11162 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 1995 / Notices

held in the LBL region to obtain

comments on the scope of the EIS.

Locations and times for these meetings

are announced below. TVA encourages

those wishing to provide comments to

do so as early as possible.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to Dale V. Wilhelm, National

Environmental Policy Act Liaison,

Tennessee Valley Authority, WT 8C,

400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville,

Tennessee 37902–1499.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

L. Mechler or Tom Christensen at Land

Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan

Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211,

telephone (502) 924–5602.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1963,

President John F. Kennedy directed

TVA to develop an area with limited

natural resources into a national

demonstration of outdoor recreation,

environmental education and resource

management that would stimulate

economic growth of the western

Kentucky and Tennessee region. LBL

was envisioned as a site for multiple-use

public benefits. It was not to be a

national park, a national forest or a

national wildlife refuge, but rather a

combination of all of these concepts

where natural resources would be

managed and used for a wide variety of

recreation and education purposes.

In 1964, TVA established Land

Between The Lakes (LBL) as a 170,000-

acre national recreation area bounded

by Kentucky Lake to the west and Lake

Barkley to the east. The original 10-year

concept plan called for LBL to

demonstrate ways national recreation

providers could meet the mounting

outdoor recreation demands of a

changing society. The plan included

strategies and methods to provide a

unique outdoor classroom and

laboratory for combining recreation and

education. The plan was to be financed

principally through congressionally

appropriated funding and it was

estimated that up to 10 million visitors

annually would be attracted. However,

the subsequent level of appropriated

funding provided for operations and

capital projects was not sufficient to

develop and support the program that

would attract 10 million visitors.

In the next 10 years, from 1974 to

1984, the level of federal funding

provided to TVA for developing and

managing LBL allowed for constructing

and expanding some facilities and

enhancing some programs.

Since 1984, only one new facility was

constructed while three were expanded

and six closed. Most programs have

continued, although at less intensive

levels than in previous years.

Current federal funding for LBL is not

sufficient to operate and maintain the

existing public use facilities and

programs which, in 1994, attracted 2.4

million visitors. Consequently, no major

improvements or expansions can be

considered that would require federal

appropriated funding.

Proposed Issues to be Addressed

The proposed issues to be addressed

in the EIS include elimination,

reduction, expansion or retention of

existing public uses; consideration of

new public programs and facilities; and

optional financing and operating

strategies for public uses. Other issues

include impacts of development and

increased levels of visitation on

socioeconomic conditions and natural

and other resources (e.g. wetlands,

cultural resources, aesthetics,

endangered and threatened species and

sensitive habitat, and water quality).

TVA is interested in exploring

partnerships which would decrease

TVA’s dependency on federal

appropriated funds and ensure the longterm viability of LBL’s mission. TVA

will consider a wide range of options to

federal support, including those utilized

by other public land management

agencies, such as contract partnership

arrangements with corporations,

agencies and individuals to fund and

operate facilities and programs that

would benefit the American public. It is

envisioned that all partnership

arrangements would fit within one or

more of six activity categories. These

are:

1. Outdoor recreation

2. Environmental education and

interpretation

3. Historical and cultural interpretation

4. Visitor hospitality (food and lodging)

5. Information, promotion and visitor

relations

6. Other categories that might be added later

as appropriate

Scoping Process

TVA is interested in receiving

comments on the scope of issues

described above and on other

suggestions received during scoping.

TVA specifically requests comments on:

1. What current and possible new

public uses are important to the public

at LBL?

2. What alternative operating and

financing options should TVA consider

to provide public uses at LBL?

3. What environmental or

socioeconomic issues, or other aspects

of developing a Public Use Plan for LBL

should TVA consider?

The scope of the EIS may be modified

as a result of public scoping. The EIS

will address reasonable public use

alternatives and their associated

economic, environmental, and social

issues and impacts raised during public

scoping. Scoping meetings will be held

from 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the following

dates and locations:

LBL PUBLIC USE PLAN MEETINGS

City, State Location Date

Murray, KY ............................................................................. Murray State University ......................................................... Tuesday, March 14.

Paducah, KY .......................................................................... Information Age Park ............................................................. Thursday, March

16.

Clarksville, TN ........................................................................ Austin Peay State University ................................................. Tuesday, March 21.

Hopkinsville, KY ..................................................................... Hopkinsville Community College ........................................... Thursday, March

23.

Persons interested in attending or

receiving more information should call

LBL at (502) 924–5602 prior to the

meetings to confirm the time and

location.

Based on scoping comments and a

review of market research data, TVA

will develop a range of alternatives for

managing public use at LBL. A draft EIS

will then be prepared for public review

and comment. Notice of the availability

of this draft will be announced,

comments on the draft solicited, and

information about additional public

meetings/hearings will be published at

a future date.

Dated: February 22, 1995.

Kathryn J. Jackson,

Senior Vice President Resource Group.

[FR Doc. 95–5130 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8120–01–M
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 1995 / Notices 11163

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping

Requirements

AGENCY: Department of Transportation

(DOT), Office of the Secretary.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice lists those forms,

reports, and recordkeeping requirements

imposed upon the public which were

transmitted by the Department of

Transportation to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for its

approval in accordance with the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

DATES: February 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

DOT information collection requests

should be forwarded, as quickly as

possible, to Edward Clarke, Office of

Management and Budget, New

Executive Office Building, room 10202,

Washington, DC 20503. If you anticipate

submitting substantive comments, but

find that more than 10 days from the

date of publication are needed to

prepare them, please notify the OMB

official of your intent immediately.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the DOT information

collection requests submitted to OMB

may be obtained from Susan Pickrel or

Annette Wilson, Information

Management Division, M–32, Office of

the Secretary of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590, (202) 366–4735.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

3507 of Title 44 of the United States

Code, as adopted by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, requires that

agencies prepare a notice for publication

in the Federal Register, listing those

information collection requests

submitted to OMB for approval or

renewal under that Act. OMB reviews

and approves agency submissions in

accordance with criteria set forth in that

Act. In carrying out its responsibilities,

OMB also considers public comments

on the proposed forms and the reporting

and recordkeeping requirements. OMB

approval of an information collection

requirement must be renewed at least

once every three years.

Items Submitted to OMB for Review

The following information collection

requests were submitted to OMB on

February 22, 1995:

DOT No.: 4037.

OMB No.: 2120–0036.

Administration: Federal Aviation

Administration.

Title: Notice of Landing Area

Proposal.

Need for Information: Section 309 of

the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as

amended and implemented in 14 CFR

Part 157, provides that in order to assure

conformity to plans and policies, and

allocations of airspace by the FAA

Administrator under Section 307 of the

Act, no airport or landing area not

involving expenditure of Federal funds

shall be established or constructed, nor

any runway layout substantially altered

without providing notice to the FAA.

Proposed Use of Information: The

information collected will be used to

determine the effect of the proposal on

existing airports and on the safe and

efficient use of airspace by aircraft; to

prescribe air traffic rules and

regulations; to provide data for

aeronautical charting; and to provide

data for a national airport system plan.

Frequency: On occasion.

Burden Estimate: 2,900 hours.

Respondents: Anyone who intends to

construct, activate, deactivate, or change

the status of an airport, runway, or

taxiway.

Form(s): FAA Form 7480–1.

Average Burden Hours Per Response:

45 minutes reporting.

DOT No.: 4038.

OMB No.: 2125–0526.

Administration: Federal Highway

Administration.

Title: Accident Recordkeeping

Requirement.

Need for Information: Title 49 CFR

Part 390.15(b) requires interstate motor

carriers to maintain an accident register

for a period of one year after an

accident.

Proposed Use of Information: The

information will be used to determine if

motor carriers are revealing all recent

accidents upon request.

Frequency: Recordkeeping 1 year.

Burden Estimate: 2,900 hours.

Respondents: Motor carriers.

Form(s): None.

Average Burden Hours Per Response:

2 minutes.

DOT No.: 4039.

OMB No.: 2133–0010.

Administration: Maritime

Administration.

Title: U.S. Merchant Marine Academy

Application for Admission and PreCandidate Questionnaire.

Need for Information: Title 46 CFR

Part 310.57(a) requires applicants to the

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy

(USMMA) to submit a pre-candidate

questionnaire and an application for

admission to the Academy’s Admissions

Office.

Proposed Use of Information: The

information will be used by the

USMMA admissions staff and its

Candidate Evaluation Boards to select

the best qualified candidates for

admission.

Frequency: One time.

Burden Estimate: 12,500 hours.

Respondents: Applicants for the

USMMA.

Form(s): KP 2–65.

Average Burden Hours Per Response:

5 hours reporting.

DOT No.: 4040.

OMB No.: 2133–0007.

Administration: Maritime

Administration.

Title: Maintenance and Repair

Cumulative Summary.

Need for Information: Title 46 CFR

Part 272.22 requires subsidized ship

operators to submit Form MA–140

(Maintenance and Repair Cumulative

Summary) with attached invoices for

review by the Maritime Administration

to determine qualification for subsidy.

Proposed Use of Information: The

information will be used to determine

qualifications for maintenance and

repair subsidy for subsidized carriers.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Burden Estimate: 3,000 hours.

Respondents: Subsidized ship

operators.

Form(s): MA–140.

Average Burden Hours Per Response:

12 hours reporting.

DOT No.: 4041.

OMB No.: 2138–0018.

Administration: Research and Special

Programs Administration.

Title: Report of Passengers Denied

Confirmed Space.

Need for Information: Title 14 CFR

Part 250 establishes minimum standards

for the treatment of airline passengers

holding confirmed reservations who are

not accommodated because their flight

has been oversold.

Proposed Use of Information: The

information will be used to monitor air

carrier compliance with the regulation

and to publish the rate of denied

boardings.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Burden Estimate: 2,358 hours.

Respondents: Large certificated air

carriers and foreign air carriers.

Form(s): RSPA Form 251.

Average Burden Hours Per Response:

4 hours reporting.

DOT No.: 4042.

OMB No.: 2120–0022.

Administration: Federal Aviation

Administration.

Title: Certification: Mechanics,

Repairmen, Parachute Riggers—FAR 65.

Need for Information: The Federal

Aviation Act of 1958, Section 602 (49
11164 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 1, 1995 / Notices

USC 1422) authorizes the issuance of

airmen certificates. Title 14 CFR Part 65

prescribes requirements for mechanics,

repairmen, parachute riggers, and

inspection authorizations.

Proposed Use of Information: The

information collected will be used for

evaluation by FAA, which is necessary

for issuing a certificate and/or rating.

Certification is necessary to ensure

qualifications of the applicant.

Frequency: On occasion.

Burden Estimate: 57,809 hours.

Respondents: Individuals.

Form(s): FAA Forms 8610–1 and

8610–2.

Average Burden Hours Per Response:

20 minutes reporting.

Issued in Washington, DC on February 22,

1995.

Paula R. Ewen,

Manager, IRM Strategies Division.

[FR Doc. 95–4985 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

Federal Aviation Administration

Baltimore/Washington International

Airport, Baltimore, Maryland; Noise

Exposure Map Notice

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) announces its

determination that the revised noise

exposure maps submitted by the

Maryland Aviation Administration

(MAA) for the Baltimore/Washington

International Airport (BWI) under the

provisions of Title I of the Aviation

Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979

(Pub. L. 96–193) and 14 CFR part 150

are in compliance with applicable

requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the

FAA’s determination on the noise

exposure maps is February 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Squeglia, Environmental

Specialist, FAA—Eastern Region Office,

Airports Division, AEA–610, Fitzgerald

Federal Building, JFK Int’l Airport,

Jamaica, NY 11430, (718), 553–0798.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice announces that the FAA finds

that the revised noise exposure maps

submitted for the BWI Airport are in

compliance with applicable

requirements of FAR part 150, effective

February 7, 1995.

Under Section 103 of Title I of the

Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement

Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as

‘‘the Act’’), an airport operator may

submit to the FAA noise exposure maps

(or revisions thereto) which meet

applicable regulations and which depict

noncompatible land uses (or new

noncompatible land uses) as of the date

of submission of such maps, a

description of projected aircraft

operations, and the way in which such

operations will affect such maps. The

Act requires such maps to be developed

in consultation with interested and

affected parties in the local community,

government agencies and persons using

the airport.

The Maryland Aviation

Administration submitted to the FAA

on December 23, 1994, supplemental

FAR part 150 documentation supporting

a recent update of the Noise Exposure

Maps (NEM’s) at BWI. It was requested

that the FAA review this material for

compliance with part 150 regarding

updates to noise exposure maps, as

described in Section 103(a)(2) of the

Act.

BWI received notification of FAA

acceptance of its NEMs in December

1989, and approval of its Noise

Compatibility Program in July 1990. A

1993 update of the BWI Airport Noise

Zone has led to a revised set of noise

contours. These revised contours also

serve as the basis for revised Maps and

the Volume V document, with

appendices, constitutes supplemental

information submitted by MAA to

update the NEM’s in accordance with

FAR part 150 requirements. In addition

to complying with requirements for

NEM updates, MAA’s request for FAA

acceptance of the updated NEM’s will

insure an accurate depiction of noise

sensitive land uses included in the NCP

approved by the FAA in 1990.

The FAA has completed its review of

the updated noise exposure maps and

related documentation submitted by

MAA in its December 1994 Volume V

Supplemental document. The specific

maps under consideration are the

NEM’s: Figure 2.1 Existing Conditions

(1991) Noise Exposure Map (page 8) and

Figure 2.2 Five Year Forecast (1998)

Noise Exposure Map (page 9) of the

Volume V Supplement.

The FAA has determined that these

updated maps for BWI are in

compliance with applicable

requirements. This determination is

effective on February 7, 1995. FAA’s

determination on an airport operator’s

noise exposure maps is limited to

finding that the maps were developed in

accordance with the procedures

contained in Appendix A of FAR part

150. Such determination does not

constitute approval of the applicant’s

data, information or plans, or a

commitment for future approval of a

noise compatibility program or to fund

the implementation of that program.

If questions arise concerning the

precise relationship of specific

properties to noise exposure maps

submitted under Section 103 of the Act,

it should be noted that the FAA is not

involved in any way in determining the

relative locations of specific properties

with regard to the depicted noise

contours, or in interpreting the noise

maps to resolve questions concerning,

for example, which properties should be

covered by the provisions of Section 107

of the Act. These functions are

inseparable from the ultimate land-use

control and planning responsibilities of

local government. These local

responsibilities are not changed in any

way under Part 150 or through FAA’s

review of noise exposure maps.

Therefore, the responsibility for the

detailed overlaying of noise exposure

contours onto the maps depicting

properties on the surface rests

exclusively with the airport operator

which submitted those maps or with

those public agencies and planning

agencies with which consultation is

required under Section 103 of the Act.

The FAA has relied on the certification

by the airport operator under § 150.21 of

FAR part 150, that the statutorily

required consultation has been

accomplished.

Copies of the updated NEM’s

associated evaluation material and the

Supplemental Document comprising the

submittal are available for review at the

FAA office listed above and at the

administrative offices of the BWI

Airport.

Issued in Jamaica, New York, on February

22, 1995.

William DeGraaff,

Manager, Planning & Programming Branch.

[FR Doc. 95–4981 Filed 2–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Receipt of Revision to the Approved

Noise Compatibility Program and

Request for Review; San Diego

International Airport—Lindbergh Field

(SAN), San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) announces that it

is reviewing a proposed revision to the

approved Noise Compatibility Program

that was submitted by the San Diego

Unified Port District for San Diego

International Airport—Lindbergh Field

(SAN), San Diego, California, under the

provisions of Title I of the Aviation