Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 183 / Friday, September 21, 2007 / Notices 54099 

381.315(a)). The Agency must provide 

the public an opportunity to inspect the 

information relevant to the application, 

including the conducting of any safety 

analyses. The Agency must also provide 

an opportunity for public comment on 

the request. 

The Agency reviews the safety 

analyses and the public comments, and 

determines whether granting the 

exemption would likely achieve a level 

of safety equivalent to, or greater than, 

the level that would be achieved by the 

current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). 

The decision of the Agency must be 

published in the Federal Register (49 

CFR 381.315(b)) with the reason for 

denying or, in the alternative, the 

specific person or class of persons 

receiving the exemption, and the 

regulatory provision or provisions from 

which exemption is granted. The notice 

must also specify the effective period of 

the exemption (up to 2 years), and 

explain the terms and conditions of the 

exemption. The exemption may be 

renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)). 

Application for Exemption 

Jcrane is a crane rental service located 

in southwest Ohio. It currently has nine 

full-time employees with commercial 

driver’s licenses (CDLs), and operates 

three tractor-trailers and five mobile 

cranes. The tractor-trailers are support 

vehicles for the cranes and are driven by 

apprentices or individuals who are in 

the process of learning to operate 

cranes. These apprentice drivers are 

normally in the 18–23 year age range. 

According to Jcrane, this is the ideal age 

range to begin operator training. As a 

crane-support truck driver, these 

individuals haul counterbalance 

weights for the crane on a flatbed trailer. 

The drivers will follow a crane from the 

home base to a different jobsite every 

day, set the crane up, wait for the crane 

to make the lift, tear the crane down, 

and follow it back to the shop. These 

drivers never travel alone, are home 

every night, and do not haul goods 

owned by other people. Jcrane’s 

operating area is generally within a 200- 

mile radius of their home base in 

Covington, Ohio. Due to their location, 

they never service the northeast corner 

of Ohio, but do a lot of work in eastern 

Indiana. Under Ohio law, their 18–20 

year old apprentices may legally drive a 

truck from Covington, Ohio to 

Cleveland, Ohio—which is 5 hours 

northeast of their home terminal; 

however, they may not drive to 

Richmond, Indiana, which is 

approximately 1-hour west, due to 

FMCSA’s prohibition against drivers 

under the age of 21 operating in 

interstate commerce in 49 CFR 

391.11(b)(1). 

Jcrane requests an exemption for their 

employees under the age of 21 to be able 

to legally operate their equipment and 

tractor-trailers across state borders, 

however not outside of a 200-mile 

radius from their home terminal in 

Covington, Ohio. Jcrane states that, 

because they are located more than 200 

miles from the eastern Ohio border, this 

exemption would not change the 

maximum distance that these drivers 

can travel and therefore would have no 

effect on safety. This exemption would, 

however, according to Jcrane, allow it to 

better train crane operators and 

therefore increase overall safety. 

Jcrane requests that the exemption 

from § 391.11(b)(1) be in effect for a 

period of two years from the date of 

issue. A copy of Jcrane Inc.’s exemption 

application is in the docket identified 

for this notice. 

Request for Comments 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA 

requests public comment on Jcrane 

Inc.’s application an exemption from 49 

CFR 391.11(b)(1). The Agency will 

consider all comments received by close 

of business on October 22, 2007. 

Comments will be available for 

examination in the docket at the 

location listed under the ADDRESSES

section of this notice. The Agency will 

file comments received after the 

comment closing date in the public 

docket, and will consider them to the 

extent practicable. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E7–18628 Filed 9–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

Intent To Prepare a Revised 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project 

in Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara, 

CA 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) and the Santa 

Clara Valley Transportation Authority 

(VTA) will prepare a Revised 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the proposed Silicon Valley Rapid 

Transit Project (SVRT Project), a 16.1- 

mile extension of the San Francisco Bay 

Area Rapid Transit District (BART) 

system from the planned BART Warm 

Springs Station in Fremont through 

Milpitas and San Jose to Santa Clara, 

California. The Revised EIS will be 

prepared in accordance with regulations 

implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (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 (NOI) is to inform interested 

parties of the plan to prepare a Revised 

EIS, to invite agency and public 

participation in the EIS process, and to 

announce public scoping meetings. 

DATES: Written comments on the scope 

of the Revised EIS, including the 

Project’s purpose and need statement, 

Project alternatives, environmental and 

community impacts to be evaluated, and 

evaluation methodologies should be 

sent to Tom Fitzwater, Environmental 

Resources Planning Manager, by 

October 29, 2007. Public scoping 

meetings will be held on October 9, 11, 

and 18, 2007 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. 

at the locations indicated under 

ADDRESSES below. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted by postal mail, e-mail, or fax, 

to: Tom Fitzwater, Environmental 

Resources Planning Manager, Santa 

Clara Valley Transportation Authority, 

Environmental Programs and Resources 

Management, 3331 North First Street, 

Building B–2, San Jose, CA 95134–1927. 

E-mail: 

SVRT.NEPA.EIS.Comments@vta.org. 

Fax: (408) 321–5787. Project Web site: 

http://www.vtabart-vta.org. 

Comments may also be submitted at 

the public scoping meetings. The dates 

and locations of the public scoping 

meetings are: 

October 9, 2007, Milpitas City Hall, 

Committee Meeting Room, 455 East 

Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, CA 

95035. 

October 11, 2007, San Jose City Hall, 

Wing 118–120, 200 East Santa Clara 

Street, San Jose, CA 95113. 

October 18, 2007, City of Santa Clara, 

Santa Clara Senior Center, 1303 

Fremont Street, Room 232, Santa 

Clara, CA 95050. 

The scoping meeting facilities 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. To be 

placed on the Project mailing list, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

54100 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 183 / Friday, September 21, 2007 / Notices 

contact Tom Fitzwater, VTA 

Environmental Planning Resources 

Manager, as indicated above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerome Wiggins, Transportation Program 

Specialist, Federal Transit 

Administration, San Francisco Regional 

Office, 201 Mission Street, Room 2210, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–1926, (415) 

744–3115. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of 

the Revised EIS. The original Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/ 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 

the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project 

was issued on February 6, 2002. The 

original Draft EIS/EIR was released to 

the public on March 16, 2004. However, 

no action was taken to finalize the 

original Draft EIS. Due to the passage of 

time, changes in the Project and 

environmental setting, availability of 

new information, and funding 

considerations, a Revised EIS will be 

prepared. The Revised EIS will explore 

the environmental and community 

impacts of the Project and Project 

alternatives and will discuss actions to 

reduce or eliminate such impacts. 

Environmental issues to be examined 

include: Changes to the physical 

environment (air quality and global 

warming, biological resources, noise 

and vibration, water quality, 

floodplains, geology and seismicity, 

visual and aesthetics, hazardous 

materials, energy, utilities, and 

electromagnetic fields); changes to the 

social environment (land use, business 

displacements, community facilities, 

and neighborhood disruptions); changes 

to traffic and pedestrian circulation; 

changes to transit service and patronage; 

associated changes to traffic congestion; 

and changes to parklands and cultural 

resources. Impacts will be identified for 

both the construction phase and the 

long-term operation of the Project or 

Project alternatives. 

Proposed Project Description: The 

SVRT Project Alternative would begin at 

the planned BART Warm Springs 

Station (to be implemented by 2013) in 

Fremont and proceed on the former 

Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way 

through Milpitas to south of Mabury 

Road in San Jose. The alignment would 

then descend into a subway tunnel, 

continue through downtown San Jose, 

and terminate at grade in Santa Clara 

near the Caltrain Station. The total 

length of the alignment would be 16.1 

miles. Six stations are proposed with an 

additional future station in Milpitas. 

Passenger service would start in 2016, 

assuming funding is available. A 

Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) 

Alternative will also be included in the 

EIS to address the New Starts Candidate 

Project for federal funding purposes. 

The BEP Alternative would begin at the 

planned BART Warm Springs Station in 

Fremont and proceed on the former 

Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way 

through Milpitas to south of Mabury 

Road in San Jose. The total length of the 

alignment would be 9.3 miles. One 

station is proposed in Milpitas and one 

in San Jose. Passenger service for the BE 

Project would start in 2016, assuming 

funding is available. 

Draft Project Purpose and Need: The 

purpose of the Project is to improve 

transit services and increase intermodal 

connectivity among transit routes and 

stations serving origins and destinations 

in Alameda County, Contra Costa 

County, Santa Clara County, and 

portions of the Central Valley. Meeting 

this overall Project purpose would 

address a variety of related needs in the 

SVRTC, including the following goals: 

• Improve public transit service in 

this severely congested corridor by 

providing increased transit capacity and 

faster, convenient access throughout the 

San Francisco Bay Area Region, 

including southern Alameda County, 

central Contra Costa County, Tri-Valley, 

San Joaquin Valley, and Silicon Valley; 

• Enhance regional connectivity 

through expanded, interconnected rapid 

transit services between BART in 

Alameda County and light rail and 

commuter rail in Silicon Valley; 

• Accommodate future travel demand 

in the corridor by expanding modal 

options; 

• Alleviate severe and increasing 

traffic congestion on the I–880 and I–

680 freeways between Alameda County 

and Silicon Valley; 

• Improve regional air quality by 

reducing auto emissions; 

• Improve mobility options to 

employment, education, medical, retail, 

and entertainment centers for corridor 

residents, (in particular, low income, 

youth, elderly, disabled, and ethnic 

minority populations); 

• Maximize transit usage and 

ridership; and 

• Support local economic and land 

use plans and goals. 

The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit 

Corridor (study area) is one of the most 

congested corridors in Northern 

California. Over the past several years, 

it has experienced very high and 

increasing levels of traffic congestion 

due to the growth of jobs throughout the 

Silicon Valley area, including 

downtown San Jose, and the cities of 

Fremont, Milpitas, and Santa Clara. 

Congestion is also spreading from the 

peak hours to off peak hours. Population 

and employment growth within the 

entire study area from 2000 to 2030, as 

forecast by the Association of Bay Area 

Governments, is expected to increase 

dramatically. Current levels of service 

(LOS) on highways in the corridor, I–

680 and I–880, are ‘‘F’’ in the peak hour, 

with future level of service anticipated 

to continue to be LOS F. LOS F 

describes failure conditions with 

unacceptable delays to most vehicles, 

long queues, and stop-and-go flow. 

Planned improvements to highway and 

transit service in the study area are not 

expected to keep up with the demand 

for quality transit, given the increased 

highway congestion expected. 

Proposed Project Alternatives: The 

2004 Draft EIS evaluated three 

alternatives: the Future No-Build, a 

Transportation Systems Management 

alternative with enhanced bus service, 

and the proposed BART extension. On 

the basis of the Draft EIS, FTA and VTA 

have decided that the TSM alternative is 

not a reasonable alternative because it 

does not meet the Project’s purpose and 

need. The buses, which operate on 

highways, are subject to the same 

congestion as automobiles. Therefore, 

the Revised EIS will evaluate the 

following alternatives, plus any 

additional alternatives that emerge from 

the scooping process. 

• Future No-Build Alternative. This 

alternative consists of the existing 

transit and roadway networks and 

planned and programmed 

improvements in the Silicon Valley 

Rapid Transit Corridor that are 

identified in the Bay Area’s Regional 

Transportation Plan (RTP), Mobility for 

the Next Generation—Transportation 

2030 Plan for the San Francisco Bay 

Area (Transportation 2030 Plan), 

adopted by MTC in February 2005, and 

the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 

(VTP 2030), adopted by VTA in 

February 2005. 

• SVRT Project Alternative—BART 

Extension to Milpitas, San Jose, and 

Santa Clara. This alternative consists of 

a 16.1-mile extension of the BART 

system. The Project would begin at the 

planned BART Warm Springs Station in 

Fremont (to be implemented by 2013) 

and proceed on the former Union 

Pacific Railroad right-of-way through 

the City of Milpitas to south of Mabury 

Road in the City of San Jose. The 

extension would then descend into a 

subway tunnel, continue through 

downtown San Jose, and terminate at 

grade in the City of Santa Clara near the 

Caltrain Station. Six stations are 

proposed: Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum 

Rock, Downtown San Jose, Diridon/ 

Arena, and Santa Clara. An additional 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 183 / Friday, September 21, 2007 / Notices 54101 

future station in Milpitas is also 

proposed. 

• Berryessa Extension Project 

Alternative. This alternative would 

begin at the planned BART Warm 

Springs Station in Fremont and proceed 

on the former Union Pacific Railroad 

right-of-way through Milpitas to south 

of Mabury Road in San Jose. The total 

length of the alignment would be 9.3 

miles. Two stations are proposed: 

Milpitas and Berryessa. 

Analytical Methodologies: FTA and 

VTA will collaborate with agencies and 

the public, as appropriate, on the 

methodologies to be used and the level 

of detail required in the analysis of 

proposed alternatives. Information on 

the methodologies for analysis will be 

sent to the appropriate agencies directly. 

Information will also be presented at the 

scoping meetings for public 

distribution. Both agencies and the 

public may comment, as described 

under DATES above. 

The EIS Process and the Role of 

Agencies and the Public: The purpose of 

the EIS process is to explore in a public 

setting, potentially significant effects of 

implementing the proposed Project and 

Project alternatives on the physical, 

human, and natural environment. The 

major areas of investigation include, but 

are not limited to, the effect on historic 

resources in downtown San Jose, the 

noise impacts of the BART trains 

outside of the planned tunnel, and the 

vibration impacts of the BART trains 

both inside and outside of tunnel. 

Regulations implementing NEPA, as 

well as provisions of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA–LU), call for agency 

and public involvement in the EIS 

process. Section 6002 of SAFETEA–LU 

requires that FTA and VTA extend an 

invitation to other Federal and nonFederal agencies and Indian tribes that 

may have an interest in the proposed 

Project to become a participating 

agency, and establish a plan for 

coordinating public and agency 

participation in and comment on the 

environmental review. A cooperating 

agency is defined as ‘‘any Federal 

agency which has jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise with respect to any 

environmental impact involved in a 

proposal. Accordingly, an invitation to 

become a cooperating or participating 

agency, as appropriate, will be extended 

to agencies and Indian tribes known to 

have an interest in the proposed Project. 

It is possible that we may not be able to 

identify all Federal and non-Federal 

agencies and Indian tribes that may 

have such an interest. Any Federal or 

non-Federal agency or Indian tribe 

interested in the proposed Project that 

does not receive an invitation to become 

a participating agency should notify, at 

the earliest opportunity, the 

Environmental Planning Resource 

Manager identified above under 

ADDRESSES above. 

Agency and Public Involvement: A 

comprehensive agency and public 

involvement program has been 

developed. The Policy Advisory Board 

consisting of county, city, BART, and 

VTA officials; City Partnership Teams 

consisting of VTA and city staff 

representatives; and the External 

Technical Advisory Committee 

consisting of staff representatives from 

state, regional, county, city, and transit 

agencies; were established in 2002 and 

continue to meet regularly to provide 

guidance, discuss the proposed Project, 

and for coordination and technical 

input. Community Working Groups 

consisting of the leaders of 

neighborhood and business 

associations, community organizations, 

advocacy groups, major property 

owners, and planning commissioners 

were also established in 2002 for cities 

and specific geographical areas to 

communicate Project information to key 

members of the community and 

facilitate community input and 

participation. These mechanisms will be 

developed into a formal coordination 

plan that covers both agency and public 

involvement. The coordination plan 

will be posted on the Project Web site 

at http://www.vtabart-vta.org. 

FTA Procedures: 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 practical. These 

requirements include, but are not 

limited to, the regulations of the Council 

on Environmental Quality 

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), section 404(b)(1) guidelines of EPA 

(40 CFR part 230), Executive Orders 

11988, 11990, and 12898 regarding 

floodplains, wetlands, and 

environmental justice, respectively, 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (36 CFR part 800), 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

(50 CFR part 402), and Section 4(f) of 

the Department of Transportation Act 

(23 CFR 771.135). 

Related Documents: The Silicon 

Valley Rapid Transit Corridor, Major 

Investment Study Final Report 

(November 2001), the 2004 Draft EIS, 

the Final Environmental Impact Report 

(November 2004), and the Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Report (June 2007) are available for 

public review at the following public 

libraries: 

• Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Main 

Library, 150 East San Fernando Street, 

San Jose, CA 95112. 

• Fremont Main Library, 2400 

Stevenson Boulevard, Fremont, CA 

94538. 

• Milpitas Library, 40 N. Milpitas 

Boulevard, Milpitas, CA 95035. 

• Central Park Library, 2635 

Homestead Road, Santa Clara, CA 

95051. 

The reports are also available by 

contacting Tom Fitzwater at the address 

and phone number given above. 

Issued on: September 14, 2007. 

Leslie Rogers, 

Regional Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 07–4666 Filed 9–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–57–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

Voluntary Intermodal Sealift 

Agreement (VISA)/Joint Planning 

Advisory Group (JPAG) 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Synopsis of August 21–24, 2007 

Meeting with VISA Participants 

The VISA program requires that a 

notice of the time, place, and nature of 

each JPAG meeting be published in the 

Federal Register. The full text of the 

VISA program, including these 

requirements, is published in 70 FR 

55947–55955, dated September 23, 

2005. 

On August 21–24, 2007, the Maritime 

Administration and the U.S. 

Transportation Command co-hosted a 

JPAG meeting at the U.S. Transportation 

Command, Scott Air Force Base, 

Illinois. Meeting attendance was by 

invitation only, due to the nature of the 

information discussed and the need for 

a government-issued security clearance. 

Of the 52 U.S.-flag carrier corporate 

participants enrolled in the VISA 

program, 18 companies and one 

representative from maritime labor 

participated in the JPAG meeting. In 

addition, representatives from the 

Maritime Administration and the 

Department of Defense (DOD) attended 

the meeting. 

Margaret Leclaire, Deputy Director 

Strategy, Plans, Policy & Programs, U.S. 

Transportation Command, and James 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES