47640 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Notices 

3Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing 

fee, which is currently set at $1,500. See 49 CFR 

1002.2(f)(25). 

4Because this is a discontinuance proceeding and 

not an abandonment, trail use/rail banking and 

public use conditions are not appropriate. 

CFR 1152.27(c)(2) 3 must be filed by 

September 28, 2009.4 Petitions to 

reopen must be filed by October 6, 2009, 

with the Surface Transportation Board, 

395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20423–0001. 

A copy of any petition filed with the 

Board should be sent to RJCK’s 

representative: Ronald A. Lane, Fletcher 

& Sippel LLC, 29 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 

920, Chicago, IL 60606. 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: September 10, 2009. 

By the Board. 

Rachel D. Campbell, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. E9–22263 Filed 9–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Capitol Expressway Light Rail 

Project in the City of San Jose and 

County of Santa Clara, CA. 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a 

Supplemental Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration and the Santa Clara 

Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 

are planning to prepare a Supplemental 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the proposed 2.3 mile 

extension of light rail along Capitol 

Expressway from the existing Alum 

Rock Station to Eastridge Transit Center 

in the City of San Jose. Pursuant to 23 

C.F.R 771.129(a) and 771.130, the 

Supplemental Draft EIS will replace the 

Draft EIS that was made available for 

public review in April 2004. The Final 

EIS required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.) (NEPA) was never 

completed for this project as a result of 

limited opportunities for securing 

federal funds at that time. Due to 

dramatic declines in local and state 

funding sources as a result of the global 

economic recession, VTA is now 

preparing a Supplemental Draft EIS in 

order to be eligible for federal funds for 

this project. A Supplemental Draft EIS 

is needed to address major changes to 

the project since April 2004. 

The Supplemental Draft EIS will be 

prepared in accordance with regulations 

set by the NEPA as well as the 

provisions of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users. The purpose of 

this Notice of Intent is to alert interested 

parties about the plan to prepare the 

Supplemental Draft EIS, to invite public 

participation in the scoping process and 

to announce that a public scoping 

meeting will be conducted. 

DATES: Written comments on the scope 

of the Supplemental Draft EIS should be 

sent to Tom Fitzwater, VTA 

Environmental Programs and Resources 

Management Manager, by October 19, 

2009. A Public scoping meeting will be 

held on September 30, 2009 from 6 p.m. 

to 7:30 p.m. at the location indicated 

under ADDRESSES below. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

scope of the Supplemental Draft EIS 

should be submitted via mail, e-mail, 

fax, or the project Web site, with 

attention to: Tom Fitzwater, 

Manager,VTA Environmental Programs 

and Resources Management, 3331 North 

First Street, Building B–2, San Jose, CA 

95134–1927, E-mail: 

Tom.Fitzwater@vta.org, Fax: (408) 321– 

5787, Project Web site: http:// 

www.vta.org. 

Comments may also be offered at the 

public scoping meeting. The address for 

the public scoping meeting is in the 

Community Room on the second floor of 

Eastridge Shopping Center located at 

2200 Eastridge Loop Road in San Jose 

California (Old Navy/JC Penney’s 

entrance). The meeting facility will be 

accessible to persons with disabilities. If 

special translation or signing services or 

other special accommodations are 

needed, please contact VTA Customer 

Service five days prior to the meeting at 

(408) 321–2300, or e-mail 

community.outreach@vta.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information about the 

proposed project, environmental review 

process, or to be placed on the project 

mailing list, contact Tom Fitzwater, 

VTA Environmental Programs and 

Resources Management, at VTA, 3331 

North First Street, Building B–2, San 

Jose, CA 95134–2709, (408) 321–5789 or 

Eric Eidlin, Community Planner, at 

Federal Transit Administration, San 

Francisco Regional Office, 201 Mission 

Street, Room 1650, San Francisco, CA 

94105–1926, (415) 744–2502. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Scoping 

Scoping is the process of determining 

the scope, focus and content of an EIS. 

FTA and VTA invite all interested 

individuals and organizations, public 

agencies, and Native American Tribes to 

comment on the scope of the 

Supplemental Draft EIS, including the 

project’s purpose and need, the 

alternatives to be studied, the impacts to 

be evaluated, and the evaluation 

methods to be used. Comments should 

focus on: alternatives that may be less 

costly or have less environmental or 

community impacts while achieving 

similar transportation objectives, and 

the identification of any significant 

social, economic, or environmental 

issues relating to the alternatives. 

NEPA ‘‘scoping’’ has specific and 

fairly limited objectives, one of which is 

to identify the significant issues 

associated with alternatives that will be 

examined in detail in the document, 

while simultaneously limiting 

consideration and development of 

issues that are not truly significant. It is 

in the NEPA scoping process that 

potentially significant environmental 

impacts—those that give rise to the need 

to prepare an environmental impact 

statement—should be identified; 

impacts that are deemed not to be 

significant need not be developed 

extensively in the context of the impact 

statement, thereby keeping the 

statement focused on impacts of 

consequence. Transit projects may also 

generate environmental benefits; these 

should be highlighted as well—the 

impact statement process should draw 

attention to positive impacts, not just 

negative impacts. 

Once the scope of the environmental 

study, including significant 

environmental issues to be addressed, is 

settled, an annotated outline of the 

document will be prepared and shared 

with interested agencies and the public. 

The outline serves at least three worthy 

purposes, including (1) documenting 

the results of the scoping process; (2) 

contributing to the transparency of the 

process; and (3) providing a clear 

roadmap for concise development of the 

environmental document. 

II. Description of Project Study Areas 

and Need 

Purpose of the Supplemental Draft 

EIS: The original Notice of Intent to 

prepare a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement/Environmental Impact Report 

(EIS/EIR) was issued on September 18, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Notices 47641 

2001. Following the circulation of the 

Draft EIS/EIR in April 2004, it was 

determined that the opportunity for 

securing federal funds at that time was 

limited. As a result, a Final EIS was 

never completed. 

A Final EIR was prepared to comply 

with the state process (California 

Environmental Quality Act) and was 

certified by the VTA Board of Directors 

in May 2005. A Final Supplemental EIR 

was later prepared to address changes to 

the project and was certified by the VTA 

Board of Directors in August 2007. 

Due to dramatic declines in local and 

state funding sources as a result of the 

global economic recession, a 

Supplemental Draft EIS will be prepared 

in order to be eligible for federal funds. 

The purpose of the Supplemental Draft 

EIS is to fully disclose the 

environmental consequences of building 

and operating the Project in advance of 

any federal decisions to commit 

substantial financial or other resources 

towards its implementation. The 

Supplemental Draft EIS explores the 

extent to which project alternatives and 

design options result in environmental 

impacts and will discuss actions to 

reduce or eliminate such impacts as 

required by current federal (NEPA) 

environmental laws and current Council 

on Environmental Quality and FTA 

guidelines. 

Project Description: The proposed 

project will extend light rail along 

Capitol Expressway between the 

existing Alum Rock Light Rail Station 

and Eastridge Transit Center, a distance 

of approximately 2.3 miles. Light rail 

will operate primarily in the median of 

Capitol Expressway within exclusive 

and semi-exclusive rights-of-way. 

Property acquisition for the project will 

be minimized through the removal of 

two High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) 

lanes on Capitol Expressway. The 

alignment will include an elevated 

section north of Capitol Avenue and 

south of Story Road, and an elevated 

crossing of Tully Road. The project will 

include new light rail stations at Story 

Road (aerial), Ocala Avenue (optional, 

at-grade) and Eastridge Transit Center 

(at-grade and aerial options). At 

Eastridge Mall, the existing transit 

center and park-and-ride lot will be 

modified and expanded to 

accommodate the project. The project 

will also include traction power 

substations at Ocala Avenue and 

Eastridge Transit Center. Approximately 

seven 115-kilovolt electrical 

transmission towers and two tubular 

steel poles (TSPs) will require relocation 

from the median of Capitol Expressway 

to the east side of Capitol Expressway in 

order to accommodate the project. 

While the project will cross over Silver 

Creek, no work is anticipated below the 

top of the bank. 

Project Purpose and Need: The 

Capitol Expressway Light Rail Project is 

needed to: 

• Improve public transit service in 

the Capitol Expressway Corridor by 

providing increased capacity and faster, 

convenient access to downtown San 

Jose and major employment and activity 

centers; 

• make transit an attractive 

alternative to the automobile for travel 

along the expressway; enhance regional 

connectivity through expanded, 

interconnected transit services along 

some of the primary travel corridors in 

Santa Clara County, including U.S. 101 

(Guadalupe Corridor) and I–680 

(Tasman East, Capitol Avenue, and 

Capitol Expressway Corridors); 

• improve regional air quality by 

reducing the growth in automobile 

emissions; 

• improve mobility options to 

employment, education, medical and 

retail centers for all corridor residents 

and in particular, low-income, transit 

dependent, youth, elderly, disabled, and 

ethnic minority populations; and 

• support local economic and land 

development goals. 

III. Proposed Project Alternatives 

The No-Build Alternative represents 

conditions that would be reasonably 

expected to occur in the foreseeable 

future if the proposed build alternative 

were not implemented. This includes 

existing transit conditions and 

programmed transportation projects that 

will be constructed by 2035. A Baseline 

Alternative representing the optimal 

level of bus service that could be 

provided in the corridor without an 

investment in major new infrastructure 

is not proposed. VTA is not only 

currently operating Line 522 Rapid Bus 

service in the Capitol Expressway 

Corridor, but is also proposing to 

improve this service with Bus Rapid 

Transit (BRT). BRT will provide more 

frequent headways, upgraded facilities, 

real-time information, transit priority, 

and specialized vehicles. VTA will also 

analyze any reasonable alternatives that 

are uncovered during public scoping. 

IV. Probable Effects 

The Supplemental Draft EIS will 

explore the extent to which project 

alternatives and design options result in 

environmental impacts and will discuss 

actions to reduce or eliminate such 

impacts. Environmental issues to be 

examined may include: Changes in the 

physical environment (natural 

resources, air quality, climate change, 

noise, water quality, geology, 

aesthetics); changes in the social 

environment (land use, business and 

neighborhood disruptions); changes in 

traffic and pedestrian circulation; 

changes in transit service and patronage; 

associated changes in traffic congestion; 

and impacts on parklands and historic 

resources. Impacts will be identified 

both for the construction period and for 

the long-term operation of the 

alternatives. Based on the findings of 

the Final and Supplemental EIR, it is 

anticipated that the project will result in 

adverse noise, vibration, and traffic 

impacts. 

V. FTA Procedures 

The regulations implementing NEPA, 

as well as provisions of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU), call for public 

involvement in the EIS process. Section 

6002 of SAFETEA–LU requires that FTA 

and VTA do the following: (1) Extend an 

invitation to other Federal and nonFederal agencies and Native American 

tribes that may have an interest in the 

proposed project to become 

‘‘participating agencies;’’ (2) provide an 

opportunity for involvement by 

participating agencies and the public to 

help define the purpose and need for a 

proposed project, as well as the range of 

alternatives for consideration in the EIS; 

and (3) establish a plan for coordinating 

public and agency participation in, and 

comment on, the environmental review 

process. An invitation to become a 

participating or cooperating agency, 

with scoping materials appended, will 

be extended to other Federal and nonFederal agencies and Native American 

tribes that may have an interest in the 

proposed project. It is possible that FTA 

and VTA will not be able to identify all 

Federal and non-Federal agencies and 

Native American tribes that may have 

such an interest. Any Federal or nonFederal agency or Native American tribe 

interested in the proposed project that 

does not receive an invitation to become 

a participating agency should notify at 

the earliest opportunity the Project 

Manager identified above under 

ADDRESSES. 

A comprehensive public involvement 

program and a Coordination Plan for 

public and interagency involvement 

will be developed for the project and 

posted on http://www.vta.org. The 

public involvement program includes a 

full range of activities including the 

development and distribution of project 

newsletters, and outreach to local 

officials, community and civic groups, 

and the public. Specific activities or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
47642 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Notices 

1Notice of Temporary Suspension of AmateurBuilt Aircraft Kit Evaluations Previously Conducted 

by the Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft 

Certification Service (73 FR 8926, February 15, 

2008). 

2Notification of Policy Revisions, and Requests 

for Comments on the Percentage of Fabrication and 

Assembly that Must Be Completed by an Amateur 

Builder to Obtain an Experimental Airworthiness 

Certificate for an Amateur-Built Aircraft (73 FR 

40652, July 15, 2008). 

3See Notification of Policy Revisions, and 

Requests for Comments on the Percentage of 

Fabrication and Assembly That Must Be Completed 

by an Amateur Builder to Obtain an Experimental 

Airworthiness Certificate for an Amateur-Built 

Aircraft; Extension of Comment Period (73 FR 

43278, July 24, 2008). 

4The FAA reopened the comment period because 

the proposed Order 8130.2F and AC 20–27G had 

been inadvertently removed from the FAA Web site 

during the comment period. (See 73 FR 65007, 

October 31, 2008.) 

5 20/20/11 was an FAA proposal requiring an 

amateur builder to fabricate a minimum 20 percent 

of an aircraft and assemble a minimum of 20 

percent of the aircraft. 

events for involvement will be detailed 

in the public involvement program. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act seeks, 

in part, to minimize the cost to the 

taxpayer of the creation, collection, 

maintenance, use, dissemination, and 

disposition of information. Consistent 

with this goal and with principles of 

economy and efficiency in government, 

it is FTA policy to limit insofar as 

possible distribution of complete 

printed sets of environmental 

documents. Accordingly, unless a 

specific request for a complete printed 

set of environmental documents is 

received (preferably in advance of 

printing), FTA and its grantees will 

distribute only the executive summary 

of the environmental document together 

with a Compact Disc of the complete 

environmental document. A complete 

printed set of the environmental 

document is available for review at the 

grantee’s offices and elsewhere; an 

electronic copy of the complete 

environmental document is also 

available on http://www.vta.org. 

The Supplemental Draft EIS will be 

prepared in accordance with NEPA and 

its implementing regulations issued by 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

(40 CFR parts 1500–1508) and with the 

FTA/Federal Highway Administration 

regulations ‘‘Environmental Impact and 

Related Procedures’’ (23 CFR part 771). 

In accordance with 23 CFR 771.105(a) 

and 771.133, 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 

environmental and public hearing 

provisions of Federal transit laws (49 

U.S.C. 5301(e), 5323(b), and 5324); 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 Department of 

Transportation Act (23 CFR 771.135); 

and Executive Orders 12898 on 

environmental justice, 11988 on 

floodplain management, and 11990 on 

wetlands. 

Related Documents: The Final 

Environmental Impact Report (April 

2005), and the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Report (April 

2007) for the Capitol Expressway 

Corridor are available by contacting 

Tom Fitzwater at the address and phone 

number given above. 

Issued on: September 9, 2009. 

Raymond Sukys, 

Acting Regional Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–22322 Filed 9–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Issuance of Final Report of the 2008 

Amateur-Built Aircraft Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee. 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

issuance of the final report of the 2008 

Amateur-Built Aircraft Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (2008 ARC). The 

report provides the 2008 ARC’s 

recommendations regarding the 

disposition of (1) public comments 

received on the proposed changes to 

Order 8130.2F and AC 20–27G; (2) the 

definition of ‘‘fabrication’’ as it differs 

from ‘‘assembly’’ within the scope of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) part 21, Certification 

Procedures for Products and Parts, 

§ 21.191(g), Operating amateur-built 

aircraft; and (3) a process to minimize 

the impact of the proposed policy on 

amateur-built kits evaluated by the FAA 

before February 15, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frank P. Paskiewicz, Manager, 

Production and Airworthiness Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service, AIR–200, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 5th Floor, Suite 

500, Washington, DC 20024; telephone 

number: (202) 385–6346. A copy of the 

final report may be obtained by 

accessing the FAA’s Web site at http:// 

www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/

ultralights/amateur_built/media/ARC

_FINAL_2008_report.pdf. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 14, 2008, the 2006 

Amateur-Built Aircraft Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC) 

published its Final Report. This report 

found that FAA directives setting policy 

for amateur-built aircraft ‘‘do not 

adequately address the issue of 

commercial assistance,’’ determined 

that the ‘‘aircraft kit evaluation process 

is not standardized,’’ and cited the need 

for additional training for inspectors to 

‘‘fully understand the FAA’s 

expectations when determining an 

aircraft’s eligibility for an amateur-built 

certificate.’’ Based on the ARC’s report, 

the FAA published a notice in the 

Federal Register on February 15, 2008,1

temporarily suspending amateur-built 

aircraft kit evaluations. The FAA 

decided that its directives governing the 

amateur-built aircraft sector required 

review and revision. 

Subsequently, the FAA published a 

notice in the Federal Register on July 

15, 2008, announcing proposed changes 

to, and seeking public comments on (1) 

FAA Order 8130.2F, Airworthiness 

Certification of Aircraft and Related 

Products, Chapter 4, Special 

Airworthiness Certification, Section 9, 

Experimental Amateur-Built 

Airworthiness Certifications; and (2) AC 

20–27G, Certification and Operation of 

Amateur-Built Aircraft.2 The original 

comment period opened on July 15, 

2008, and closed on August 15, 2008. 

Upon request, the FAA extended the 

comment period to September 30, 

2008,3 and then reopened the comment 

period from October 31, 2008, through 

December 15, 2008.4

On November 4, 2008, the AmateurBuilt ARC was rechartered with Order 

1110.143A, Amateur-Built Aircraft 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee to 

advise the FAA on issues concerning 

disposition of the public comments, the 

enhanced definition of the term 

‘‘fabrication’’ and grandfathering of 

FAA-listed amateur-built aircraft kits. 

The 2008 ARC met in Washington, DC 

on January 27 through 29, 2009, to 

consider the items listed above; the ARC 

also— 

• Reevaluated the 20/20/11 

requirement; 5

• Evaluated an updated FAA Form 

8000–38, Fabrication/Assembly 

Operation Checklist; 

• Discussed the creation of a National 

Kit Evaluation Team, consisting of FAA 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES