30-day comment request Federal Register notice

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2010 / Notices
(D2) Section 4(f) Documentation—
MOU Section 5.1.1 affirms that Caltrans
is subject to the same procedural and
substantive requirements that apply to
DOT in carrying out the responsibilities
assumed under the Pilot Program. The
SER Chapter 20, Section 4(f) and
Related Requirements, sets forth
procedures for documenting impacts to
Section 4(f) properties in Caltransassigned environmental documents,
while the Forms and Templates section
of the SER contains annotated outlines
for such documents, including
appropriate language for addressing de
minimis impacts (49 U.S.C. 303(d); 23
U.S.C. 139(b); 23 CFR 774.17). As was
also noted in the fourth FHWA audit of
the Pilot Program, project file reviews
and interviews with staff during this
audit identified inconsistencies in the
documentation requirements for
carrying out the Section 4(f) provisions.
These included:
(a) For a bridge replacement project
located within a National Forest, no
documentation was provided in the EA
document or in the project file regarding
the Section 4(f) status of the recreational
facilities in the immediate project
vicinity or any possible project impacts
to those resources;
(b) A project file contained a letter
from the official with jurisdiction over
the Section 4(f) recreational resource
stating the impacts to the resource
would be de minimis. Neither the EA
document nor the project file contained
the supporting documentation for that
determination, as required under 23
CFR 774.7(b).
(c) The Section 4(f) discussion in the
environmental document of another
project (for which no NEPA approval
had been made at the time of the audit)
was unclear as to which type of Section
4(f) documentation and approval was
being contemplated. The applicable
section of the EA included the
discussion of four different types of
Section 4(f) approvals:
1. The EA described the project as
qualifying for a Nationwide
Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation,
but did not reach a conclusion pursuant
to the applicable Programmatic.
2. The document then included a
discussion similar to what is used in an
individual Section 4(f) Evaluation,
including impacts to Section 4(f)
properties, avoidance alternatives, and
measures to minimize harm, ending by
stating that no preferred alternative had
been identified for the project.
3. The EA also contained a Section
4(f) constructive use discussion, which
reached no conclusion.
4. Finally, the project file contained
an e-mail stating that although the EA

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:09 Dec 02, 2010

Jkt 223001

was missing expected language
regarding de minimis impacts and a
concurrence letter from the officials
with jurisdiction, the Caltrans Branch
Chief would sign the QA/QC sheets
‘‘with the assurance that the above items
will be completed.’’
(D3) QA/QC Certification Process—
MOU Section 8.2.5 and SER Chapter 38
require Caltrans staff to review each
environmental document in accordance
with the policy memorandum titled,
‘‘Environmental Document Quality
Control Program under the NEPA Pilot
Program’’ (July 2, 2007). Incomplete and
incorrectly completed QC certification
forms continue to be identified. During
project file reviews by the audit team,
the following instances of incomplete or
incorrect QC certification forms since
the July 2009 audit were observed:
(a) An Environmental Assessment and
Section 4(f) Evaluation was approved
contingent on changes that still needed
to be made to the document;
(b) One QC certification form was
approved by the Quality Control
Reviewer, Preparer, and Branch Chief
without the technical reviewer’s
signature due to pending comments;
(c) Five other QC certification forms
contained undated review signatures or
the signatures were not obtained in the
proper sequence in accordance with the
Caltrans established QA/QC processes;
(d) Two QC certification forms were
missing the signatures of required
reviewers. In those cases, a memo was
included in the files documenting this
oversight. One memo noted that the
NEPA document that was approved for
the project had been incomplete. No
additional explanation was provided;
and
(e) Two external QC certification
forms contained signatures that were
obtained after the internal QC
certification form signatures. The SER
Chapter 38 process requires the QC
external certification form to be
completed before the internal
certification review can be initiated.
(D4) Maintenance of Project and
General Administrative Files—MOU
Section 8.2.4 requires Caltrans to
maintain project and general
administrative files pertaining to its
discharge of the responsibilities
assumed under the Pilot Program.
Caltrans has instituted specific
procedures for maintaining project files
and has provided training on these
procedures. Previous audits identified
inconsistencies with the application of
these procedures (i.e., missing required
documents, missing UFS tabs) and
inconsistencies throughout the Districts
visited in this audit were also identified.
This audit also identified

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

75539

inconsistencies with file maintenance in
at least 15 of the approximately 80
project files reviewed. Examples of
these include:
(a) Various types of required project
documentation were missing from
project files. Examples of missing
documents included:
• Signed final environmental
documents;
• Noise abatement decision report;
• Historic Properties Survey Report;
• Environmental Commitment
Records;
• Internal and external QC
certification forms (some signed but
undated);
• Signed copies of the PEAR/PES
forms;
• Section 106 Memorandum of
Agreement; and
• Information on the types of Section
4(f) resources and the projects’ impacts
upon them.
(b) Two instances in which the project
files were not available for review; in
one case, the file has been improperly
disposed, while in the other case, it was
uncertain whether the project file had
been misplaced or had never been set
up.
[FR Doc. 2010–30326 Filed 12–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0380]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Revision of a CurrentlyApproved Information Collection
Request: Training Certification for
Drivers of Longer Combination
Vehicles
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), FMCSA announces its plan to
submit the Information Collection
Request (ICR) described below to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for its review and approval. The
FMCSA requests approval to revise and
extend an information collection request
(ICR) entitled, ‘‘Training Certification for
Drivers of Longer Combination
Vehicles.’’ This ICR is necessary because
the training certificates drivers are
required to present to prospective
employers serve as proof the drivers
have successfully completed the

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM

03DEN1

75540

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2010 / Notices

training to operate Longer Combination
Vehicles (LCVs) safely on the Nation’s
highways. Motor carriers are required to
maintain a copy of the training
certification in each LCV driver’s
qualification file, which may be
reviewed by Federal or State
enforcement officials. This ICR is being
revised due to an anticipated increase in
the estimated number of LCV drivers
submitting training certificates to
employers resulting in a change to the
estimated information collection burden
for this training task. On September 9,
2010, FMCSA published a Federal
Register notice allowing for a 60-day
comment period on the ICR. No
comment was received.
DATES: Please send your comments by
January 3, 2011. OMB must receive your
comments by this date in order to act
quickly on the ICR.
ADDRESSES: All comments should
reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number
FMCSA–2010–0380. Interested persons
are invited to submit written comments
on the proposed information collection
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget. Comments
should be addressed to the attention of
the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via
electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed
to (202) 395–6974, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503.
Mr.
Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier
Operations Division, Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, West Building
6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
202–366–4325; e-mail
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Training Certification for
Drivers of Longer Combination Vehicles.
OMB Control Number: 2126–0026.
Type of Request: Revision of a
currently-approved information
collection.
Respondents: Drivers who complete
LCV training each year, current LCV
drivers who submit the LCV DriverTraining Certificate to a prospective
employer, and motor carriers receiving
and filing the certificates.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
31,500 drivers and motor carriers (700

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:09 Dec 02, 2010

Jkt 223001

new LCV drivers plus 15,050 current
LCV drivers plus 15,750 motor carriers).
Estimated Number of Responses:
31,500 (700 new LCV drivers plus
15,050 current LCV drivers plus 15,750
motor carriers).
Estimated Time per Response: 10
minutes for preparation of LCV DriverTraining Certificate and an additional
10 minutes for the use of the LCV
Driver-Training Certificate during the
hiring process each year.
Expiration Date: February 28, 2011.
Frequency of Response: At various
times during the year.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
2,742 hours. The total number of drivers
per year for whom this activity will
occur consists of newly-trained LCV
drivers (700) and current LCV drivers
changing employers (15,050), a total of
15,750 drivers. The total annual
information collection burden is
estimated to be 2,742 hours: Preparation
of LCV Driver-Training Certificate [700
newly trained LCV drivers × 10 minutes
÷ 60 minutes], and use of the certificate
during the hiring process [15,750 total
LCV drivers × 10 minutes ÷ 60 minutes].
Background: Section 4007(b) of the
Motor Carrier Act of 1991 (Title IV of
the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Public
Law 102–240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2152; 49
U.S.C. 31307) requires the Secretary of
Transportation to establish Federal
minimum training requirements for
drivers of LCVs. The responsibility for
implementing the statutory requirement
was subsequently delegated to FMCSA
(49 CFR 1.73). The FMCSA, in a final
rule entitled, ‘‘Minimum Training
Requirements for Longer Combination
Vehicle (LCV) Operators and LCV
Driver-Instructor Requirements’’
adopted implementing regulations for
minimum training requirements for the
operators of LCVs (March 30, 2004; 69
FR 16722).
The 2004 final rule created an
information collection burden
concerning the certification of new,
current and non-grandfathered LCV
drivers. An LCV is any combination of
a truck-tractor and two or more semitrailers or trailers, which operates on the
National System of Interstate and
Defense Highways (as defined in 23 CFR
470.107) and has a gross vehicle weight
greater than 80,000 pounds. The
purpose of this rule is to enhance the
safety of LCV operations on our nation’s
highways.
By regulation, motor carriers cannot
allow a driver to operate an LCV
without ensuring that the driver has
been properly trained in accordance
with the requirements of 49 CFR
380.113. LCV drivers must present their

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

LCV Driver-Training Certificate to
prospective employers as proof of
qualification to drive LCVs. Motor
carriers must maintain a copy of the
LCV Training Certificate in order to be
able to show Federal, State or local
officials that drivers operating LCVs are
certified to do so.
Definitions: The LCV training
regulations under 49 CFR part 380 are
applicable only to drivers of ‘‘longer
combination vehicles,’’ defined as ‘‘any
combination of a truck-tractor and two
or more trailers or semi-trailers, which
operate[s] on the National System of
Interstate and Defense Highways
(defined in 23 CFR 470.107) with a gross
vehicle weight greater than 80,000
pounds’’ (49 CFR 380.105).
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including: (1)
Whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the performance of
FMCSA’s functions; (2) the accuracy of
the estimated burden; (3) ways for
FMCSA to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the collected
information; and (4) ways that the
burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected
information. The Agency will
summarize or include your comments in
the request for OMB’s clearance of this
information collection.
Issued on: November 23, 2010.
Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator, Research and
Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010–30382 Filed 12–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0387]

Identification of Interstate Motor
Vehicles: The Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey’s Drayage Truck
Registry Sticker Display
Requirements; Petition for
Determination
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of petition for
determination; request for comments.
AGENCY:

FMCSA invites all interested
persons to comment on a petition that
the New Jersey Motor Truck Association
(NJMTA) submitted requesting that
FMCSA declare the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey’s (Port
Authority) Drayage Truck Registry

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM

03DEN1