30 Day FR Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Notices
Department of State, at 202–776–8442 or
lermanjb@state.gov.

Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington,
DC 20522–0505.

Dated: April 15, 2014.
Jonas Lerman,
Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser,
Department of State.

Dated: April 30, 2014.
Evan Ryan,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational
and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2014–10485 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am]

[FR Doc. 2014–10490 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–08–P

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8722]

[Public Notices: 8720]

Culturally Significant Object Imported
for Exhibition Determinations:
‘‘Spanish Drawings From the
Kunsthalle of Hamburg, Germany’’

Certification Related to the
Government of Haiti Under Section
7045(D)(1) of the Department of State,
Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2014
(Div. K, Pub. L. 113–76)

Department of State.
Notice, correction.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

On April 8, 2014, notice was
published on page 19409 of the Federal
Register (volume 79, number 67) of
determinations made by the Department
of State pertaining to the exhibition
‘‘Spanish Drawings From the Kunsthalle
of Hamburg, Germany.’’ The referenced
notice is corrected here to include an
additional object as part of the
exhibition. Notice is hereby given of the
following determinations: Pursuant to
the authority vested in me by the Act of
October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C.
2459), Executive Order 12047 of March
27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat.
2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et
seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of
October 1, 1999, and Delegation of
Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000,
I hereby determine that the additional
object to be included in the exhibition
‘‘Spanish Drawings From the
Kunsthalle, Germany,’’ imported from
abroad for temporary exhibition within
the United States, is of cultural
significance. The additional object is
imported pursuant to a loan agreement
with the foreign owner or custodian. I
also determine that the exhibition or
display of the additional object at the
Meadows Museum, Dallas, Texas, from
on or about May 25, 2014, until on or
about August 31, 2014, and at possible
additional exhibitions or venues yet to
be determined, is in the national
interest. I have ordered that Public
Notice of these Determinations be
published in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information, including a
description of the additional object,
contact Paul W. Manning, AttorneyAdviser, Office of the Legal Adviser,
U.S. Department of State (telephone:
202–632–6469). The mailing address is
U.S. Department of State, SA–5, L/PD,

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:11 May 06, 2014

Jkt 232001

Pursuant to the authority vested in the
Secretary of State, including under
section 7045(d)(1) of the Department of
State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 2014
(Div. K, Pub. L. 113–76), I hereby certify
that Haiti is taking steps to hold free and
fair parliamentary elections and to seat
a new Haitian Parliament; the
Government of Haiti is respecting the
independence of the judiciary; and the
Government of Haiti is combating
corruption and improving governance,
including passage of the anticorruption
law to enable prosecution of corrupt
officials and implementing financial
transparency and accountability
requirements for government
institutions.
This Certification shall be published
in the Federal Register, and copies shall
be transmitted to the appropriate
committees of Congress.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.

26299

Modify Scope are set forth below for
each application. Following the Answer
period DOT may process the application
by expedited procedures. Such
procedures may consist of the adoption
of a show-cause order, a tentative order,
or in appropriate cases a final order
without further proceedings.
Docket Number: DOT–OST–2014–
0063.
Date Filed: April 24, 2014.
Due Date for Answers, Conforming
Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: May 15, 2014.
Description: Application of Dreamjet
SAS requesting exemption authority
and a foreign air carrier permit to engage
in: a. Foreign scheduled and charter air
transportation of persons, property and
mail from any point or points behind
any Member State(s) of the European
Union, via any point or points in any
Member State and via intermediate
points, to any point(s) in the United
States and beyond; b. foreign scheduled
and charter air transportation of
persons, property and mail between any
point or points in the United States and
any point or points in any Member of
the European Common Aviation Area; c.
foreign scheduled and charter cargo air
transportation between any point or
points in the United States and any
other point or points; d. other charters
pursuant to the prior approval
requirements; and e. scheduled and
charter transportation consistent with
any future, additional rights that may be
granted to foreign air carriers of Member
States of the European Union under the
U.S.-E.U. Open Skies Agreement.
Cheryl F. Collins,
Dockets Manager, Docket Operations, Federal
Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2014–10450 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am]

[FR Doc. 2014–10484 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P

BILLING CODE 4710–29–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. FRA 2014–0011–N–9]

Notice of Applications for Certificates
of Public Convenience and Necessity
and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed
Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q)
During the Week Ending April 26, 2014

Proposed Agency Information
Collection Activities; Comment
Request

The following Applications for
Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier
Permits were filed under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department
of Transportation’s Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et.
seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to

PO 00000

Frm 00101

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and
its implementing regulations, the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
hereby announces that it is seeking
renewal of the following currently

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM

07MYN1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

26300

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Notices

approved information collection
activities. Before submitting these
information collection requirements for
clearance by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting
public comment on specific aspects of
the activities identified below.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than July 7, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
on any or all of the following proposed
activities by mail to either: Ms. Janet
Wylie, Office of Information
Technology, RAD–20, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC
20590, or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of
Information Technology, RAD–20,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35,
Washington, DC 20590. Commenters
requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt
of their respective comments must
include a self-addressed stamped
postcard stating, ‘‘Comments on OMB
control number 2130–0578.’’
Alternatively, comments may be
transmitted via facsimile to (202) 493–
6170, or via email to Ms. Wylie at
janet.wylie@dot.gov, or to Ms. Toone at
kim.toone@dot.gov. Please refer to the
assigned OMB control number in any
correspondence submitted. FRA will
summarize comments received in
response to this notice in a subsequent
notice and include them in its
information collection submission to
OMB for approval.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Janet Wylie, Office of Information
Technology, RAD–20, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC
20590 (telephone: (202) 493–6292) or
Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of
Information Technology, RAD–20,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202)
493–6132). (These telephone numbers
are not toll-free.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104–13, 2, 109 Stat.
163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44
U.S.C. 3501–3520), and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days notice to the public for
comment on information collection
activities before seeking approval for
reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically,
FRA invites interested respondents to
comment on the following summary of
proposed information collection
activities regarding (i) whether the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:11 May 06, 2014

Jkt 232001

information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute
its functions, including whether the
activities will have practical utility; (ii)
the accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the
burden of the information collection
activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (iii) ways for
FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information being
collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to
minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public by
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses). See 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)(I)–(iv); 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1)(I)–(iv). FRA believes that
soliciting public comment will promote
its efforts to reduce the administrative
and paperwork burdens associated with
the collection of information mandated
by Federal regulations. In summary,
FRA reasons that comments received
will advance three objectives: (i) Reduce
reporting burdens; (ii) ensure that it
organizes information collection
requirements in a ‘‘user friendly’’ format
to improve the use of such information;
and (iii) accurately assess the resources
expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C.
3501.
Below is a brief summary of the
information collection activities that
FRA will submit for clearance by OMB
as required under the PRA:
Title: Capital Grants for Rail Line
Relocation and Improvement Projects.
OMB Control Number: 2130–0578.
Status: Regular Review.
Type of Request: Extension without
change of a previously approved
collection.
Abstract: Much of the economic
growth of the United States can be
linked directly to the expansion of rail
service. As the nation moved westward,
railroads expanded to provide
transportation services to growing
communities. No event better illustrates
this point than ‘‘golden spike’’
ceremonies at Promontory Point, Utah,
in 1869 that ushered in transcontinental
rail service. Travel times between the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts were
dramatically reduced, opening
numerous new markets for both
passenger and freight operations.
Municipalities throughout the country
knew that their economic success rested
on being served by the railroad, and
many offered incentives for the chance
to be served. As a result, many
communities’ land use patterns
developed around the railroad lines that

PO 00000

Frm 00102

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

became an economic artery as important
as ‘‘Main Street.’’ By 1916, rail
expansion peaked as miles of road
owned reached 254,251. Soon after the
end of the Second World War, the
railroads’ competitors—the auto, truck,
air plane, pipeline, and modern barge—
proved technologically superior to the
railroads in responding to the growing
demands for speed, convenience, and
service quality that characterized the
evolving economy of the 20th century.
Mired in stifling economic overregulation, railroads were unable to
respond effectively to the challenges
facing them. These changes had a
dramatic effect on rail’s market share.
From nearly 80 percent of the intercity
freight market in the early 1920s, rail
share fell to less than 37 percent in
1975. The decline was even more
dramatic with regard to passenger
service. The industry responded by
cutting excess capacity. By 1975, miles
of road owned had fallen to 199,126—
a 22 percent decline from 1916. The
most current data (2004) shows a further
decline to 140,806—45 percent fewer
miles than was available in 1916.
By the early years of the 21st century,
the rail industry had made a significant
turn around. Beginning with rate
deregulation ushered in by the Stagger’s
Act of 1980 and including a number of
other favorable changes, railroads have
introduced innovative services,
incorporated modern pricing practices,
become profitable, and recaptured
market share. Between 1985 and 2004,
revenue ton-miles nearly doubled from
876.9 billion to 1.7 trillion. Rail’s
market share of intercity revenue freight
is approaching 45 percent. This growth
is being accommodated on a system that
shrunk in response to conditions noted
above. The smaller physical plant is
handling greater and greater freight
volumes. The clearest evidence of more
intense use of the industry’s plant is
found in ‘‘traffic density.’’ ‘‘Traffic
density’’ is the millions of revenue tonmiles per owned mile of road. In 1985,
this indicia stood at 6.02. By 2004, this
figure had nearly tripled to 17.02
millions of revenue ton-miles per mile
of road owned. This more intense use of
rail infrastructure is especially
challenging in communities that
developed adjacent to or around rail
lines, most built over a century ago on
alignments appropriate to the times.
As a result, in many places
throughout the country, the rail
infrastructure that was once so critical
to communities now presents problems
as well as benefits. For example, the
tracks that run down the middle of
towns separate the communities on
either side. Rail yard and tracks occupy

E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM

07MYN1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Notices
valuable real estate. Trains parked in
sidings may present attractive nuisances
to children and vandals, and, in the case
of tank cars containing hazardous
materials, may present serious security
or health risks. Grade crossings may
present safety risks to the cars and
pedestrians that must cross the tracks.
These same crossings create
inconveniences when long trains block
crossings for extended periods of time
and sound horns as they operate
through crossings in neighborhoods. In
some cases, trains operate over lines at
speeds that are suited for the type of
track but often present safety concerns
to those in the surrounding community.
In some cases, rail lines have become so
congested that communities experience
what they perceive as almost
continuous train traffic. In short, rail
lines, which once brought economic
prosperity and social cohesion, are now
sometimes viewed as factors in the
decline of both.
In many cases, however, these same
communities rely heavily on rail traffic.
Local industries must be served and
passengers, both long distance riders
and daily commuters, need convenient
access to population and employment
centers. Thus, the presence of the
railroad is not the problem. Instead, the
physical location of the tracks creates
tension between the need for the
railroad and the problems the physical
infrastructure of the railroad creates.
In an effort to satisfy all constituents,
State and local governments are looking
for ways to eliminate the problems
created by the increased demand on the
infrastructure while still maintaining
the benefits the railroad provides. Many
times, the solution is merely to relocate
the track in question to an area that is
better suited for it. For example, a
recently completed relocation project in
Greenwood, Mississippi, eliminated
twelve at-grade highway-rail crossings,
which greatly improved safety for
motorists and eliminated blocked
crossings. With that success in mind,
Mississippi is currently looking to
relocate two main lines that run through
the heart of the Central Business District
in Tupelo. Combined, these two lines
cross 26 highways in the city, and all
but one are at-grade crossings. One of
the options the State is considering is
laterally relocating the lines outside of
the business district.
In some situations, vertical relocation
may be the best solution. For example,
Nevada has undertaken the Reno
Transportation Rail Access Project
(ReTRAC), the purpose of which is to
‘‘sink’’ 33 feet below the ground in a
trench the approximately 2.25 mile
segment of track that runs through Reno.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:11 May 06, 2014

Jkt 232001

Both the Union Pacific Railroad
Company (UP) and Amtrak operate over
this line. The project will allow for the
closing of 11 grade crossings, and will
generally improve both highway
efficiency and highway safety, as well as
the safety and efficiency of the trains
that operate through Reno. Many of
these relocation projects, like the
ReTRAC project, are expensive, and
State and local governments lack the
resources to undertake them.
In addition to relocation projects,
many communities are eager to improve
existing rail infrastructure in an effort to
mitigate the negative effects of rail
traffic on safety in general, motor
vehicle traffic flow, economic
development, or the overall quality of
life of the community. For example, in
an effort to improve train speed and
reduce the risk of derailments, rail lines
that were built a century ago with sharp
curves can be straightened.
Furthermore, significant efficiencies can
be gained and safety enhanced by, as
examples, extending passing tracks and
yard lead tracks, and adding track
circuits and signal spacing changes. On
August 10, 2005, President George W.
Bush signed SAFETEA–LU (Pub. L.
109–59) into law. Section 9002 of
SAFETEA–LU amended chapter 201 of
Title 49 of the United States Code by
adding new section 20154, which
establishes the basic elements of a
funding program for capital grants for
rail relocation and improvement
projects. Subsection (b) of the new
section 20154 mandates that the
Secretary of Transportation issue
‘‘temporary regulations’’ to implement
the capital grants program and then
issue final regulations by October 1,
2006.
In FY 2008, Congress appropriated
$20,145,000 for the Program, reduced by
rescission to $20,040,200. Of this sum,
$14,905,000 was available for
discretionary (competitive) grants. After
evaluating and scoring 37 applications,
FRA awarded $14,315,300 to seven
different projects, leaving $589,700. In
FY 2009, Congress appropriated
$25,000,000 and directed that
$17,100,000 be awarded to 23 specific
projects, with $7,900,000 left over for
discretionary grants. Subsequently, in
FY 2010, Congress appropriated
$34,532,000 for the Program, and
directed that $24,519,200 go to 27
specifically enumerated projects. FRA
combined the remaining $10,012,800
with the $589,700 that was not awarded
from the FY 2008 competition,
$2,000,000 that was awarded to one of
the FY 2008 projects but which the
project sponsors ultimately turned
down, and the $7,900,000 in FY 2009

PO 00000

Frm 00103

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

26301

discretionary funding for a total of
$20,502,500. These funds were the
subject of a Notice of Funding
Availability that FRA published in the
Federal Register on September 10, 2010.
The application period closed on
October 29, 2010.
Form Number(s): Progress Report,
Federally-owned Property Report, SF–
269, SF–271, SF–270, DOT F 200.1.
Affected Public: State and local
governments, government sponsored
authorities and corporations, railroads.
Frequency of Submission: On
occasion; record keeping.
Total Estimated Responses: 121.
Total Estimated Annual Burden:
26,083 hours.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5
CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA
informs all interested parties that it may
not conduct or sponsor, and a
respondent is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.
Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–10483 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. FD 33744 (Sub-No. 1)]

CSX Transportation, Inc.—Trackage
Rights Exemption—Louisville &
Indiana Railroad Company
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) and
Louisville & Indiana Railroad Company
(LIRC), pursuant to a written trackage
rights agreement dated January 1, 2014
(the 2014 Agreement), have agreed to
modify the compensation pertaining to
overhead trackage rights LIRC
previously granted to CSXT 1 under a
trackage rights agreement entered into
in 2000 (the 2000 Agreement). The
trackage rights are over LIRC’s line
between milepost 110.56, at Louisville,
Ky., and milepost 4.0, at Indianapolis,
Ind., a distance of approximately 106.5
miles (including the ability to enter and
exit the line at Seymour, Ind.).2
1 See CSX Transp., Inc.—Trackage Rights
Exemption—Louisville & Ind. R.R., FD 33744 (STB
served June 21, 2001).
2 Redacted versions of the 2000 Agreement and
2014 Agreement were filed with the notice of
exemption. The full versions of the agreements, as
required by 49 CFR 1180.6(a)(7)(ii), were
concurrently filed under seal along with a motion
for protective order. That motion will be addressed
in a separate decision.

E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM

07MYN1