Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 37305 

out the Secretary’s responsibilities) attend 

such training.’’ Additionally, the Application 

states that DLA environmental staffers ‘‘will 

provide training to local agencies and their 

consultants to ensure that LA environmental 

documents follow statewide procedures and 

meet Federal requirements.’’ 

Section 12.1.2 of the MOU requires that a 

training plan be updated annually during 

Caltrans’ participation in the Pilot Program. 

This training plan is shared with FHWA on 

an annual basis. The training plans submitted 

for Fiscal Year (FY) 07–08 and FY 08–09 

included information only on Capital 

program training and did not include 

information on training for DLA staff or how 

staff will provide training to local agencies 

and consultants. The information gaps in the 

FY08–09 Training Plan include: 

(a) The lack of a formalized training plan 

for DLA staff on DLA-specific processes— 

Four interviewees and pre-audit information 

collection revealed no evidence of a formal 

training plan to carry out the LA 

responsibilities under the Pilot Program, 

including training for DLA staff and staff in 

local agencies and consultants. Interviews in 

all Districts/Regions visited indicated varying 

training activities have occurred; however, 

this information—or an explanation on the 

approach—is not included in the training 

plan. 

(b) The lack of an ongoing training 

procedure for local agencies and consultants, 

including expected courses or outreach to be 

offered. Six interviewees stated that there is 

no formal approach being used by Caltrans 

Districts to ensure proper training or 

outreach is provided to local agencies and 

consultants. Given the very large number of 

LA projects in some Districts, and the 

typically high staff turnover within local 

agencies, Caltrans needs to formalize and 

implement an ongoing training plan to 

ensure that LA program staff can carry out 

the responsibilities under the Pilot Program 

and work with the local agencies and 

consultants to ensure compliance with 

statewide procedures and Federal 

requirements assumed by Caltrans. 

Deficient 

(D1) Quarterly Reports—The quarterly 

reports Caltrans provides to FHWA under 

section 8.2.7 of the MOU continue to 

consistently include an inaccurate listing of 

all approvals and decisions under the Pilot 

Program. The quarterly reports received by 

FHWA for the first five quarters have all 

contained substantial errors and have had to 

be revised and resubmitted to FHWA by 

Caltrans. 

Discussions with Caltrans staff developing 

input for the quarterly reports identified 

inconsistent approaches and procedures in 

the processes leading to report production. 

Communication is not always timely between 

the project generalists and the staff 

responsible for project tracking and 

reporting. Additionally, two of the four 

Districts visited during the third audit were 

unable to readily produce a list of the 

projects within that District that fall under 

the Pilot Program. The audit team finds the 

quarterly reporting process and products 

deficient. 

(D2) Performance Measure—‘‘Monitor 

Relationships With Federal and State 

Resource Agencies’’—MOU section 10.2.1.C 

requires Caltrans to ‘‘assess change in 

communication among Caltrans, Federal and 

State resource agencies.’’ In all three Caltrans 

self-assessments (December 2007, June 2008, 

and December 2008) under ‘‘Progress in 

Meeting Pilot Program Performance Metrics’’ 

Caltrans stated that this performance measure 

has not yet been implemented. The audit 

team understands that Caltrans has engaged 

a consultant to undertake a survey of Federal 

and State resource agencies to assess their 

relationships with Caltrans; however, the 

minimal degree of progress after 18 months 

of the Pilot Program renders Caltrans’ 

performance on this requirement deficient at 

the time of the audit. 

(D3) Delegation of Signature Authority—In 

six of the eight Caltrans District Offices 

reviewed in this audit, the audit team learned 

of the delegation of signature authority for 

EISs and individual Section 4(f) Evaluations 

that occurred in October 2007. 

In September 2007, Caltrans asked for 

clarification of signature authority for EISs as 

stated in the Application and section 1.1.2 of 

the MOU. The FHWA responded with 

clarification of this signature authority 

through a letter from FHWA to Caltrans dated 

September 12, 2007. This letter stated that 

the Draft EIS can be signed by either the 

Deputy District Director for Environmental 

Planning or the District Director, at the 

Caltrans’ District discretion. Final EISs are to 

be signed by District Directors, and not 

further delegated. There was no request for 

clarification for individual Section 4(f) 

Evaluations and therefore, that signature 

authority remains as agreed to with the 

Deputy District Director. 

During the audit, the audit team learned of 

two memos, dated October 2007, that 

delegated, for six Districts, the signature of 

individual Section 4(f) Evaluations to the 

Environmental Office Chiefs and the 

signature of EISs to the Environmental 

Division Chief or the District Director. 

This delegation is inconsistent with the 

FHWA clarification letter. Additionally, 

Chapter 38 of the SER is inconsistent 

regarding this delegation of signature 

authority for Draft EISs, indicating two 

different delegation signature authorities, one 

to the Deputy District Director and one to the 

Deputy District Director for Environmental 

Planning, in the sections ‘‘Signature 

Authorities’’ and ‘‘Signature Protocols.’’ 

(D4) Assignment of Section 6002 

Responsibility under the Pilot Program— 

Under MOU section 3.2.2, Caltrans is 

responsible for complying with the 

requirements of any applicable 

environmental law. Therefore, Caltrans is 

responsible for complying with SAFETEA– 

LU section 6002 (23 U.S.C. 139) which 

defines provisions of the environmental 

review process. The SAFETEA–LU section 

6002(d) (23 U.S.C. 139(d)) states that a 

Federal lead agency for a highway project 

conducting a NEPA process under section 

6002, in this case Caltrans, ‘‘shall identify, as 

early as practicable in the environmental 

review process for a project, any other 

Federal and non-Federal agencies that may 

have an interest in the project, and shall 

invite such agencies to become participating 

agencies in the environmental review process 

for the project.’’ 

In three of the six EIS project files 

reviewed, there were participating agency 

invitations sent out to only 5 to 10 agencies 

per project. For those projects, the audit 

team, thorough interviews and review of 

project files, learned that more local, State, 

Federal, or tribal governmental agencies, 

either may have or already had, expressed an 

interest in the project and were therefore 

required to be an invited participating 

agency. 

The Caltrans’ third self-assessment 

included a section on ‘‘Understanding of 

Section 6002 Requirements,’’ and did not 

report any finding that requires a corrective 

action. 

Based on its review of project files and 

interviews with Caltrans staff, the audit team 

finds Caltrans’ compliance with its Pilot 

Program responsibilities to be deficient with 

regard to the intent and requirements of 

SAFETEA–LU section 6002 regarding 

inviting participating agencies. 

(D5) Corrective Action for Audit 

Deficiency—In three of the project files 

reviewed by the audit team that contained a 

class of action determination documentation, 

the class of action determination concurrence 

was issued the day before the third audit 

began, or actually, in two instances, the 

concurrence was issued during the audit. 

This is a failure to fully address the 

deficiency, ‘‘Environmental Document 

Process—Class of Action Determination,’’ 

noted in the previous audit. 

Response to Comments and Finalization of 

Report 

The FHWA received no comments during 

the 30-day comment period for the draft 

audit report. Therefore, the FHWA feels that 

there is no need to revise the draft audit 

report findings and finalizes the audit report 

with this notice. 

[FR Doc. E9–17896 Filed 7–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

July 22, 2009. 

The Department of Treasury will 

submit the following public information 

collection requirement(s) to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 on or after the date 

of publication of this notice. Copies of 

the submission(s) may be obtained by 

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 

Officer listed. Comments regarding this 

information collection should be 

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed 

and to the Treasury Department 

Clearance Officer, Department of the 

Treasury, Room 11000, and 1750 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

37306 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 28, 2009 / Notices 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20220. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before August 27, 2009 

to be assured of consideration. 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

OMB Number: 1545–1545. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: REG–107644–97 (Final) 

Permitted Elimination of Preretirement 

Optional Forms of Benefit (TD 8769). 

Description: The regulation permits 

an amendment to a qualified plan that 

eliminates certain preretirement 

optional forms of benefit. 

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 48,800 

hours. 

Clearance Officer: R. Joseph Durbala, 

(202) 622–3634, Internal Revenue 

Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. 

OMB Reviewer: Shagufta Ahmed, 

(202) 395–7873, Office of Management 

and Budget, Room 10235, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503. 

Celina Elphage, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–17915 Filed 7–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

July 21, 2009. 

The Department of Treasury will 

submit the following public information 

collection requirement(s) to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 on or after the date 

of publication of this notice. Copies of 

the submission(s) may be obtained by 

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 

Officer listed. Comments regarding this 

information collection should be 

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed 

and to the Treasury Department 

Clearance Officer, Department of the 

Treasury, Room 11000, and 1750 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20220. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before August 27, 2009 

to be assured of consideration. 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

OMB Number: 1545–0432. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Form: 5495. 

Title: Request for Discharge from 

Personal Liability under Internal 

Revenue Code Section 2204 or 6905. 

Description: Form 5495 provides 

guidance under sections 2204 and 6905 

for executors of estates and fiduciaries 

of decedent’s trusts. The form, filed after 

regular filing of an Estate, Gift, or 

Income tax return for a decedent, is 

used by the executor or fiduciary to 

request discharge from personal liability 

for any deficiency for the tax and 

periods shown on the form. 

Respondents: Individuals or 

Households. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

306,500 hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1841. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: REG–157302–02 (Final), TD 

9142 Deemed IRAs in Qualified 

Retirement Plans. 

Description: Section 408(q), added to 

the Internal Revenue Code by section 

602 of the Economic Growth and Tax 

Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, 

provides that separate accounts and 

annuities may be added to qualified 

employer plans and deemed to be 

individual retirement accounts and 

individual retirement annuities if 

certain requirements are met. Section 

1.408(q)–1(f)(2) provides that these 

deemed IRAs must be held in a trust or 

annuity contract separate from the trust 

or annuity contract of the qualified 

employer plan. This collection of 

information is required to ensure that 

the separate requirements of qualified 

employer plans are met. 

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 40,000 

hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1828. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: REG–131478–02 (Final) 

Guidance under Section 1502; 

Suspension of Losses on Certain Stock 

Disposition. 

Description: The information in Sec. 

1.1502–35T(c) is necessary to ensure 

that a consolidated group does not 

obtain more than one tax benefit from 

both the utilization of a loss from the 

disposition of stock and the utilization 

of a loss or deduction with respect to 

another asset that reflects the same 

economic loss; to allow the taxpayer to 

make an election under Sec. 1.1502– 

35T(c)(5) that would benefit the 

taxpayer, the election in Sec. 1.1502– 

35T(f) provides taxpayers the choice in 

the case of a worthless subsidiary to 

utilize a worthless stock deduction or 

absorb the subsidiary’s losses; and Sec. 

1.1502–35T(g)(3) applies to ensure that 

taxpayers do not circumvent the loss 

suspension rule of § 1.1502–35T(c) by 

deconsolidating a subsidiary and then 

re-importing to the group losses of such 

subsidiary. 

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 15,000 

hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1969. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Form: 13751. 

Title: Waiver of Right to Consistent 

Agreement of Partnership Items and 

Partnership-Level Determinations as to 

Penalties, Additions to Tax, and 

Additional Amounts. 

Description: The information 

requested on Form 13751 (as required 

under Announcement 2005–80) will be 

used to determine the eligibility for 

participation in the settlement initiative 

of taxpayers related through TEFRA 

partnerships to ineligible applicants. 

Such determinations will involve 

partnership items and partnership-level 

determinations, as well as the 

calculation of tax liabilities resolved 

under this initiative, including penalties 

and interest. 

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 100 

hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1986. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Notice 2006–XX Elections 

Created or Effected by the American 

Jobs Creation Act of 2004. 

Description: The collection of 

information will enable the Internal 

Revenue Service to ensure that the 

eligibility requirements for the various 

elections or revocations have been 

satisfied and the requisite sections have 

been complied with. 

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

3,034,765 hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1988. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Credit for New Qualified 

Alternative Motor Vehicles (Advanced 

Lean Burn Technology Motor Vehicles 

and Qualified Hybrid Motor Vehicles). 

Description: This notice sets forth a 

process that allows taxpayers who 

purchase passenger automobiles or light 

trucks to rely on the domestic 

manufacturer’s (or, in the case of a 

foreign manufacturer, its domestic 

distributor’s) certification that both a 

particular make, model and year of 

vehicle qualifies as an advanced lean 

burn technology motor vehicle under 

Section 30B(a) (2) and (c) of the Internal 

Revenue Code or a qualified hybrid 

motor vehicle under Section 30B(a)(3) 

and (d), and the amount of the credit 

allowable with respect to the vehicle. 

Respondents: Individuals or 

Households. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES