Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Notices 53483 

B. Projects for Which No Funds Are 

Requested 

Although most projects under the VPP 

program involve program funds, some 

projects do not, and instead only seek 

tolling authority under the program. In 

such cases, and especially where a State 

is not already part of the VPP program, 

FHWA recommends that the public 

authority investigate the other 

opportunities to gain authority to toll 

that are listed in the notice in the 

January 6, 2006, Federal Register, 

entitled ‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU); 

Opportunities for State and Other 

Qualifying Agencies to Gain Authority 

to Toll Facilities Constructed Using 

Federal Funds’’ (71 FR 965). 

Post-Selection Process 

If approved, a formal cooperative 

agreement will be prepared between the 

FHWA and the State. The cooperative 

agreement will include a refined scope 

of work developed from the original 

funding application and subsequent 

discussions with FHWA. Federal 

statutes will govern the cooperative 

agreement. Regulations cited in the 

agreement, and 49 CFR Part 18, Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements to State 

and Local Governments, will also apply. 

As a practical matter, each value pricing 

project must have a separate cooperative 

agreement. Although, in the past, the 

FHWA has allowed some States to have 

a master cooperative agreement that is 

subsequently amended for each 

approved project, in the future the 

FHWA will execute a separate 

agreement for each project. For value 

pricing projects that involve only toll 

authority and that do not involve 

requests for Federal funds, a cooperative 

agreement must still be executed. 

Where the implementation of tolling 

is part of the VPP project, Federal 

tolling authority is required. To secure 

such authority for a VPP project, a 

cooperative agreement will be executed, 

regardless of whether VPP program 

funding is being provided. The 

cooperative agreement must include all 

of the information normally required as 

part of a tolling agreement (stipulating 

the terms of the tolling, providing 

details on the dispensation of revenues, 

etc.). A separate tolling agreement will 

not be required. As discussed 

previously, revenues must generally 

first be used to cover debt service, 

provide reasonable return on private 

party investments, and operate and 

maintain the facility. Any remaining 

revenues may then be used for other 

Title 23, United States Code eligible 

purposes. 

Where tolling authority is secured 

through a VPP program cooperative 

agreement, such an agreement, like 

tolling agreements providing the 

authority to toll under other Federal 

provisions and programs, will be signed 

by the Executive Director of FHWA. If 

tolling authority is not required, the 

cooperative agreement will be signed by 

the FHWA Division Administrator of 

the State Division Office. All 

cooperative agreements will be 

administered jointly by FHWA’s Office 

of Operations and FHWA’s State 

Division Office. 

Other Requirements 

Prior to FHWA approval of pricing 

project implementation, value pricing 

programs must be shown to be 

consistent with Federal metropolitan 

and statewide planning requirements 

(23 U.S.C. 134 and 135; and, if 

applicable, 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304). 

Implementation projects involving 

tolls outside metropolitan areas must be 

included in the approved statewide 

transportation improvement program 

and be selected in accordance with the 

requirements set forth in section 

1204(f)(3) of the TEA–21. 

Implementation projects involving 

tolls in metropolitan areas must be: (a) 

Included in, or consistent with, the 

approved metropolitan transportation 

plan (if the area is in nonattainment for 

a transportation related pollutant, the 

metropolitan plan must be in 

conformance with the State air quality 

implementation plan); (b) included in 

the approved metropolitan and 

statewide transportation improvement 

programs (if the metropolitan area is in 

a nonattainment area for a 

transportation related pollutant, the 

metropolitan transportation 

improvement program must be in 

conformance with the State air quality 

implementation plan); (c) selected in 

accordance with the requirements in 

section 1203(h)(5) or (i)(2) of TEA–21; 

and (d) consistent with any existing 

congestion management system in 

Transportation Management Areas, 

developed pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 

134(i)(3). 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; sec. 1216(a), Pub. 

L. 105–178, 112 Stat. 107; Pub. L. 109–59; 

117 Stat. 1144. 

Issued on: September 9, 2008. 

Thomas J. Madison, Jr., 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–21517 Filed 9–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2004–18898] 

Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 

Initiative 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of public listening 

session. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

announces a public listening session to 

obtain feedback from interested parties 

on the Agency’s Comprehensive Safety 

Analysis 2010 (CSA 2010) initiative, a 

comprehensive review, analysis, and 

restructuring of FMCSA’s current safety 

fitness determination process and 

enforcement programs. FMCSA will use 

the listening session to brief participants 

on the direction and progress of CSA 

2010 and obtain feedback from its 

partners and stakeholders. FMCSA also 

requests comments on the CSA 2010 

operational model described in this 

notice. 

DATES: The Public Listening Session 

will be held on October 16, 2008, from 

8 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. Participant 

registration will be from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. 

Written comments must be received by 

January 31, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The Public Listening 

Session will be held at the Key Bridge 

Marriott, 1401 Lee Highway, Arlington, 

VA 22209. You may submit comments 

identified by FDMS Docket ID Number 

FMCSA–2004–18898 and by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

Each submission must include the 

Agency name and the docket ID for this 

Notice. Note that DOT posts all 

comments received without change to 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information included in a 

comment. Please see the Privacy Act 

heading below. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
53484 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Notices 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time or 

Room W12–140 on the ground level of 

the West Building, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 

365 days each year. If you want 

acknowledgment that we received your 

comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or 

postcard or print the acknowledgement 

page that appears after submitting 

comments on-line. 

Privacy Act: Anyone may search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or of the person signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19476). This information is also 

available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cathy McNair, Program Manager 

Assistant, CSA 2010, (202) 366–0790. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Format of Listening Session: During 

the Public Listening Session, FMCSA 

will describe its progress on CSA 2010 

to date and address specific aspects of 

the CSA 2010 operational model. 

FMCSA will accept comments on the 

CSA 2010 operational model and any 

additional information that commenters 

believe FMCSA should consider for the 

success of the CSA 2010 initiative. The 

session will include a one and one-half 

hour morning plenary session (9 a.m.), 

and two facilitated breakout sessions. 

Each breakout session will be run two 

consecutive times so that all attendees 

will have the opportunity to participate 

in both sessions. Each session will run 

for one and one-half hours, beginning at 

11 am and 1:15 pm. 

The plenary and breakout sessions 

listed below will address specific 

aspects of the CSA 2010 initiative. Later 

sections of this notice provide 

supporting information for each of these 

areas. 

(1) Plenary Session—Overview of CSA 

2010 and the Operational Model Test 

(2) Breakout Session—Safety 

Measurement System (SMS) and 

Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) 

(3) Breakout Session—Safety Data 

Quality 

The agenda for the listening session is 

as follows: 

Morning 

8–9 Registration 

9–10:45 Welcome and Agenda 

Overview/CSA 2010 Overview and 

Operational Model Test Panelist Q & 

A (Plenary Session) 

10:45–11 Break 

11–12:30 Breakout 1 (Participants 

attend SMS/SFD or Data Quality 

session) 

Afternoon 

12:30–1:15 Lunch 

1:15–2:45 Breakout 2 (Participants 

attend SMS/SFD or Data Quality 

session) 

Registration information and 

instructions: To attend the listening 

session, attendees can register online at 

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/csa2010- 

register. In addition to registration 

information, the registration Web site 

provides additional details about the 

agenda. If there are any questions, or if 

an attendee prefers to register via 

telephone, please contact the 

registration help desk at 206–284–7850. 

Background 

In August 2004, FMCSA embarked on 

CSA 2010—a comprehensive review 

and analysis of the FMCSA motor 

vehicle safety compliance and 

enforcement programs (69 FR 51748, 

August 20, 2004). The goal of CSA 2010 

is to increase the efficiency and 

effectiveness of FMCSA’s compliance 

and enforcement program with the 

ultimate goal of achieving a significant 

reduction in large truck and bus crashes, 

injuries, and fatalities. Under the CSA 

2010 initiative, FMCSA is developing 

and deploying a new approach to using 

agency resources to identify drivers and 

motor carriers that pose safety risks 

based on their crash experience and 

violations of safety regulations and to 

intervene to reduce those risks as soon 

as they become apparent. FMCSA 

understands how important it is to 

obtain feedback on this approach from 

partners, stakeholders, and other 

interested parties. 

The Agency held the first series of 

public listening sessions on CSA 2010 

in September and October of 2004. 

These sessions were designed to collect 

public input regarding ways FMCSA 

could improve its process of monitoring 

and assessing the safety performance of 

the motor carrier industry. The majority 

of participants supported the Agency’s 

goal of improving the current safety 

fitness determination process through 

the CSA 2010 initiative. For further 

information on the public listening 

sessions held in 2004, visit the FMCSA 

Web site at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

(click on the CSA2010 link) and see the 

final report, ‘‘Comprehensive Safety 

Analysis Listening Sessions.’’ 

On November 16, 2006, FMCSA held 

another listening session to gather 

information and feedback on CSA 2010 

(71 FR 61131, October 17, 2006). The 

session was held in Washington, DC, 

with close to 100 attendees that 

included a cross-section of Federal, 

State, and local government agencies, 

motor carriers, industry associations, 

insurance and consulting firms, and 

safety advocacy groups. The event 

focused on four major aspects of CSA 

2010: (1) Measurement; (2) Safety 

Fitness Determination; (3) Intervention 

Selection and Entity Characteristics; and 

(4) Safety Data and Tracking, Evaluation 

and Data Validation. Participants 

provided valuable information on these 

topics, which FMCSA has taken into 

account during its continued 

development of the CSA 2010 

operational model. For further 

information on the public listening 

session held in 2006, visit FDMS Docket 

Identification Number FMCSA–2004– 

18898 at http://www.regulations.gov and 

see the final report, ‘‘Comprehensive 

Safety Analysis 2010, 2006 Listening 

Session.’’ 

On December 4, 2007, FMCSA held a 

listening session to brief stakeholders 

and partners on the progress that had 

been made since 2006 (72 FR 62293, 

November 2, 2007). FMCSA provided 

detailed information in three breakout 

sessions on specific aspects of the CSA 

2010 initiative: (1) Safety Measurement 

System; (2) Safety Fitness Determination 

(SFD); and (3) Operational Model Test. 

Participants in the 2007 listening 

session focused their comments and 

questions most frequently on issues 

relating to the CSA 2010 intervention 

process, concerns about the quality of 

safety data, and the proposed SFD 

methodology. For further information 

on the public listening session held in 

2007, visit FDMS Docket Identification 

Number FMCSA–2004–18898 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and see the final 

report, ‘‘Comprehensive Safety Analysis 

2010, 2007 Public Listening Session.’’ 

The purpose of the October 2008 

listening session is for FMCSA to brief 

stakeholders, partners, and other 

interested parties on the progress that 

has been made since the listening 

session in December 2007. FMCSA 

plans to hold additional listening 

sessions to continue the process of 

updating the public and to receive 

feedback. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Notices 53485 

1Although FMCSA believes that identifying 

causal factors through redesigned investigations 

will prove beneficial to safety, the Agency 

recognizes that it is ultimately the responsibility of 

motor carriers and drivers to know, understand, and 

comply with all applicable Federal safety 

regulations. 

Current Operational Model and Its 

Limitations 

FMCSA’s current operational model 

employs SafeStat to analyze the safety 

status of individual motor carriers and 

to prioritize them for a compliance 

review (CR). SafeStat uses data from a 

variety of State and Federal sources to 

measure the relative safety of motor 

carriers in four Safety Evaluation Areas 

(SEAs): Accident, Driver, Vehicle, and 

Safety Management. (For a full 

description of the SafeStat methodology, 

visit the FMCSA Web site at: http:// 

ai.fmcsa.dot.gov.) A CR is an on-site 

examination of a carrier’s operations, 

such as drivers’ hours of service, to 

determine whether the carrier meets the 

safety fitness standard found at 49 CFR 

385.5. Currently, a CR can result in one 

of three safety ratings: Satisfactory, 

Conditional, or Unsatisfactory. 

The current FMCSA enforcement 

intervention is very labor-intensive, 

allowing the Agency and its State 

partners to assess the safety 

performance of only a small fraction of 

the motor carrier industry. Because each 

CR may take one safety investigator an 

average of 3 to 4 days to complete, 

depending on the location and size of 

the carrier, FMCSA can perform CRs at 

present staffing levels on only a small 

portion of the approximately 700,000 

interstate carriers listed in the agency’s 

census. Further compounding this 

limitation is the fact that the full CR is 

generally deployed at a carrier’s place of 

business as a one-size-fits-all tool to 

address what may not be a 

comprehensive safety problem. 

Although FMCSA’s current approach 

has contributed to a reduction in the 

rate of large truck and bus fatalities, the 

factors described above will make it 

increasingly challenging to sustain and 

further these improvements to large 

truck and bus safety over the coming 

years. 

For these reasons, along with 

improvements in the quality of data 

available to FMCSA and improved ways 

to measure the safety of motor carriers, 

FMCSA is exploring ways through CSA 

2010 to improve its current process for 

monitoring, assessing, and enforcing the 

safety performance of motor carriers and 

drivers. 

Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010 

CSA 2010 is a major FMCSA initiative 

to improve the effectiveness of the 

Agency’s compliance and enforcement 

programs. CSA 2010 will help the 

Agency assess the safety performance of 

a greater segment of the motor carrier 

industry and intervene with more 

carriers to change unsafe behavior 

earlier. The ultimate goal is to achieve 

a significant reduction in large truck 

and bus crashes, injuries, and fatalities, 

while making efficient use of the 

resources of FMCSA and its State 

partners. In contrast to the Agency’s 

current operational model, CSA 2010 is 

characterized by (1) a more 

comprehensive safety measurement 

system; (2) a broader array of 

progressive interventions; (3) a safety 

fitness determination (SFD) 

methodology that is based on 

performance data and not necessarily 

tied to an on-site compliance review; 

and (4) supporting information 

technology systems that will help 

FMCSA and its State partners 

implement and continuously evaluate 

each of these elements. To date, FMCSA 

has made significant progress in its 

development of the CSA 2010 

operational model, launching a field test 

in February 2008. 

Safety Measurement System 

The role of the Safety Measurement 

System (SMS) within the CSA 2010 

operational model is to monitor and 

quantify the safety performance of 

commercial motor carriers and drivers 

through data available in the Motor 

Carrier Management Information System 

(MCMIS), FMCSA’s database for carrier 

census information, roadside inspection 

data, crash data, etc. Under CSA 2010, 

these data would include violations 

found during roadside inspections, 

traffic enforcement, and the intervention 

process (discussed below) as well as 

violations associated with crashes. SMS 

would group these data into seven 

Behavioral Analysis Safety 

Improvement Categories (BASICs), each 

of which includes regulatory 

requirements for both motor carriers and 

drivers: Unsafe Driving, Fatigued 

Driving, Driver Fitness, Controlled 

Substances and Alcohol, Vehicle 

Maintenance, Improper Loading/Cargo 

Securement, and Crash History. FMCSA 

developed the BASICs under the 

premise that commercial motor vehicle 

(CMV) crashes can ultimately be traced 

to the behavior of motor carriers and 

drivers. There are six important ways 

that the SMS is different than the 

Agency’s current measurement system, 

SafeStat: 

1. SMS is organized by specific 

behaviors (BASICs) while SafeStat is 

organized into four broad SEAs. 

2. SMS identifies safety risks in the 

same structure in which CSA 2010 

addresses those risks, while SafeStat 

prioritizes carriers for a one-size-fits-all 

compliance review. 

3. SMS uses all safety-based 

inspection violations while SafeStat 

uses only out-of-service violations and 

selected moving violations. 

4. SMS uses risk-based violation 

weightings while SafeStat does not. 

5. SMS impacts the safety fitness 

determination of an entity, while 

SafeStat has no impact on an entity’s 

safety rating. 

6. SMS assesses individual drivers 

and carriers, while SafeStat assesses 

only carriers. 

The SMS methodology is described in 

more detail in the sections below 

headed ‘‘Safety Measurement System’’ 

and ‘‘Safety Fitness Determination.’’ 

Interventions 

The use of targeted interventions to 

improve unsafe behavior is a 

cornerstone of the CSA 2010 operational 

model. Interventions are actions taken 

by FMCSA or its State partners to 

address safety deficiencies that cause an 

entity to receive an unfavorable score in 

the SMS. Currently, FMCSA relies on 

the CR, a one-size-fits-all 

comprehensive audit of regulatory 

compliance, to determine enforcement 

actions and assess safety fitness. In 

contrast, CSA 2010 interventions 

respond to specific safety risks and are 

designed to be progressive. The goal is 

to reach a larger segment of the industry 

and to change unsafe behavior early on. 

The interventions developed for 

implementation in CSA 2010 can be 

grouped into one of two categories: 

Investigative interventions are an 

attempt to find the causal factors of a 

safety performance issue that is 

identified by the measurement system.1

FMCSA believes that such identification 

will, in many cases, help motor carriers 

and drivers to apply the most effective 

corrective actions. These interventions 

include targeted roadside inspections, 

offsite investigations, and on-site 

investigations (focused and 

comprehensive). 

Corrective interventions are aimed at 

encouraging a change in safety behavior 

by correcting causal factors identified by 

investigative interventions with actions 

that range from educational to punitive. 

These interventions include Warning 

Letters, Cooperative Safety Plans, 

Notices of Violation, Notices of Claim, 

and Settlement Agreements. Under 

FMCSA’s planned SFD process, 

corrective interventions could result in 

FMCSA determining a carrier unfit 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
53486 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Notices 

through the safety fitness determination 

process. 

Safety Fitness Determination 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31144, FMCSA is 

required to ‘‘maintain by regulation a 

procedure for determining the safety 

fitness of an owner or operator.’’ Under 

the Agency’s current operational model, 

FMCSA uses the CR process to 

determine motor carrier safety fitness 

and issue safety ratings, which can be 

Satisfactory, Conditional, or 

Unsatisfactory and are defined under 49 

CFR part 385. 

The development of an alternative 

SFD methodology is guided by concerns 

about FMCSA’s current SFD process 

both from within and outside the 

Agency. In particular, National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

recommendation H–99–06 urges 

FMCSA to ‘‘Change the safety fitness 

rating methodology so that adverse 

vehicle and driver performance-based 

data alone are sufficient to result in an 

overall unsatisfactory rating for the 

carrier.’’ 

In response to these concerns, FMCSA 

is developing an SFD methodology that 

would (1) allow it to assess the safety 

performance of a larger segment of the 

motor carrier industry; (2) not be tied to 

an onsite compliance review; and (3) 

take into account virtually all FMCSA 

safety regulations. This methodology is 

described in more detail in the sections 

below headed ‘‘Safety Measurement 

System’’ and ‘‘Safety Fitness 

Determination.’’ 

Information Technology Systems 

Information technology (IT) systems is 

the fourth major component of CSA 

2010. New information resources and 

modified, existing information systems 

have been made available to FMCSA, 

State partners, and operational model 

test carriers to track and update the 

safety performance data from regulated 

entities as they are received, link 

relevant data to the correct entity, 

validate the data, and provide the 

mechanisms for correcting data. These 

systems will also allow FMCSA to 

provide important data to a third-party 

evaluator who will render an opinion of 

the relative effectiveness and efficiency 

of the CSA 2010 processes relative to 

existing processes. 

COMPASS is the Agency’s major IT 

modernization initiative. CSA 2010 is 

coordinating closely with the 

COMPASS program so that the 

timelines of both programs are 

synchronized as much as possible. CSA 

2010 full deployment will rely on 

modernized, flexible IT systems that 

COMPASS provides. 

Current CSA 2010 Priorities 

Operational Model Test 

In February 2008, FMCSA began 

testing the new CSA 2010 operational 

model. The purpose of the operational 

model test is to determine both the 

feasibility and effectiveness of the new 

CSA 2010 interventions and SMS. The 

test is scheduled to run in two Phases 

for 30 months into mid-2010, at which 

time FMCSA is targeting full CSA 2010 

implementation. The 30-month 

timeframe is designed to provide 

sufficient data for statistical purposes to 

support third-party evaluation of the 

operational model test results. 

During the operational model test, 

FMCSA is not providing any regulatory 

relief. Motor carriers are not rated under 

the CSA 2010 SFD methodology, 

because that methodology must yet be 

implemented through rulemaking. 

Instead, a motor carrier with poor safety 

performance, and found to be 

unresponsive to the new CSA 2010 

interventions, undergoes a CR and is 

rated in accordance with the Agency’s 

current compliance and enforcement 

process, and is subject to fines, 

penalties, and other actions to bring 

about compliance. 

The test is taking place in four States: 

Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, and New 

Jersey, which provides one test State for 

each of the four FMCSA Service 

Centers. FMCSA randomly divided 

motor carriers domiciled in the test 

States into two equal sized groups: A 

test group and a control group. 

The test group carriers receive CSA 

2010 interventions based on information 

provided by the SMS. The control group 

is addressed through the Agency’s 

current operational model, which 

involves the use of SafeStat to identify 

motor carriers for compliance reviews 

and any required enforcement actions. 

Again, motor carriers in the test group 

with poor safety performance, and 

found to be unresponsive to the new 

CSA 2010 interventions, undergo a 

compliance review and are rated in 

accordance with the Agency’s current 

compliance and enforcement process. 

Phase I: In January 2008, FMCSA 

trained approximately 26 Federal and 

State investigators to carry out the new 

CSA 2010 interventions on the test 

group carriers during the operational 

model test. In February 2008, the 

Agency initiated the first phase of the 

operational model test: This startup 

phase included only three BASICs: 

Unsafe Driving, Fatigued Driving, and 

Vehicle Maintenance. 

Phase II: Phase two of the operational 

model test is scheduled to begin in lateSeptember, at which point the 

remaining BASICs will be added: Driver 

Fitness, Controlled Substances and 

Alcohol, Improper Loading/Cargo 

Securement, and Crash History. As the 

test progresses into phase two, FMCSA 

intends to add currently excluded 

SafeStat category A/B motor carriers to 

the test. Including A/B carriers will help 

demonstrate the effectiveness of the new 

interventions on the group of carriers 

that FMCSA traditionally targets. 

Implementation: As the test 

progresses and more data are gathered, 

the Agency anticipates being able to 

make ongoing quantitative and 

qualitative evaluations of the 

effectiveness of CSA 2010, which will 

guide broader implementation. 

Safety Measurement System 

Implementation of CSA 2010 will rely 

on accurate, objective measurement of 

the safety performance of individual 

motor carriers and drivers. The CSA 

2010 SMS is designed to monitor and 

quantify the performance of motor 

carriers and drivers through data 

available in the Motor Carrier 

Management Information System 

(MCMIS). Under CSA 2010, the data 

would include violations found during 

roadside inspections, traffic 

enforcement, and the intervention 

process (discussed below) as well as 

violations associated with crashes. 

As mentioned above, the SMS is 

organized into seven BASICs, each of 

which includes regulatory requirements 

for both motor carriers and drivers. 

These categories are derived from the 

existing FMCSA regulatory structure, 

the Large Truck Crash Causation Study, 

and other analyses and studies 

conducted by the Agency: 

Unsafe Driving. Operation of a CMV 

in a dangerous or careless manner. 

Examples of violations are speeding, 

reckless driving, improper lane change, 

and inattention. 

Fatigued Driving. Operation of a CMV 

by a driver who is in noncompliance 

with hours-of-service regulations. This 

BASIC includes violations of driving 

and on-duty time limits as well as 

failure to maintain complete, accurate 

logbooks. 

Driver Fitness. Operation of a CMV by 

a driver who is unfit due to lack of 

training or required qualifications. 

Examples of violations include failure to 

have a valid, appropriate commercial 

driver’s license or being medically 

unqualified to operate a CMV. 

Controlled Substances and Alcohol. 

Operation of a CMV by a driver who is 

in possession of alcohol or illegal drugs 

or is impaired due to alcohol, illegal 

drugs, or misuse of prescription or overthe-counter medications. Examples of 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Notices 53487 

violations include use or possession of 

controlled substances or alcohol. 

Vehicle Maintenance. CMV failure 

due to improper or inadequate 

maintenance. Examples of violations 

include faulty brakes or lights and other 

mechanical defects as well as failure to 

make required repairs. 

Improper Loading/Cargo Securement. 

CMV incidents resulting from shifting 

loads, spilled or dropped cargo, and 

unsafe handling of hazardous materials. 

Examples of violations include 

improper load securement, cargo 

retention, and unsafe handling of 

hazardous materials. 

Crash History. A history or pattern of 

crash involvement, including frequency 

and severity, based on information from 

State-reported crashes. 

The SMS measures the performance 

of an entity (motor carrier or driver) in 

each BASIC, employing a four-step 

process: (1) Relevant inspection, 

violation, and crash data from MCMIS 

are attributed to an entity to create a 

safety-event history; (2) the entity’s 

violations and crashes are classified into 

BASICs; (3) time- and severityweighting, normalization, peergrouping, and data-sufficiency criteria 

are applied to the data to form a 

quantifiable measure for the entity in 

each BASIC; and (4) on the basis of 

comparison of the entity’s BASIC 

measure with those of its peers, a rank 

and percentile are assigned. A carrier’s 

score in each BASIC is based on data 

from the past 24 months. 

FMCSA is designing one SMS 

consisting of the Carrier Safety 

Measurement System (CSMS) for 

carriers, and the Driver Safety 

Measurement System (DSMS) for 

drivers. The Agency is implementing 

both systems in their prototype stages to 

support the CSA 2010 operational 

model test. 

During the CSA 2010 operational 

model test, FMCSA is using SMS results 

to identify and monitor entities with 

safety problems for inclusion in the 

intervention process. Ultimately, in 

cases where measurement results 

indicate a strong crash risk to the 

public, FMCSA will apply those results, 

along with other factors, to the 

determination of a carrier’s safety 

fitness. 

Safety Fitness Determination 

In the November 2, 2007 Federal 

Register notice announcing last year’s 

listening session, FMCSA laid out a 

preliminary SFD methodology (72 FR 

62298—62299, November 2, 2007). This 

methodology is designed to meet the 

intent of the NTSB recommendation H– 

99–06 in the context of the new BASICs, 

while acknowledging the latest research 

that indicates that driver behavior is a 

major contributing factor in causing 

crashes. 

The methodology is based strongly on 

performance data, and does not require 

a comprehensive on-site review for a 

safety fitness determination, which 

would be issued regularly on all carriers 

for which the Agency has sufficient 

data. As shown in Table 1, under this 

methodology there would be three major 

factors that could impact a motor 

carrier’s safety fitness determination: (1) 

Roadside inspection and crash data; (2) 

violations in the areas of essential motor 

carrier safety management found during 

the intervention process (see Table 2); 

and (3) 15 violations which FMCSA 

believes are so fundamental to ensuring 

safety that no motor carrier should be 

allowed to operate if any of these 

violations are found and not 

immediately corrected (see Table 3). As 

shown in Table 1, data obtained under 

factors (1) and (2) would align with the 

seven BASICs in the CSA 2010 SMS. 

Overall, the response to this proposed 

methodology was favorable from 

stakeholders attending the December 

2007 listening session. In June 2008, 

after considering the potential safety 

benefits and operational feasibility, 

FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Safety Advisory 

Committee recommended that the 

agency continue to work on CSA 2010 

to address the NTSB’s recommendation 

rather than making amendments to the 

cucrrent SFD to address the NTSB 

concerns prior to the implementation of 

CSA 2010. Accordingly, FMCSA is 

proceeding with the development of a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to address safety fitness determination 

under CSA 2010. The developmental 

basis for the rulemaking is the 

preliminary safety fitness methodology 

referenced above and summarized in 

Table 1. FMCSA is targeting publication 

of the NPRM in 2008. 

TABLE 1—PROPOSED PRELIMINARY CSA 2010 SAFETY FITNESS DETERMINATION METHODOLOGY

Stand alone BASICs: Unsafe driving, fatigued driving 

Non-stand alone BASICs: Driver 

fitness, drug/alcohol,cargo securement, vehicle maintenance, 

verifiable crash rate 

Fifteen fundamental violations Safety fitness 

determination 

Number of BASICs: 

(1) With SMS measure above 

Unfit threshold, or 

(2) Where essential safety 

management violations are 

10 percent or more of 

records checked 

Number of BASICs: 

(1) With SMS measure or 

verifiable crash rate above 

Unfit threshold, or 

(2) Where essential safety 

management violations are 

10 percent or more of 

records checked.

See Table 3 below ....................... Continue Operation, Marginal 

Unfit. 

1 ..................................................... ....................................................... ....................................................... Unfit. 

0 ..................................................... Greater Than 1 ............................. ....................................................... Unfit. 

0 ..................................................... 0 .................................................... 1 .................................................... Unfit. 

0 ..................................................... 1 .................................................... 0 .................................................... Marginal. 

0 ..................................................... 0 .................................................... 0 .................................................... Continue Operation. 

The methodology in Table 1 makes a 

distinction between ‘‘stand alone’’ and 

‘‘non-stand alone’’ BASICs. For the 

‘‘stand alone’’ BASICs a failure in only 

one of them would result in a proposed 

Unfit status, whereas for the ‘‘non-stand 

alone’’ BASICs a failure in more than 

one of them would be required for the 

proposed Unfit status. The rationale for 

this distinction is that, although each of 

the BASICs applies to both carriers and 

drivers, the ‘‘stand alone’’ BASICs are 

more directly related to driver behavior. 

Recent research indicates that driver 

behavior is a major contributing factor 

in causing crashes. In particular, an 

effectiveness study on the SMS, 

‘‘Incorporating the Carrier Safety 

Measurement System Results into the 

Proposed Safety Fitness Determination 

Process,’’ November 2007, FMCSA and 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
53488 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Notices 

John Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center, has shown that carriers 

with past poor performance in the 

Unsafe Driving or Fatigue Driving 

BASICs were subsequently involved in 

crashes at a considerably higher rate 

than the overall crash rate of the motor 

carrier population. 

Safety Data Quality 

Both the SMS and SFD methodologies 

depend on high quality roadside 

inspection and crash data to be 

collected and attributed to motor 

carriers’ safety performance records. 

Because of this reliance on high quality 

data, FMCSA would like to share some 

details of its ongoing safety data quality 

improvement efforts. 

Through the State partnership in the 

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program 

(MCSAP), FMCSA shares a safety goal 

with the States to reduce the number 

and severity of crashes involving large 

trucks and buses on our Nation’s 

highways. To meet this common goal, 

inspection and crash data that are 

collected and reported to FMCSA must 

meet high standards of uniformity, 

completeness, accuracy and timeliness. 

The FMCSA has made significant 

strides to improve the data quality of 

crash and inspection data by the 

development of a comprehensive 

program that includes: Raising the 

awareness of the these standards, 

developing a means to measure State 

safety data quality, and working directly 

with States through either a State on-site 

review process or direct technical 

assistance to improve the quality of 

State safety data. 

This comprehensive data quality 

program supports the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) data quality 

guidelines and addresses specific 

recommendations put forth in the DOT 

Inspector General’s report, 

‘‘Improvements Needed in the Motor 

Carrier Safety Status Measurement 

System’’ (SafeStat) report, February 

2004, available at the following url: 

http://www.oig.dot.gov/ 

StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/ 

mh2004034.pdf. 

High quality data are the 

underpinning of effective safety 

programs at the State and Federal levels, 

including CSA 2010. The data quality 

programs include the following key 

areas that promote improvements to 

data quality: 

• DataQs is an online system 

accessible on the Analysis and 

Information (A&I) Online http:// 

ai.fmcsa.dot.gov Web site that was 

developed to facilitate data challenges 

by motor carriers and to track corrective 

actions. 

• The State Safety Data Quality Map 

(SSDQ) is an evaluation tool for Statereported crash and inspection data that 

is released to the public on a quarterly 

basis on the A&I Online Web site. This 

evaluation measures States on the 

completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and 

consistency of State-reported crash and 

inspection data in FMCSA’s Motor 

Carrier Management Information System 

(MCMIS). 

• Monthly monitoring provides 

information accessible to States and 

Federal personnel on the completeness, 

timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of 

State-reported crash and inspection 

data. This reporting summarizes the 

evaluation results and tracks the States’ 

progress on a monthly basis. 

• On-site and off-site reviews of Statereported crash and inspection data 

provide support to States to identify 

areas for potential process improvement 

and provide the technical assistance to 

implement recommendations. 

• Crash data collection training 

provides State-specific crash 

investigation training on the crash data 

needed by FMCSA. 

• Additionally, FMCSA provides 

technical and analytical assistance to 

States to help them use good quality 

safety data and analysis in developing 

their Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans 

(CVSPs). 

The quality of data submitted by 

States has shown marked improvement 

since the inception of the program. The 

federal oversight agency, Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), has taken 

notice as FMCSA has made efforts to 

improve the quality of CMV data. In 

2005, GAO found that, while challenges 

remain, FMCSA’s efforts have 

contributed to CMV data quality 

improvements. In particular, they 

reported that FMCSA’s Safety Data 

Quality Improvement Program (SaDIP) 

supported state efforts to improve data 

quality. GAO concluded in that report, 

‘‘* * * FMCSA’s collaborative efforts 

with states have had a positive impact 

on improving the quality of states’ crash 

data, therefore ultimately enhancing the 

ability of both federal and state 

governments to make highway planning 

and safety enforcement decisions 

(GAO–06–102, Highway Safety: Further 

Opportunities Exist to Improve Data on 

Crashes Involving Commercial Motor 

Vehicles, p. 30). In 2007, GAO reported 

that FMCSA ‘‘* * * acted to improve 

the quality of SafeStat data by 

completing a comprehensive plan for 

data quality improvement, 

implementing an approach to correct 

inaccurate data, and providing grants to 

states for improving data quality, among 

other things’’ (GAO–07–585, Identifying 

High Risk Motor Carriers, p. 5). 

The FMCSA is committed to 

evaluating States’ data, developing 

improvement tools for States, and 

assisting individual States as they work 

toward improving their data collection 

processes. This approach will result in 

an effective and comprehensive 

approach to improving the quality of 

State safety data. 

Comments Requested 

FMCSA requests comments from all 

interested parties on the CSA 2010 

program elements described in this 

notice. FMCSA is particularly interested 

in comments related to the Safety 

Measurement System, interventions, 

preliminary safety fitness determination 

methodology, and operational model 

test. Commenters are requested to 

provide supporting data and rationale 

wherever possible. 

TABLE 2—AREAS OF ESSENTIAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY MANAGEMENT

1. Scheduling a run which would necessitate the vehicle being operated at speeds in excess of those prescribed (§ 392.6). 

2. Operating a motor vehicle not in accordance with the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which it is being operated 

(§ 392.2)(Safety related violations only). 

3. No operating authority (392.9a(a). 

4. False reports of records of duty status (§ 395.8(e)). 

5. Requiring or permitting driver to drive more than 11 hours (§ 395.3(a)(1)). 

6. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive more than 10 hours (§ 395.5(a)(1)). 

7. Requiring or permitting driver to drive after 14 hours on duty (§ 395.3(a)(2)). 

8. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive after 15 hours on duty (§ 395.5(a)(2)). 

9. Requiring or permitting driver to drive after 60 hours on duty in 7 days (§ 395.3(b)(1)). 

10. Requiring or permitting driver to drive after 70 hours on duty in 8 days (§ 395.3(b)(2)). 

11. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive after 60 hours on duty in 7 days (§ 395.5(b)(1)). 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Notices 53489 

TABLE 2—AREAS OF ESSENTIAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY MANAGEMENT—Continued 

12. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive after 70 hours on duty in 8 days (§ 395.5(b)(2)). 

13. Requiring or permitting short-haul property CMV driver to drive after 16 hours on duty (§ 395.1(o)). 

14. No records of duty status (§ 395.8(a)). 

15. Failing to submit record of duty status within 13 days (§ 395.8(i)). 

16. Failing to preserve records of duty status for 6 months (§ 395.8(k)). 

17. Failing to preserve supporting documents (§ 395.8(k)). 

18. Fraudulent or intentional alteration of a supporting document (§ 395.8(k)). 

19. Requiring or permitting driver to drive after 70 hours in 7 days (Alaska)(§ 395.1(h)(1)(iii)). 

20. Requiring or permitting driver to drive after 80 hours on duty in 8 days (Alaska)(395.1(h)(1)(iv)). 

21. Requiring or permitting driver to drive more than 15 hours (Alaska)(§ 395.1(h)(1)(i)). 

22. Requiring or permitting driver to drive after being on duty 20 hours (Alaska)(§ 395.1(h)(1)(ii)). 

23. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive more than 15 hours (Alaska) (§ 395.1(h)(2)(i)). 

24. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive after 20 hours on duty (Alaska)(§ 395.1(h)(2)(ii)). 

25. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive after 80 hours on duty in 8 days (Alaska)(§ 395.1(h)(2)(iv)). 

26. Requiring or permitting passenger CMV driver to drive after 70 hours on duty in 7 days (Alaska)(395.1(h)(2)(iii)). 

27. Failing to investigate driver’s background (§ 391.23(a)). 

28. Failing to maintain driver qualification file on each driver employed (§ 391.51(a))(Use current guidance of no element of DQ file requirements 

found). 

29. Operating a CMV without a valid CDL (§ 383.23(a))(Safety related loss only). 

30. Failing to train hazardous material employees as required (§ 172.704(a) & § 177.800(c)). 

31. Using a driver not medically re-examined each 24 months (§ 391.45(b)(1)). 

32. Using a driver not medically examined and certified (§ 391.45(a)). 

33. Using a driver before receiving a negative pre-employment result (§ 382.301(a)). 

34. Failing to perform random alcohol tests at the applicable rate (§ 382.305(b)(1)). 

35. Failing to perform random controlled substance tests at the applicable rate (§ 382.305(b)(2)). 

36. Using a driver without a return to duty test (§ 382.309). 

37. Failing to keep minimum records of inspection and maintenance (§ 396.3(b)). 

38. Requiring or permitting a driver to drive without the vehicle’s cargo being properly distributed and adequately secured (§ 392.9(a)(1)). 

39. Transporting a HM without preparing a shipping paper (§ 172.200(a) & § 177.817(a))(no shipping paper at all). 

40. Transporting HM in a package with an identifiable release of HM (§ 173.24). 

41. Loading a cargo tank with an HM which exceeds the maximum weight of lading marked on the specification plate (§ 173.24b(d)(2)). 

42. Loading HM not in accordance with the separation and segregation table (§ 173.30/177.848(d)). 

43. Transporting HM in an unauthorized cargo tank (§ 173.33(a)). 

44. Transporting or loading two or more materials in a cargo tank motor vehicle which resulted in an unsafe condition (§ 173.33(a)(2)). 

45. Transporting a hazardous material in a cargo tank motor vehicle which has a dangerous reaction when in contact with the tank 

(§ 173.33(b)(1)). 

46. Transporting an unacceptable HM shipment (§ 177.801). 

47. Failing to attend a cargo tank during loading/unloading (§ 177.834(i)). 

48. Offering a cargo tank which has not successfully completed a test or inspection which has become due (§ 180.407(a)). 

49. Failing to test and inspect a cargo tank which has been in an accident and has been damaged (§ 180.407(b)(2)). 

50. Failing to conduct a pressure test on a cargo tank which has been out of HM service for one year or more (§ 180.407(b)(3)). 

51. Failing to test and inspect a cargo tank which has been modified (§ 180.407(b)(4)). 

52. Failing to conduct a test or inspection on a cargo tank when required by DOT (§ 180.407(b)(5)). 

53. Failing to periodically test and inspect a cargo tank (§ 180.407(c)). 

TABLE 3—FUNDAMENTAL VIOLATIONS

1. Failing to implement an alcohol and/or controlled substance testing program (§ 382.115(a) or (b)). 

2. Using a driver who has refused to submit to an alcohol or controlled substances test required under part 382 (§ 382.211). 

3. Using a driver known to have tested positive for a controlled substance (§ 382.215). 

4. Knowingly allowing, requiring, permitting, or authorizing an employee with a commercial driver’s license which is suspended, revoked, or 

canceled by a State or who is disqualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle as defined in Part 383 (§ 383.37(a)). 

5. Knowingly allowing, requiring, permitting, or authorizing a driver who is disqualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle (§ 383.51(a)). 

6. Operating a motor vehicle transporting property without having in effect the required minimum levels of financial responsibility coverage 

(§ 387.7(a)). 

7. Using a disqualified driver (§ 391.15(a)). 

8. Using a physically unqualified driver (§ 391.11(b)(4)). 

9. Failing to require a driver to make a record of duty status (§ 395.8(a)) (Complete lack of any records of duty status). 

10. Requiring or permitting the operation of a motor vehicle declared ‘‘out-of-service’’ before repairs are made (§ 396.9(c)(2)). 

11. Using a commercial motor vehicle not periodically inspected (§ 396.17(a)). (Complete lack of any periodic inspections). 

12. Operating a passenger carrying vehicle without having in effect the required minimum levels of financial responsibility (§ 387.31(a)). 

13. Failing to implement a random controlled substances and/or an alcohol testing program (§ 382.305). 

14. Failing to correct out-of-service defects listed by a driver in a driver vehicle inspection report before the vehicle is operated again 

(§ 396.11(c)). 

15. Transporting a forbidden material (§ 177.801). 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
53490 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 16, 2008 / Notices 

Issued on: September 10, 2008. 

John H. Hill, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–21561 Filed 9–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the General Counsel; 

Appointment of Members of the Legal 

Division to the Performance Review 

Board, Internal Revenue Service 

Under the authority granted to me as 

Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue 

Service by the General Counsel of the 

Department of the Treasury by General 

Counsel Order No. 21 (Rev. 4), pursuant 

to the Civil Service Reform Act, I have 

appointed the following persons to the 

Legal Division Performance Review 

Board, Internal Revenue Service Panel: 

1. Chairperson, Clarissa Potter, 

Deputy Chief Counsel (Technical) 

2. Roland Barral, Area Counsel (Large 

and Mid-Size Business) 

3. Ellen T. Friberg, Area Counsel 

(Small Business/Self Employed) 

4. Steve Larson, Associate Chief 

Counsel (Financial Institutions and 

Products) 

5. Edward Cronin (Ted), Division 

Counsel/Associate Chief Counsel 

(Criminal Tax) 

This publication is required by 5 

U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). 

Dated: August 15, 2008. 

Donald L. Korb, 

Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–21576 Filed 9–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the General Counsel; 

Appointment of Members of the Legal 

Division to the Performance Review 

Board, Internal Revenue Service 

Under the authority granted to me as 

Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue 

Service by the General Counsel of the 

Department of the Treasury by General 

Counsel Order No. 21 (Rev. 4), pursuant 

to the Civil Service Reform Act, I have 

appointed the following persons to the 

Legal Division Performance Review 

Board, Internal Revenue Service Panel: 

1. Chairperson, Karen Gilbreath-Sowell, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax 

Policy (Department of Treasury) 

2. Steve T. Miller, Commissioner (Tax 

Exempt and Government Entities) 

3. Stephen Albrecht, Acting Deputy 

General Counsel (Department of 

Treasury) 

This publication is required by 5 

U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). 

Dated: August 15, 2008. 

Donald L. Korb, 

Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–21577 Filed 9–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Bureau of the Public Debt 

Proposed Collection: Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt; 

Department of the 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 Bureau of 

the Public Debt within the Department 

of the Treasury is soliciting comments 

concerning Regulations governing U.S. 

Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness— 

State and Local Government Series. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before November 17, 

2008, to be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Bureau of the Public Debt, Judi 

Owens, 200 Third Street A4–A, 

Parkersburg, WV 26106–1328, or 

judi.owens@bpd.treas.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies should be directed to Judi 

Owens, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 

Third Street A4–A, Parkersburg, WV 

26106–1328, (304) 480–8150. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Regulations Governing United 

States Treasury Certificates Of 

Indebtedness—State and Local 

Government Series, Unites States 

Treasury Notes—State and Local 

Government Series, and United States 

Treasury Bonds—State and Local 

Government Series. 

OMB Number: 1535–0091. 

Abstract: The information is 

requested to establish an investor 

account, issue and redeem securities. 

Current Actions: None. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Affected Public: State or local 

governments. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

2,500. 

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 13 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 542. 

Request for Comments: Comments 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be summarized and/or included in the 

request for OMB approval. All 

comments will become a matter of 

public record. Comments are invited on: 

(a) Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the collection of 

information; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; (d) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on respondents, including 

through the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology; and (e) estimates of capital 

or start-up costs and costs of operation, 

maintenance, and purchase of services 

to provide information. 

Dated: September 9, 2008. 

Judi Owens, 

Manager, Information Management Branch. 

[FR Doc. E8–21550 Filed 9–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–39–P 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES