosted one level. 

Small Starts and Core Capacity 

Improvement projects can qualify for 

financial warrants (automatic financial 

ratings) under certain circumstances. 

19. Project sponsors that do not 

qualify for warrants (automatic financial 

ratings) must submit a 20-year cash-flow 

statement to FTA for evaluation and 

rating. Should FTA consider accepting 

cash flow statements for other time 

periods (e.g., a 10-year, 15-year, or 25- 

year project cash-flow statement)? If so, 

please explain why and the suggested 

time period. 

FTA welcomes any additional 

feedback on the CIG program, including 

topics not listed in the questions above. 

All interested parties are encouraged 

to respond to this RFI. Submissions are 

strictly voluntary. Individuals or entities 

responding to the RFI should state their 

role as well as knowledge and 

experience of the CIG program. FTA 

may request additional clarifying 

information from any or all respondents. 

If a respondent does not wish to be 

contacted by FTA for additional 

information, a statement to that effect 

should be included in the response. All 

information submitted should be 

unclassified and should not contain 

proprietary information. 

FTA is not obligated to officially 

respond to the information received, but 

the responses will greatly assist FTA in 

developing proposed CIG policy 

guidance changes. 

Comments may be submitted and 

viewed at Docket No. FTA–2021–0010 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Nuria I. Fernandez, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15079 Filed 7–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

[Docket No. MARAD–2021–0122] 

Request for Comments on a Previously 

Approved Information Collection: 

Application for Coastwise 

Endorsement Eligibility Determinations 

for Foreign-Built Small Passenger 

Vessels 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) invites public comments on 

our intention to request the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval to renew a previously 

approved information collection. The 

information to be collected is necessary 

for MARAD to identify the effect of 

potential foreign-built small passenger 

vessel coastwise operations on U.S. 

vessel builders and coastwise trade 

businesses. We are required to publish 

this notice in the Federal Register by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before September 13, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

[identified by Docket No. MARAD– 

2021–0122] through one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Search using the 

above DOT docket number and follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12– 

140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except on Federal holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this rulemaking. 

Note: All comments received will be 

posted without change to 

www.regulations.gov including any 

personal information provided. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the Department’s 

performance; (b) the accuracy of the 

estimated burden; (c) ways for the 

Department to enhance the quality, 

utility and clarity of the information 

collection; and (d) ways that the burden 

could be minimized without reducing 

the quality of the collected information. 

The agency will summarize and/or 

include your comments in the request 

for OMB’s clearance of this information 

collection. 

Electronic Access and Filing 

A copy of the notice may be viewed 

online at www.regulations.gov using the 

docket number listed above. A copy of 

this notice will be placed in the docket. 

Electronic retrieval help and guidelines 

are available on the website. It is 

available 24 hours each day, 365 days 

each year. An electronic copy of this 

document may also be downloaded 

from the Office of the Federal Register’s 

website at www.FederalRegister.gov and 

the Government Publishing Office’s 

website at www.GovInfo.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Mead, 202–366–5723, Office of 

Cargo and Commercial Sealift, Maritime 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 

Email: james.mead@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Application for Coastwise 

Endorsement Eligibility Determinations 

for Foreign-built Small Passenger 

Vessels. 

OMB Control Number: 2133–0529. 

Type of Request: Renewal of a 

previously approved collection. 

Abstract: Owners of foreign-built 

small passenger vessels desiring a 

coastwise endorsement to their USCG 

issued certificate of documentation 

must first obtain a Maritime 

Administration (MARAD) eligibility 

determination. Applications for 

MARAD small passenger vessel 

coastwise endorsement eligibility 

provide justification for a positive 

determination and a uniform means for 

MARAD to obtain relevant information 

necessary to perform its administrative 

function in accordance with statute. 

Respondents: Owners of foreign-built 

small passenger vessels, prospective 

vessel owners and operators, vessel 

brokers. 

Affected Public: Maritime businesses. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

138. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 138. 

Estimated Hours per Response: 1 

hour. 

Annual Estimated Total Annual 

Burden Hours: 138. 

Frequency of Response: Annually. 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; 

and 49 CFR 1.93. 

* * * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES