Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements; Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review, 20743-20744 [E8-8102]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 16, 2008 / Notices
and community impacts will be further
designed and committed to.
Proposed alternatives: Metro expects
to analyze a no-build alternative and
two build alternatives. Prior to
beginning formal EIS analysis, a Johns
Landing refinement plan will be
undertaken to define alignments for
streetcar in the John’s Landing area of
the City of Portland, using all or parts
of the Willamette Shore Line right-ofway, SW Macadam Avenue, Johns
Landing Master Plan alignment or
combinations thereof. As defined by the
Metro Council in Resolution No. 07–
3887a adopted December 2007, the
build alternatives are as follows: (1) A
Streetcar mode, because among transit
alternatives studied to date, Streetcar
operation in a significant percentage of
exclusive right-of-way (the Willamette
Shore Line) has the highest forecast
ridership, significantly faster travel
times between key corridor destinations,
and greater reliability. In peak travel
periods, the Streetcar would provide
faster travel times than autos between
downtown and Lake Oswego. Faster
travel time and higher reliability is
gained through operation of streetcar in
a significant percentage of exclusive
right of way on the Willamette Shore
Line. Streetcar would also have the
lowest operating and maintenance costs
of any alternative, including the NoBuild. Streetcar development could
leverage up to 3.3 million square feet of
total new transit supportive
development in Lake Oswego and Johns
Landing. Streetcar would operate as an
extension of the existing streetcar line
that operates between NW 23rd Avenue
and the South Waterfront. (2) Enhanced
Bus Mode, because this would avoid the
property impacts of the previously
studied Bus Rapid Transit alternative
while still providing improved service,
bus pullouts, and better shelters and
lighting at stations. Enhanced bus
would operate in mixed traffic, which
has implications for travel time,
reliability and long-term efficiency of
the line. Enhanced bus would serve as
the base case for comparison of Streetcar
alternatives in the EIS. The EIS will also
include a no-build alternative. Metro
will consider any additional reasonable
transit alternatives identified during
scoping that provide similar
transportation benefits while reducing
or avoiding adverse impacts.
Probable effects: NEPA requires Metro
and FTA to evaluate, in a public setting,
the significant impacts of the
alternatives selected for study in the
Draft EIS. Areas of investigation
include, but are not limited to, land use,
development potential, land acquisition
and displacements, historic resources,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Apr 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
visual and aesthetic qualities, air
quality, noise and vibration, energy use,
safety and security, and ecosystems,
including threatened and endangered
species. The impacts will be evaluated
for both the construction period and for
the long-term period of operation.
Measures to mitigate adverse impacts
will be developed. Comments on
potentially significant environmental
impacts that may be associated with the
proposed project and alternatives are
welcomed.
In accordance with FTA policy and
regulations, Metro and 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
regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality and FTA
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts
1500–1508, and 23 CFR Part 771), 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 DOT Act (23
CFR 771.135), and Executive Orders
12898 on environmental justice, 11988
on floodplain management, and 11990
on wetlands.
R.F. Krochalis,
Regional Administrator, Region 10, Federal
Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–8189 Filed 4–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Reports, Forms and Record Keeping
Requirements; Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Request for public comment on
proposed collection of information.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice
announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted
below will be forwarded to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20743
review and comment. The ICR describes
the nature of a previously approved
information collection and its expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice
with a 60-day comment period was
published on January 22, 2008 [73 FR
3800–3801].
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before May 16, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Walter Culbreath at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Office of the Chief Information Officer,
Room W51–204, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Title: Generic Clearance for Customer
Surveys.
OMB Number: 2127–0579.
Type of Request: Extension of a
currently approved information
collection.
Abstract: Executive Order 12862
mandates that agencies survey their
customers to identify the kind and
quality of services they want and their
level of satisfaction with existing
services. Other requirements include the
Governmental Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) of 1993 which promotes a
new focus on results, service quality,
and customer satisfaction. NHTSA will
use surveys of the public and other
external stakeholders to gather data as
one input to decision-making on how to
better meet the goal of improving safety
on the nation’s highways. The data
gathered on public expectations,
NHTSA’s products and services, along
with specific information on motor
vehicle crash related issues, will be
used by the agency to better structure its
processes and products, forecast safety
trends and achieve the agency’s goals.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households are primary survey
respondents. Businesses or other forprofit organizations, not-for-profit
institutions, Federal agencies, and State,
local or tribal governments are other
possible survey respondents.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
13,468.
Addresses: Send comments, within 30
days, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
Comments are Invited On: Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Department,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of
E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM
16APN1
20744
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 16, 2008 / Notices
the Department’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 most effective if
OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10,
2008.
Margaret O’Brien,
Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–8102 Filed 4–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0073]
Mosler Automotive; Grant of
Application for a Temporary
Exemption From Advanced Air Bag
Requirements of FMVSS No. 208
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of grant of petition for
temporary exemption from certain
provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice grants the petition
of Mosler Automotive (Mosler) for a
temporary exemption from certain air
bag requirements of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection, for the
Mosler MT900 for the requested period
of thirty months. In accordance with 49
CFR Part 555, the basis for the grant is
that compliance would cause
substantial economic hardship to a
manufacturer that has tried in good faith
to comply with the standard, and the
exemption would have a negligible
impact on motor vehicle safety.
This action follows our publication in
the Federal Register of a document
announcing receipt of Mosler’s
application and soliciting public
comments.
DATES: The exemption is effective
immediately and remains in effect until
May 16, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Ed Glancy or Mr. Ari Scott, Office of the
Chief Counsel, NCC–112, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Apr 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202) 366–2992; Fax: (202) 366–3820.
manufacturer of a high-performance
sports car.
I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and
Small Volume Manufacturers
In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the
requirements for air bags in passenger
cars and light trucks, requiring what are
commonly known as ‘‘advanced air
bags’’ (see 65 FR 30680). The upgrade
was designed to meet the goals of
improving protection for occupants of
all sizes, belted and unbelted, in
moderate-to-high-speed crashes, and of
minimizing the risks posed by air bags
to infants, children, and other
occupants, especially in low-speed
crashes.
The advanced air bag requirements
were a culmination of a comprehensive
plan that the agency announced in 1996
to address the adverse effects of air bags.
This plan also included an extensive
consumer education program to
encourage the placement of children in
rear seats. The new requirements were
phased in beginning with the 2004
model year.
Small volume manufacturers were not
subject to the advanced air bag
requirements until September 1, 2006,
but their efforts to bring their respective
vehicles into compliance with these
requirements began several years before
that. However, because the new
requirements were challenging, major
air bag suppliers have concentrated
their efforts on working with large
volume manufacturers, and thus, until
recently, small volume manufacturers
had limited access to advanced air bag
technology. Because of the nature of the
requirements for protecting out-ofposition occupants, ‘‘off-the-shelf’’
systems could not be readily adopted.
Further complicating matters, because
small volume manufacturers build so
few vehicles, the costs of developing
custom advanced air bag systems
compared to potential profits
discouraged some air bag suppliers from
working with small volume
manufacturers.
The agency has carefully tracked
occupant fatalities resulting from air bag
deployment. Our data indicate that the
agency’s efforts in the area of consumer
education and manufacturers providing
depowered air bags were successful in
reducing air bag fatalities even before
advanced air bag requirements were
implemented.
As always, we are concerned about
the potential safety implication of any
temporary exemptions granted by this
agency. In the present case, we are
addressing a petition for a temporary
exemption from the advanced air bag
requirements submitted by a
II. Statutory Background for Economic
Hardship Exemptions
A manufacturer is eligible to apply for
a hardship exemption if its total motor
vehicle production in its most recent
year of production did not exceed
10,000 vehicles, as determined by the
NHTSA Administrator (49 U.S.C.
30113).
In determining whether a
manufacturer of a vehicle meets that
criterion, NHTSA considers whether a
second vehicle manufacturer also might
be deemed the manufacturer of that
vehicle. The statutory provisions
governing motor vehicle safety (49
U.S.C. Chapter 301) do not include any
provision indicating that a manufacturer
might have substantial responsibility as
a manufacturer of a vehicle simply
because it owns or controls a second
manufacturer that assembled that
vehicle. However, the agency considers
the statutory definition of
‘‘manufacturer’’ (49 U.S.C. 30102) to be
sufficiently broad to include sponsors.
Thus, NHTSA has stated that a
manufacturer may be deemed to be a
sponsor and thus a manufacturer of a
vehicle assembled by a second
manufacturer if, as the first
manufacturer, they had a substantial
role in the development and
manufacturing process of that vehicle.
Finally, while 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)
states that exemptions from a Safety Act
standard are to be granted on a
‘‘temporary basis,’’ 1 the statute also
expressly provides for renewal of an
exemption on reapplication.
Manufacturers are nevertheless
cautioned that the agency’s decision to
grant an initial petition in no way
predetermines that the agency will
repeatedly grant renewal petitions,
thereby imparting semi-permanent
exemption from a safety standard.
Exempted manufacturers seeking
renewal must bear in mind that the
agency is directed to consider financial
hardship as but one factor, along with
the manufacturer’s on-going good faith
efforts to comply with the regulation,
the public interest, consistency with the
Safety Act, generally, as well as other
such matters provided in the statute.
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
III. Petition of Mosler and Notice of
Receipt
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113
and the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555,
Mosler has petitioned the agency for a
temporary exemption from certain
advanced air bag requirements of
1 49
E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM
U.S.C. 30113(b)(1).
16APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20743-20744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8102]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements; Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of a previously approved information collection
and its expected burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period was published on January 22, 2008 [73 FR 3800-3801].
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 16, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Culbreath at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, Room W51-204, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Title: Generic Clearance for Customer Surveys.
OMB Number: 2127-0579.
Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information
collection.
Abstract: Executive Order 12862 mandates that agencies survey their
customers to identify the kind and quality of services they want and
their level of satisfaction with existing services. Other requirements
include the Governmental Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993
which promotes a new focus on results, service quality, and customer
satisfaction. NHTSA will use surveys of the public and other external
stakeholders to gather data as one input to decision-making on how to
better meet the goal of improving safety on the nation's highways. The
data gathered on public expectations, NHTSA's products and services,
along with specific information on motor vehicle crash related issues,
will be used by the agency to better structure its processes and
products, forecast safety trends and achieve the agency's goals.
Affected Public: Individuals or households are primary survey
respondents. Businesses or other for-profit organizations, not-for-
profit institutions, Federal agencies, and State, local or tribal
governments are other possible survey respondents.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 13,468.
Addresses: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk
Officer.
Comments are Invited On: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of
[[Page 20744]]
the Department'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 most effective if OMB receives it
within 30 days of publication.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2008.
Margaret O'Brien,
Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-8102 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
