54890 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

of American Statistical Association, 

June 1971). A 1964 California Driver 

Record Study prepared by the California 

Department of Motor Vehicles 

concluded that the best overall crash 

predictor for both concurrent and 

nonconcurrent events is the number of 

single convictions. This study used 3 

consecutive years of data, comparing the 

experiences of drivers in the first 2 years 

with their experiences in the final year. 

Applying principles from these 

studies to the past 3-year record of the 

23 applicants, two of the applicants had 

a traffic violation for speeding, one of 

the applicants had a traffic violation for 

failure unsafe lane changes, one of the 

applicants had a traffic violation for 

following another vehicle too closely, 

and four of the applicants were involved 

in crashes. The applicants achieved this 

record of safety while driving with their 

vision impairment, demonstrating the 

likelihood that they have adapted their 

driving skills to accommodate their 

condition. As the applicants’ ample 

driving histories with their vision 

deficiencies are good predictors of 

future performance, FMCSA concludes 

their ability to drive safely can be 

projected into the future. 

We believe the applicants’ intrastate 

driving experience and history provide 

an adequate basis for predicting their 

ability to drive safely in interstate 

commerce. Intrastate driving, like 

interstate operations, involves 

substantial driving on highways on the 

interstate system and on other roads 

built to interstate standards. Moreover, 

driving in congested urban areas 

exposes the driver to more pedestrian 

and vehicular traffic than exists on 

interstate highways. Faster reaction to 

traffic and traffic signals is generally 

required because distances between 

them are more compact. These 

conditions tax visual capacity and 

driver response just as intensely as 

interstate driving conditions. The 

veteran drivers in this proceeding have 

operated CMVs safely under those 

conditions for at least 3 years, most for 

much longer. Their experience and 

driving records lead us to believe that 

each applicant is capable of operating in 

interstate commerce as safely as he/she 

has been performing in intrastate 

commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds 

that exempting these applicants from 

the vision standard in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level 

of safety equal to that existing without 

the exemption. For this reason, the 

Agency is granting the exemptions for 

the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 

31136(e) and 31315 to 67 of the 23 

applicants listed in the notice of August 

12, 2008 (73 FR 46973). 

We recognize that the vision of an 

applicant may change and affect his/her 

ability to operate a CMV as safely as in 

the past. As a condition of the 

exemption, therefore, FMCSA will 

impose requirements on the 23 

individuals consistent with the 

grandfathering provisions applied to 

drivers who participated in the 

Agency’s vision waiver program. 

Those requirements are found at 49 

CFR 391.64(b) and include the 

following: (1) That each individual be 

physically examined every year (a) by 

an ophthalmologist or optometrist who 

attests that the vision in the better eye 

continues to meet the standard in 49 

CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical 

examiner who attests that the individual 

is otherwise physically qualified under 

49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual 

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s 

or optometrist’s report to the medical 

examiner at the time of the annual 

medical examination; and (3) that each 

individual provide a copy of the annual 

medical certification to the employer for 

retention in the driver’s qualification 

file, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s 

qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must also have a 

copy of the certification when driving, 

for presentation to a duly authorized 

Federal, State, or local enforcement 

official. 

Discussion of Comments 

FMCSA received one comment in this 

proceeding. The comment was 

considered and discussed below. 

Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety (Advocates) expressed opposition 

to FMCSA’s policy to grant exemptions 

from the FMCSRs, including the driver 

qualification standards. Specifically, 

Advocates: (1) objects to the manner in 

which FMCSA presents driver 

information to the public and makes 

safety determinations; (2) objects to the 

Agency’s reliance on conclusions drawn 

from the vision waiver program; (3) 

claims the Agency has misinterpreted 

statutory language on the granting of 

exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 

31315); and finally (4) suggests that a 

1999 Supreme Court decision affects the 

legal validity of vision exemptions. 

The issues raised by Advocates were 

addressed at length in 64 FR 51568 

(September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 

(November 30, 1999), 64 FR 69586 

(December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January 

3, 2000), 65 FR 57230 (September 21, 

2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001). 

We will not address these points again 

here, but refer interested parties to those 

earlier discussions. 

Conclusion 

Based upon its evaluation of the 23 

exemption applications, FMCSA 

exempts, William C. Ball, Terrence L. 

Benning, Rickie L. Boone, Robert S. 

Bowen, Dennis R. Buszkiewicz, Larry T. 

Byrley, Robert J. Clarke, Eldon D. 

Cochran, Alfred A. Constantino, James 

R. Corley, Larry D. Curry, Brian F. 

Denning, Michael W. Dillard, Kelly M. 

Greene, Sammy K. Hines, John H. 

Holmberg, Gary R. Lomen, Leonardo 

Lopez, Jr., Jeffrey F. Meier, James G. 

Mitchell, Billy R. Pierce, James A. Rapp, 

and Thomas P. Shank from the vision 

requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), 

subject to the requirements cited above 

(49 CFR 391.64(b)). 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) 

and 31315, each exemption will be valid 

for 2 years unless revoked earlier by 

FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked 

if: (1) The person fails to comply with 

the terms and conditions of the 

exemption; (2) the exemption has 

resulted in a lower level of safety than 

was maintained before it was granted; or 

(3) continuation of the exemption would 

not be consistent with the goals and 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315. 

If the exemption is still effective at the 

end of the 2-year period, the person may 

apply to FMCSA for a renewal under 

procedures in effect at that time. 

Issued on: September 17, 2008. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E8–22226 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

Preparation of an Environmental 

Impact Statement on the Proposed 

Southwest Transitway Project in 

Hennepin, Minnesota 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Proposed Southwest Transitway Project 

in Hennepin County, Minnesota. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) and the Hennepin 

County Regional Railroad Authority 

(HCRRA) are planning to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

for the proposed Southwest Transitway 

Project, a 14-mile corridor of 

transportation improvements that links 

Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Edina, 

Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and 

Minneapolis neighborhoods and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 54891 

downtown Minneapolis. The EIS will be 

prepared in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), Minnesota Environmental 

Policy Act (MEPA) as well as provisions 

of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU). The 

purpose of this Notice of Intent (NOI) is 

to alert interested parties regarding the 

plan to prepare the EIS to provide 

information on the nature of the 

proposed transit project, to invite 

participation in the EIS process, 

including comments on the scope of the 

EIS, including the project purpose and 

need, the alternatives to be studied, and 

the potential social, economic, 

environmental and transportation 

impacts to be evaluated. 

DATES: Written comments on the scope 

of the EIS by all interested individuals 

and organizations, public agencies, and 

Native American Tribes on the scope of 

the EIS, including the purpose and need 

for the proposed action; alternatives that 

may be less costly or have less 

environmental or community impacts 

while achieving similar transportation 

objectives; and the identification of any 

significant social, economic, or 

environmental issues relating to the 

alternatives are invited. Public scoping 

meetings will be held to accept 

comments on the scope of the EIS. The 

scoping meetings will be composed of a 

one hour public open house followed by 

a formal public hearing hosted by the 

HCRRA and will be held at the 

following locations on the following 

dates: 

Tuesday, October 7, 2008: 2 p.m. open 

house, 3 p.m. public hearing, 

Hennepin County Government Center, 

300 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, 

MN 55487. 

Tuesday October 14, 2008: 5 p.m. open 

house, 6 p.m. public hearing, St. 

Louis Park City Hall, 5005 

Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis 

Park, MN 55416. 

Thursday, October 23, 2008: 5 p.m. 

open house, 6 p.m. public hearing, 

Eden Prairie City Hall, 8080 Mitchell 

Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 

The locations for all scoping meetings 

are accessible to persons with 

disabilities. Any individual who 

requires special assistance, such as a 

sign language interpreter, to participate 

in a scoping meeting should contact Ms. 

Katie Walker, AICP, Transit Project 

Manager, Hennepin County, Housing, 

Community Works & Transit, 417 North 

5th Street, Suite 320, Minneapolis, MN 

55401, Telephone: (612) 348–9260; email: Katie.Walker@co.hennepin.mn.us. 

Requests for special assistance should 

be made two weeks in advance of the 

scheduled meeting. 

Scoping materials will be available at 

the meetings and are available by 

clicking on the Southwest Transitway 

Web site at 

www.southwesttransitway.org. Hard 

copies of the scoping materials are 

available from Ms. Katie Walker, AICP, 

at 417 North 5th Street, Suite 320, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401, Telephone: 

(612) 348–2190; e-mail: 

Katie.Walker@co.hennepin.mn.us. An 

interagency scoping meeting will be 

scheduled with agencies having an 

interest in the proposed project. 

In addition to receiving comments at 

the public hearings, the public may 

submit comments by e-mail, mail, fax, 

or via the Web site. 

ADDRESSES: Written Comments Should 

Be Sent To: Ms. Katie Walker, AICP, 

Transit Project Manager, Hennepin 

County, Housing, Community Works & 

Transit, 417 North 5th Street, Suite 320, 

Minneapolis, MN 55401, Telephone: 

(612) 348–2190; e-mail: 

Katie.Walker@co.hennepin.mn.us.; Fax: 

(612) 348–9710; or can be made at 

www.southwesttransitway.org. 

Comments will be accepted until 5 PM 

on November 7, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Mr. 

David Werner at FTA, Region V, 200 

West Adams Street, Suite 320, Chicago, 

Illinois 60606, Telephone: (312) 353– 

2789; e-mail: David.Werner@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Proposed Project would provide for 

transit improvements within the 

Southwest Corridor, which extends 

approximately 14 miles from downtown 

Minneapolis to Eden Prairie through St. 

Louis Park, Hopkins, and Minnetonka. 

The proposed project was the subject of 

an Alternatives Analysis (AA), which 

recommended three light rail transit 

(LRT) alternatives and one Enhanced 

Bus alternative for inclusion in an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

The proposed project would provide 

high-frequency (7.5 minute peak), bidirectional transit service 20 hours per 

day seven days per week. Stations are 

proposed at 1⁄2 to 1 mile intervals 

providing service to key activity centers 

including, but not limited to, downtown 

Minneapolis, the new Twins Baseball 

Stadium, the Walker Art Center, the 

Minneapolis Convention Center, Eat 

Street, Uptown, Calhoun Village/ 

Commons, Methodist Hospital, 

Excelsior/Grand, Cargill, SuperValu, 

Opus, Golden Triangle, and the Eden 

Prairie Center Mall. 

Purpose and Need for the Project 

The intent of the Southwest 

Transitway Project is to improve 

mobility, further develop multi-modal 

options, and increase transportation 

choices for the traveling public. The 

overall goals of the proposed project are 

to: (1) Improve mobility; (2) provide a 

cost-effective, efficient travel option; (3) 

protect the environment; (4) preserve 

and protect the quality of life in the 

study area and the region; and, (5) 

support economic development. 

The Southwest Transitway was first 

identified as a potential transitway in 

the mid-1980s reflecting the projected 

strong growth for this area by the 

Metropolitan Council. Since the mid1980s numerous studies by the 

Metropolitan Council, Mn/DOT, and 

Hennepin County have documented the 

transportation needs of the study area. 

These studies are available for review at 

the Southwest Transitway Web site 

www.southwesttransitway.org. The 

Southwest Transitway is identified in 

the Metropolitan Council’s 

Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) as a 

Tier 2 transitway 

www.metrocouncil.org. 

With Southwest Transitway 

communities projected to encompass 25 

percent of the regional employment base 

by 2030, the Twin Cities region needs to 

maintain the ability to travel to, from, 

and through Southwest Transitway 

communities efficiently, and at 

acceptable cost. The six communities 

that make up the Southwest Transitway 

study area need to accommodate 

additional transportation capacity while 

preserving the corridor’s business 

advantages, environmental features, and 

quality of life for residents. 

Additional considerations supporting 

the project’s need include: 

Declining mobility is being 

experienced by residents, workers and 

visitors to the study area. This is caused 

by travel resulting from the high 

employment and residential growth of 

the area, which is outstripping the 

capacity of the existing transportation 

system. Currently 27 percent of all 

regional trips begin or end in the 

corridor and 65 percent of the trips 

generated within the corridor stay in the 

corridor. The study area includes two of 

the region’s largest employment centers, 

downtown Minneapolis with over 

140,000 jobs, and Golden Triangle with 

over 50,000 jobs. Travel on area 

roadways has increased by 80 to 150 

percent over the past 25 years. This has 

led to increasing congestion with no 

plans by the state, region or county to 

significantly expand the roadway 

system. The area is projected to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54892 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

continue to grow with a significant 

portion of the 1 million people and 

500,000 jobs the region expects to add 

by 2030 locating within the study area. 

Competitive, reliable transit options 

are not available for many study area 

choice riders and transit dependent 

persons. Due to congested roadways and 

circuitous roadway networks, it is 

difficult to provide the significant travel 

time advantages that would attract 

choice riders to the transit system and 

to adequately serve transit-dependent 

people living in and around downtown 

Minneapolis attempting to access the 

growing job base in the study area. The 

study area roadway network is oriented 

north-south/east-west where 

development patterns have radiated 

outward from downtown Minneapolis 

on a diagonal. The number of transitdependent people is growing in the 

study area, primarily in and around 

downtown Minneapolis. The roadway 

network through these neighborhoods is 

circuitous and has many one-way 

streets. 

Alternatives To Be Considered 

After a two-year study of transit 

alternatives, three light rail transit 

routes (Build Alternatives) have been 

identified for further evaluation in the 

EIS to determine which would best 

serve the study area. Other alternatives 

currently under consideration include a 

future No-Build Alternative, and a 

Transportation Systems Management 

(TSM) Alternative, also known as 

Enhanced Bus. 

Build Alternatives To Be Considered 

Light Rail Transit 1A: This alternative 

would operate from downtown 

Minneapolis to Eden Prairie (TH 5) via 

an extension of the Hiawatha LRT tracks 

on 5th Street past the downtown 

Minneapolis Intermodal Station to 

Royalston Avenue to the Kenilworth 

Corridor through Minneapolis and the 

HCRRA property through St. Louis Park, 

Hopkins, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie 

terminating at TH 5 and the HCRRA’s 

property. Stations are proposed at 

Royalston Ave., Van White Blvd., Penn 

Ave., 21st St., West Lake St., Beltline 

Blvd., Wooddale Ave., Louisiana Ave., 

Blake Rd. downtown Hopkins, Shady 

Oak Rd., Rowland Rd., TH 62, and TH 

5. 

Light Rail Transit 3A: This alternative 

would operate from downtown 

Minneapolis to Eden Prairie (Mitchell 

Road/TH 5) via an extension of the 

Hiawatha LRT tracks on 5th Street past 

the downtown Minneapolis Intermodal 

Station to Royalston Avenue to the 

Kenilworth Corridor through 

Minneapolis, the HCRRA property in St. 

Louis Park and Hopkins, to new rightof-way through the Opus/Golden 

Triangle area, the Eden Prairie Major 

Center area terminating at TH 5 and 

Mitchell Road. Stations are proposed at 

Royalston Ave., Van White Blvd., Penn 

Ave., 21st St., West Lake St., Beltline 

Blvd. Wooddale Ave., Louisiana Ave., 

Blake Rd., downtown Hopkins, Shady 

Oak Rd., Opus, City West, Golden 

Triangle, Eden Prairie Town Center, 

SouthWest Station, and Mitchell Rd. 

Light Rail Transit 3C: This alternative 

would operate from downtown 

Minneapolis to Eden Prairie (Mitchell 

Road/TH 5) via Nicollet Mall to Nicollet 

Avenue (tunnel from Franklin Avenue 

to 28th Street), the Midtown Corridor 

through Minneapolis, the HCRRA 

property in St. Louis Park and Hopkins, 

to new right-of-way through the Opus/ 

Golden Triangle, the Eden Prairie Major 

Center area terminating at TH 5 and 

Mitchell Road. Stations are proposed at 

4th St., 8th St., 12th St., Franklin Ave., 

28th St., Lyndale Ave., Hennepin Ave., 

West Lake St., Beltline Blvd., Wooddale 

Ave., Louisiana Ave., Blake Rd., 

downtown Hopkins, Shady Oak Rd., 

Opus, City West, Golden Triangle, Eden 

Prairie Town Center, SouthWest Station, 

and Mitchell Rd. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative 

contemplates roadway and transit 

facility and service improvements (other 

than the proposed project) planned, 

programmed and included in the 

Financially Constrained Regional 

Transportation Policy Plan to be 

implemented by the Year 2030. It 

includes minor transit service 

expansions and/or adjustments that 

reflect a continuation of existing service 

policies as identified by the 

Metropolitan Council. The No-Build 

Alternative serves as the NEPA baseline 

against which environmental effects of 

other alternatives, including the 

proposed project, will be measured. 

Transportation Systems Management 

(TSM) Alternative 

The TSM Alternative (Enhanced Bus) 

is designed to provide lower cost, 

operationally-oriented improvements to 

address the project’s purpose and need 

as much as possible without a major 

transit investment. It includes minor 

modifications to the existing express 

service, and would augment Metro 

Transit and SouthWest Transit service 

between Minneapolis and Eden Prairie, 

Minnetonka, Hopkins, and St. Louis 

Park. This alternative will serve as the 

New Starts Baseline against which the 

cost-effectiveness of the proposed 

project will be measured, and includes 

improvements identified in the NoBuild Alternative. 

In addition to the above described 

alternatives, other additional reasonable 

transit alternatives identified through 

the scoping process that provide similar 

transportation benefits while reducing 

or avoiding adverse impacts will be 

evaluated for potential inclusion in the 

EIS. Because of the sensitive adjacent 

land uses located in many parts of this 

corridor, all alternatives will need to 

consider a full range of design and 

mitigation solutions to enlist the 

support of local communities for the 

completion of this line. 

Probable Effects 

The EIS Process and the Role of 

Participating Agencies and the Public 

The purpose of the EIS process is to 

explore in a public setting the effects of 

the proposed project and its alternatives 

on the physical, human, and natural 

environment. The FTA and the HCRRA 

will evaluate all significant 

environmental, social, and economic 

impacts of the construction and 

operation of the proposed project. 

Impact areas to be addressed include: 

transportation; land use, zoning, and 

economic development; secondary 

development; land acquisition, 

displacements, and relocations; cultural 

resource, including impacts on 

historical and archaeological resources 

and parklands/recreation areas; 

neighborhood compatibility and 

environmental justice; natural resource 

impacts including air quality, wetlands, 

water resources, noise, vibration; energy 

use; safety and security; wildlife and 

ecosystems, including endangered 

species. Measures to avoid, minimize, 

and mitigate all adverse impacts will be 

identified and evaluated. 

Regulations implementing NEPA, as 

well as provisions of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU), call for public 

involvement in the EIS process. Section 

6002 of SAFETEAU–LU requires that 

FTA and the HCRRA do the following: 

(1) Extend an invitation to other Federal 

and non-Federal agencies and Indian 

tribes that may have an interest in the 

proposed project to become 

‘‘participating agencies,’’ (2) provide an 

opportunity for involvement by 

participating agencies and the public in 

helping to define the purpose and need 

for a proposed project, as well as the 

range of alternatives for consideration in 

the EIS, and (3) establish a plan for 

coordinating public and agency 

participation in, and comment on, the 

environmental review process. An 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 54893 

invitation to become a participating 

agency, with the scoping materials 

appended, will be extended to other 

Federal and non-Federal agencies and 

Native American tribes that may have 

an interest in the proposed project. It is 

possible that FTA and the HCRRA will 

not be able to identify all Federal and 

non-Federal agencies and tribes that 

may have such an interest. Any Federal 

or non-Federal agency or tribe interested 

in the proposed project that does not 

receive an invitation to become a 

participating agency should notify, at 

the earliest opportunity, the Project 

Manager identified above under 

ADDRESSES. 

A comprehensive public involvement 

program will be developed and a 

Coordination Plan for public and 

interagency involvement will be created 

and posted on the project Web site at 

www.southwesttransitway.org. 

The public involvement program 

includes a full range of involvement 

activities including the project Web site 

(referenced above); outreach to local 

officials, community and civic groups, 

and the public; and development and 

distribution of project newsletters. 

Specific mechanisms for involvement 

will be detailed in the public 

involvement program. 

The public and participating agencies 

are invited to consider and comment on 

this preliminary statement of the 

purpose and need for the proposed 

Southwest Transitway project. 

Suggestions for modifications to the 

statement of purpose and need for the 

proposed project are welcome and will 

be given serious consideration. 

Comments on potentially significant 

environmental impacts that may be 

associated with the proposed project 

and alternatives are also welcome. 

There will be additional opportunities 

to participate in the scoping process at 

the public meetings announced in this 

notice. 

The HCRRA will be seeking New 

Starts funding for the proposed project 

under 49 U.S.C. 5309 and, therefore, 

will be subject to New Starts regulations 

(49 CFR Part 611). The New Starts 

regulation requires a planning 

Alternatives Analysis that leads to the 

selection of a locally preferred 

alternative and the inclusion of the 

locally preferred alternative as part of 

the long-range transportation plan 

adopted by the Metropolitan Council. 

The New Starts regulation also requires 

the submission of certain projectjustification information in support of a 

request to initiate preliminary 

engineering, and this information is 

normally developed in conjunction with 

the NEPA process. Pertinent New Starts 

evaluation criteria will be included in 

the Final EIS. 

The EIS will be prepared in 

accordance with NEPA and its 

implementing regulations issued by the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508) and with the 

FTA/Federal Highway Administration 

regulations ‘‘Environmental Impact and 

Related Procedures’’ (23 CFR part 771). 

In accordance with 23 CFR 771.105(a) 

and 771.133, FTA will comply with all 

Federal environmental laws, 

regulations, and executive orders 

applicable to the proposed project 

during the environmental review 

process to the maximum extent 

practicable. These requirements 

include, but are not limited to, the 

environmental and public hearing 

provisions of Federal transit laws (49 

U.S.C. 5301(e), 5323(b), and 5324), the 

project-level air quality conformity 

regulation of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR part 

93), the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines of 

EPA (40 CFR part 230), the regulation 

implementing Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (36 

CFR part 800), the regulation 

implementing Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (50 CFR part 

402), Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act (23 CFR 771.135), 

and Executive Orders 12898 on 

Environmental justice, 11988 on 

Floodplain Management, and 11990 on 

Wetlands. 

Issued on September 18, 2008. 

Marisol R. Simon, 

Regional Administrator, Region V, Federal 

Transit Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–22257 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping 

Requirements; Agency Information 

Collection Activity Under OMB Review 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice 

announces that the information 

collection abstracted below has been 

forwarded to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review and 

approval. The nature of the information 

collection is described as well as its 

expected burden. The Federal Register 

Notice with a 60-day comment period 

soliciting comments on the following 

collection of information was published 

on June 18, 2008, and comments were 

due by August 18, 2008. No comments 

were received. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before October 23, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Gearhart, Maritime 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: 202–366–1867; or e-mail: 

beth.gearhart@dot.gov. Copies of this 

collection also can be obtained from that 

office. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maritime 

Administration (MARAD). 

Title: Shipbuilding Orderbook and 

Shipyard Employment. 

OMB Control Number: 2133–0029. 

Type Of Request: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Owners of U.S. 

shipyards who agree to complete the 

requested information. 

Forms: MA–832. 

Abstract: MARAD collects this 

information from the shipbuilding and 

ship repair industry primarily to 

determine if an adequate mobilization 

base exists for national defense and for 

use in a national emergency. 

Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 400 

hours. 

Addresses: Send comments to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention 

MARAD Desk Officer. 

Comments Are Invited On: Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed information collection; ways 

to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

A comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

within 30 days of publication. 

Authority: 49 CFR 1.66. 

Issued in Washington, DC on September 

15, 2008. 

Leonard Sutter, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–22135 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES