Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 28 / Wednesday, February 11, 1998 / Notices

interchange configuration has four access points.
Generally, revised access is considered to be a change in the interchange configuration even though the number of actual points of access may not change. For example, replacing one of the direct ramps of a diamond interchange with a loop, or changing a cloverleaf interchange into a fully directional interchange would be considered revised access for the purpose of applying this policy.
All requests for new or revised access points on completed Interstate highways must be closely coordinated with the planning and environmental processes.
The FHWA approval constitutes a Federal action, and as such, requires that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures are followed.
The NEPA procedures will be > accomplished as part of the normal project development process and as a condition of the access approval. This means the final approval of access cannot precede the completion of the NEPA process. To offer maximum flexibility, however, any proposed access points can be submitted in accordance with the delegation of authority for a determination of engineering and operational acceptability prior to completion of the > NEPA process. In this manner, the State highway agency can determine if a proposal is acceptable for inclusion as an alternative in the environmental process. This policy in no way alters the current NEPA implementing procedures as contained in 23 CFR part 771.
Although the justification and documentation procedures described in this policy can be applied to access requests for non-Interstate freeways or other access controlled highways, they are not required. However, applicable Federal rules and regulations, including NEPA procedures, must be followed.
Implementation
The FHWA Division Office will ensure that all requests for new or revised access submitted by the State highway agency for FHWA consideration contain sufficient information to allow the FHWA to independently evaluate the request and ensure that all pertinent factors and alternatives have been appropriately considered. The extent and format of the required justification and documentation should be developed jointly by the State highway agency and the FHWA to accommodate the operations of both agencies, and should also be consistent with the complexity and expected impact of the proposals.
For example, information in support of isolated rural interchanges may not need to be as extensive as for a complex or potentially controversial interchange in an urban area. No specific documentation format or content is prescribed by this policy.

Policy Statement Impact
The policy statement, first published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1990 (55 FR 42670), describes the justification and documentation needed
for requests to add or revise access to the existing Interstate System. The revisions made by this publication of the policy statement reflect the planning requirements of the ISTEA as implemented in 23 CFR part 450, clarify coordination between the access request and environmental processes, and update language at various locations.
The States will have to take these factors into consideration when making future requests for new or revised access points, but the overall effort necessary for developing the request will not be significantly increased.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued: February 4, 1998.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration.
[FR Doc. 98–3460 Filed 2–10–98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[Notice 97–1]
Safety Advisory: Unauthorized Cargo
Tanks Used to Transport Hazardous
Materials
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) DOT.
ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This is to notify the public that certain specification DOT 407 and DOT 412 cargo tank motor vehicles manufactured by Prairie State Equipment, doing business as Petro Steel, in Mitchell, SD, are not authorized for the transportation of hazardous materials unless the original accident damage protection devices have been modified to improve their structural strength. Failure of these devices during a collision could result in serious injury, death, and property damage.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bill Quade, Office of Motor Carrier Safety and Technology, (202) 366–0476;
Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street S.W.,
Washington, D.C.
20590–0001.

Office hours are from 7:45
a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Cargo tanks represented, marked, certified, or sold for use in the bulk transportation of hazardous materials must conform with the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR) (49 CFR 171–180).
Specification DOT 407 and DOT 412
cargo tanks are authorized to transport numerous hazardous materials including flammable liquids (e.g., toluene), poisonous liquids, (e.g., pesticides), corrosive liquids (e.g., sulfuric acid), and others. Due to the< risk of transporting these types of materials in bulk, the DOT 407 and DOT 412 cargo tank specifications require these tanks to be protected from damage during rear-end or rollover accidents.
Requirements concerning the size and strength of these accident damage protection devices are set forth in § 178.345–8.

During a compliance review of Prairie State Equipment, doing business as Petro Steel, in Mitchell, SD, the FHWA discovered that rollover protection devices and rear-end protection devices as manufactured and installed on some cargo tanks did not meet the requirements of the DOT specifications.
Since these tanks were not equipped with adequate accident damage protection devices required by the specifications, they may not be represented as specification cargo tanks and may not be used to transport hazardous materials which require a specification cargo tank. Specifically, as manufactured by Petro Steel, the rollover damage protection devices installed on the following cargo tanks did not meet the requirements of the specifications:

Additionally, as manufactured by Petro Steel, the rear-end protection devices installed on the following cargo tanks did not meet the requirements of the specifications:

Cargo tanks listed above may be used to transport hazardous materials if they have been modified to a design certified by Petro Steel or another Design Certifying Engineer (DCE) as meeting the requirements of § 178.345–8. Cargo tanks which have not had appropriate modifications must have the DOT specification plate removed, obliterated, or covered and may not be used to transport hazardous materials requiring a specification cargo tank.
Authority: 49 CFR 1.48.

Issued on: February 3, 1998.
Kenneth R. Wykle,
Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration.
[FR Doc. 98–3303 Filed 2–10–98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Finance Docket No. 32760]
Union Pacific Railroad Company,
Control and Merger; Southern Pacific
Transportation Company: Reno
Mitigation Study, Preliminary
Mitigation Plan
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Issuance of Final Mitigation
Plan (FMP), request for public comment.

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board’s (Board) Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) issued the Final Mitigation Plan (FMP) for the Reno, NV Mitigation Study on February 11, 1998 for public review and comment. On August 12, 1996, in Decision No. 44, the Board approved the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.
As part of its approval, the Board directed SEA to conduct a mitigation study to develop further tailored environmental mitigation measures, in addition to those already imposed in Decision No. 44) to address unique local conditions in Reno and Washoe County.
The FMP is part of this ongoing Reno mitigation study process. The FMP contains SEA’s proposed environmental conditions at this time for mitigating the potential effects of increased train traffic through Reno as a result of the UP/SP merger. The FMP also contains comments from over 530 commenters on the Preliminary Mitigation Plan (released on September 15, 1997), SEA’s responses to those comments, and additional technical analysis conducted by SEA.

The Board encourages public comment on the FMP during the 30-day review period, which will end on March 12, 1998. SEA will distribute copies of the FMP to interested parties, and copies will also be available at the Reno and Sparks branches of the Washoe County Public Library.

SEA will consider all timely public comments before making its final recommendations to the Board. The Board will consider SEA’s final recommendations, the Preliminary Mitigation Plan, the Final Mitigation Plan, and all public comments when making its final decision imposing additional specific mitigation measures for Reno and Washoe County that it deems appropriate.

Individuals who wish to file a comment may submit one original; government agencies and businesses are asked to submit an original plus 10 copies. Public comments should be submitted in writing no later than March 12, 1998 to: Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, Finance Docket No. 32760, Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW, Room 715, Washington, DC 20423– 0001. Mark the lower left-hand corner of the envelope: Attention: Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Filing—Reno.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Harold McNulty, Section of
Environmental Analysis, Room 500,
Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423,
(202) 565–1539, TDD for the hearing
impaired: (202) 565–1695.

By the Board, Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief,
Section of Environmental Analysis.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98–3461 Filed 2–10–98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics
AGENCY: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(A)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 72–363; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics (ACTS) to be held Wednesday, November 12, 1997, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC, in conference room 10234–38 of the Nassif Building.

The Advisory Council, called for under Section 6007 of Public Law 102– 240, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, December 18, 1991, and chartered on June 19, 1995, was created to advise the Director of BTS on transportation statistics and analyses, including whether or not the statistics and analysis disseminated by the Bureau are of high quality and are based upon the best available objective information.

The agenda for this meeting will include a review of the last meeting, identification of substantive issues, review of plans and schedule, other items of interest, discussion and agreement of date(s) for subsequent meetings, and comments from the floor.

Since access to the DOT building is controlled, all persons who plan to attend the meeting must notify Ms.
Carolee Bush, Council Liaison, on (202) 366–6946 prior to November 10.

Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space available.
With the approval of the Chair, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting.
Noncommittee members wishing to present oral statements, obtain information, or who plan to access the building to attend the meeting should also contact Ms. Bush.

Members of the public may present a written statement to the Council at any time.
Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Ms. Bush (202) 366–6946 at least seven days prior to the meeting.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 5, 1998.
Robert A. Knisely,
Executive Director, Advisory Council on
Transportation Statistics.
[FR Doc. 98–3427 Filed 2–10–98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–FE–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service
Surety Companies Acceptable on
Federal Bonds; United States Surety
Company
AGENCY: Financial Management Service,
Fiscal Service Department of the
Treasury.
ACTION: Surety companies acceptable on
Federal bonds; United States Surety
Company.

SUMMARY: (Dept. Circ. 570, 1997 Rev., Supp. No. 7).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Surety Bond Branch (20) 874–6905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A
Certificate of Authority as an acceptable
surety on Federal Bonds is hereby
issued to the following company under
Sections 9304 to 9308, Title 31, of the
United States Code. Federal bondapproving
officers should annotate their
reference copies of the Treasury Circular
570, 1997 Revision, on page 35578 to
reflect this addition: