28012 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Notices 

The construction and operation of the 

race course will create safety concerns 

by obstructing access from the I–395 

northern terminus to the local street 

system including Howard Street, 

Conway Street, and Lee Street. 

However, an existing connection from 

I–395 to Martin Luther King Jr. 

Boulevard will remain open throughout 

the event. In addition, access to and 

from I–95 into and out of the city along 

alternative access routes, including US 

1, US 40, Russell Street, and 

Washington Boulevard will be 

maintained. The BGP and the city plan 

to update the 2012 signing plan to 

inform and guide motorists to, through, 

and around the impacted downtown 

area. The statewide transportation 

operations system, the Coordinated 

Highways Action Response Team will 

provide real-time traffic information to 

motorists through dynamic message 

signs and highway advisory radio. The 

MDTA states that the temporary closure 

of this segment of I–395 to general 

traffic should have no impact on 

interstate commerce. The I–95 is the 

main north-south Interstate route in the 

region, and will remain open during the 

time period of the event. There are five 

additional I–95 interchanges, just to the 

north or south of I–395, with 

connections to the local street system 

including the arterials servicing the 

city’s downtown area. A sign and 

supplemental traffic control systems 

plan was developed as part of the 2011 

event’s Traffic Management Plan (TMP). 

In addition, I–695 (Baltimore Beltway) 

will provide motorists traveling through 

the region the ability to bypass the 

impact area by circling around the city. 

Commercial motor vehicles of the 

dimensions and configurations 

described in 23 CFR 658.13 and 658.15 

which serve the impacted area, may use 

the alternate routes listed above. 

Vehicles servicing the businesses 

bordering the impacted area will still be 

able to do so by also using the 

alternative routes noted above to 

circulate around the restricted area. In 

addition, vehicles not serving 

businesses in the restricted area but, 

currently using I–395 and the local 

street system to reach their ultimate 

destinations, will be able to use the 

I–95 interchanges north and south of 

I–395 to access the alternative routes. A 

map depicting the alternative routes is 

available electronically at the docket 

established for this notice at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. The MDTA has 

reviewed these alternative routes and 

determined the routes to generally be 

capable of safely accommodating the 

diverted traffic during the period of 

temporary restriction. As mentioned 

previously, the sign and supplemental 

traffic control system plan is also being 

updated as part of the event’s TMP. 

Commercial vehicles as well as general 

traffic leaving the downtown area will 

also be able to use the alternative routes 

to reach I–95 and the rest of the 

Interstate System. The BGP and the city 

are working closely with businesses, 

including the hotels and restaurants 

located within the impact area, to 

schedule deliveries prior to the 

proposed I–395 closure to the extent 

feasible. The BGP is also working with 

affected businesses to schedule delivery 

services during the event period. The 

original plan proposed a credentialing 

process for access through designated 

gates with access to specific loading 

areas. 

This request to temporarily close 

I–395 was prepared for the MDTA by 

the BGP and the city. In addition, the 

city has reached out to the Federal, 

State, and local agencies to collaborate 

and coordinate efforts to address the 

logistical challenges of hosting the BGP. 

The BGP and the city have worked 

extensively with the businesses and 

residential communities in the city that 

could be affected by the event. These 

efforts include the formation of Task 

Forces and event Sub-Committees, to 

guide the development of plans for 

event security, transportation 

management, public safety and more. 

The FHWA seeks comments on this 

request for temporary deletion from the 

National Network for considerations in 

accordance with 23 CFR 658.11(d). 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 127, 315 and 49 

U.S.C. 31111, 31112, and 31114; 23 CFR Part 

658. 

Issued on: May 3, 2013. 

Victor M. Mendez, 

Federal Highway Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11243 Filed 5–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Tier One Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Rochester, 

Minnesota to Twin Cities, Minnesota 

Passenger Rail Corridor 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to 

advise the public that FRA, the Olmsted 

County (Minnesota) Regional Railroad 

Authority (OCRRA), and the Minnesota 

Department of Transportation (MnDOT) 

will jointly prepare a Tier One 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

to evaluate potential passenger rail 

alternatives for the Rochester, 

Minnesota to Twin Cities, Minnesota 

Passenger Rail Corridor (the Corridor) in 

Olmsted, Dodge, Goodhue, Rice, Dakota, 

Ramsey, and Hennepin Counties in 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA). 

The Tier One EIS will analyze 

environmental impacts for reasonable 

corridor-level passenger rail route 

alternatives between Rochester and the 

Twin Cities. The Tier One EIS will also 

examine passenger rail service levels, 

including variations in train frequency, 

and trip time. 

FRA is issuing this Notice to invite 

interested parties, including the public 

and resource agencies, to comment 

about the proposed scope of the EIS; to 

provide information on the nature of the 

proposed action, including the purpose 

and need for the proposed action; and 

to invite public participation in the Tier 

One EIS process. 

DATES: OCRRA and MnDOT will host a 

series of public scoping meetings 

beginning in Spring 2013. These 

meetings will occur at various locations 

within the Corridor and will be 

advertised through the project Web site, 

direct mailings, and press releases. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colleen Vaughn, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Office of Railroad 

Policy and Development, Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., (Mail Stop 20), 

Washington, DC 20590, Phone: (202) 

493–6096; or Dan Krom, Minnesota 

Department of Transportation, 

Passenger Rail Office, 395 John Ireland 

Boulevard, MS 480, St. Paul, MN 55155, 

Phone: (651) 366–3193. In addition, a 

project Web site has been established 

(www.goziprail.org), and is available to 

provide project related information to 

the general public. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FRA, 

in cooperation with OCRRA and 

MnDOT, will prepare a Tier One EIS to 

evaluate passenger rail service 

improvements from Rochester, 

Minnesota to Twin Cities, Minnesota. 

The agencies will use a tiered process, 

as provided for in 40 CFR 1508.28 and 

in accordance with FRA’s Procedures 

for Considering Environmental Impacts 

(64 FR 28546) (Environmental 

Procedures), in the completion of the 

environmental review. Tiering is a 

staged environmental review process 

applied to environmental reviews for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Notices 28013 

complex projects. The proposed Tier 

One EIS described in this Notice is a 

service level analysis that will examine 

a range of reasonable corridor route 

alternatives between Rochester, 

Minnesota and Twin Cities, Minnesota. 

It is anticipated that the route 

alternative analysis will involve a 

screening process to identify reasonable 

and feasible alternatives for evaluation 

in the Tier One EIS. The study has 

recently begun to identify conceptual 

alternatives for consideration. 

Alternatives under preliminary 

consideration will include an alignment 

of the Trunk Highway 52 corridor from 

Rochester to the Twin Cities; an 

alternative running west from Rochester 

and then north in the vicinity of Trunk 

Highway 56; and multiple alignments in 

both the Rochester and the Twin Cities 

metro areas depending on the termini 

identified at both ends of the corridor. 

Alternatives will be analyzed and made 

available for public comment as they are 

refined and more precise information 

can be provided. The No-Action (or NoBuild) Alternative will also be 

considered. 

The Tier One EIS will also 

appropriately address Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (see 

36 CFR part 800), Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 (49 U.S.C. 303) and other 

applicable Federal and state laws and 

regulations. The Tier One NEPA 

document addresses broad overall 

issues of concern for corridor decisions 

including, but not limited to: 

• Describing the purpose and need for 

the proposed action. 

• Describing the study area 

appropriate to assess reasonable 

alternatives. 

• Describing the environment 

potentially affected by the proposed 

action. 

• Developing evaluation criteria to 

identify route alternatives that meet the 

purpose and need of the proposed 

action and those that do not. 

• Identifying the range of reasonable 

route alternatives that satisfy the 

purpose and need for the proposed 

action. 

• Developing the no-build alternative 

to serve as a baseline for comparison. 

• Describing and evaluating the 

potential environmental impacts and 

mitigation strategies associated with the 

reasonable route alternatives. 

• Identifying component projects for 

Tier Two NEPA evaluation as described 

below. 

The Tier Two assessment(s) would 

address component projects of the 

overall rail corridor alternative selected 

in the Tier One EIS, and would 

incorporate by reference the data and 

evaluations included in the Tier One 

EIS. Subsequent Tier Two NEPA 

evaluations would: Concentrate on the 

site-specific issues and alternatives 

relevant to implementing component 

projects of the selected Tier One 

alternative; and identify the 

environmental consequences and 

measures necessary to mitigate 

environmental impacts at a site-specific 

level of detail. 

Project Background and Study Area: 

Based upon travel demand and growth 

between the two regional centers, 

previous feasibility studies for the 

proposed Corridor have supported its 

independent utility to support high 

speed intercity passenger rail. Currently, 

between Rochester and the 

Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area 

(Twin Cities), the proposed Corridor has 

no existing rail infrastructure south of 

Dakota County. OCRRA would develop 

new rail infrastructure with an 

emphasis on existing public and 

railroad rights-of-way utilized to the 

maximum extent feasible and 

practicable. The Corridor would be 

planned to be consistent with an 

eventual high speed intercity passenger 

rail connection between the Twin Cities 

and Chicago. 

The Minnesota Comprehensive 

Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail 

Plan outlines steps that should be taken 

to accomplish the vision of a robust 

intrastate and interstate intercity 

passenger rail system. One of the steps 

includes developing an intrastate 

intercity passenger rail network 

connecting the Twin Cities with viable 

service to major outlying regional 

centers. The Corridor was identified as 

a Phase I corridor in the State Rail Plan 

for high-speed rail development. 

Significant growth in Rochester and 

Olmsted County has occurred over the 

past 50 years—long after the majority of 

existing rail corridors in the region had 

been established. The number of jobs 

currently supported by Rochester 

employers exceeds the available adult 

working population in the urban area, 

making it an economic driver for an area 

of roughly 2,300 square miles in 

southeast Minnesota, northeast Iowa, 

and western Wisconsin, and impacting 

employment as far away as the Twin 

Cities area. Based in Rochester, Mayo 

Clinic patients and visitors account for 

nearly 3 million visits per year, with 

many arriving via the Twin Cities, and 

travelling via US 52. Rochester also 

ranks as the fastest growing 

metropolitan area in the state, with a 

low unemployment rate and a relatively 

high per capita and household income 

compared to other regional centers in 

Minnesota. 

US 52 is the main highway that 

connects Rochester to the Twin Cities. 

Further to the west, I–35 is the closest 

interstate highway. A traveler would 

need to utilize an east-west route, such 

as US 14, to access I–35 to make the 

connection to the Twin Cities. A trip by 

automobile between the Twin Cities and 

Rochester is approximately 1 hour and 

30 minutes. The proposed Rochester— 

Twin Cities Passenger Rail service 

would need to offer intercity travelers a 

reasonable alternative to automobile 

travel. 

Project Purpose and Need: The 

purpose of the project is to provide a 

reliable and safe passenger rail 

transportation alternative that will meet 

forecasted population and economic 

growth mobility demands in the 

Southeast Minnesota corridor between 

Rochester and the Twin Cities area. The 

system is to connect the Twin Cities and 

Rochester providing convenient and 

cost effective transportation. The project 

is being developed to: 

• Provide intercity passenger rail 

service linking the regional economic 

center of Rochester and the Twin 

Cities Metropolitan Area economic 

hub 

• Provide options for the growing 

population and accessibility to 

population centers 

• Improve safety, convenience and time 

of travel 

• Complement the plans of the Midwest 

Regional Rail Initiative and Minnesota 

Comprehensive Statewide Freight and 

Passenger Rail Plan 

The need for expanded transportation 

options in this corridor is based on the 

following elements: 

• Increase in population and 

employment in Rochester, the Twin 

Cities Metropolitan Area, and 

Southeast Minnesota 

• Future travel demand 

• Limited direct connection 

opportunities for the Corridor 

between Rochester and the Twin 

Cities 

The development of world-class and 

internally recognized medical facilities 

in Rochester, along with its agribusiness 

and high-tech industrial base, makes the 

city a significant economic engine in the 

north central United States. The Twin 

Cities, also a base of high-tech industry, 

and the main transportation hub in the 

north central states, marks the 

importance of economic intercourse 

between these cities. Transportation 

connecting these cities is primarily 

based on the private automobile with 

limited commercial transportation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
28014 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Notices 

options. The Mayo Clinic in Rochester 

draws patients and their companions 

from around the nation and the world, 

and constitutes a primary need for 

transportation options not based on the 

private automobile. There is a growing 

need for travel, connectivity, and 

transportation capacity between 

Rochester and the Twin Cities from 

current and future economic growth. 

Scoping Process: To ensure issues 

related to this proposal are addressed 

and any significant impacts identified, 

comments and suggestions regarding the 

scope of the Tier One EIS are invited 

from all interested parties. Comments 

and suggestions concerning the 

proposed action and the Tier One EIS 

should be directed to MnDOT at the 

addresses above. Letters describing the 

proposed action and soliciting 

comments will be sent to the 

appropriate Federal, State and local 

agencies, Native American tribes and to 

private organizations who might have 

previously expressed or who are known 

to have an interest in this proposal. 

Federal agencies with jurisdiction by 

law or special expertise with respect to 

potential environmental issues will be 

invited to act as a Cooperating Agency 

in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6. 

MnDOT will lead the outreach 

activities, including public meetings, 

newsletters, advisory group meetings, a 

project Web site (www.goziprail.org), 

public open houses, stakeholder group 

meetings, and other methods to solicit 

and incorporate public input throughout 

the Tier One EIS process. Opportunities 

for public participation will be 

announced through the Web site, 

mailings, notices, advertisements, and 

press releases. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on: May 7, 

2013. 

Corey Hill, 

Director, Passenger and Freight Programs, 

Federal Railroad Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11307 Filed 5–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 

FTA Supplemental Fiscal Year 2013 

Apportionments, Allocations, and 

Program Information 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; Request for Comments 

on State Safety Oversight 

Apportionment. 

SUMMARY: On October 16, 2012 the 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

published in the Federal Register a 

Notice of FTA Transit Program Changes, 

Authorized Funding Levels, 

Implementation of the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

(MAP–21) and Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 

Apportionments, Allocations and 

Interim Guidance. The initial Notice 

apportioned and allocated funding 

pursuant to the Continuing 

Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (CR) 

that provided funds through March 27, 

2013. This subsequent FY 2013 

Apportionment Notice apportions the 

full FY 2013 funding available pursuant 

to the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 

(FY 2013 Appropriations) and 

sequestration of funds triggered by the 

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 2011. This notice also 

provides and seeks comment on an 

illustrative apportionment for the State 

Safety Oversight (SSO) grant program 

and provides information on FTA’s 

discretionary programs and forthcoming 

program guidance. 

DATES: Comments on the SSO Grant 

Program must be received by June 12, 

2013. Late-filed comments will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information about this notice 

contact Jamie Pfister, Director, Office of 

Transit Programs, at (202) 366–2053 or 

email, Jamie.Pfister@dot.gov. Please 

contact the appropriate FTA regional 

office for any specific requests for 

information or technical assistance. A 

list of FTA regional offices and contact 

information is available on the FTA 

Web site under the heading ‘‘Regional 

Offices’’ at http://www.fta.dot.gov. 

For SSO Grant Program information, 

please contact Rick Gerhart, Acting 

Director, Office of Safety, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

phone (202) 366–8970, or email, 

Richard.Gerhart@dot.gov. 

ADDRESSES: Comments are limited to the 

SSO Grant Program and should be 

submitted by one of the methods, 

identifying your submissions by docket 

number FTA–2013–0022: 

1. Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the U.S. Government electronic 

docket site. 

2. Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

3. Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Docket Operations, M–30, 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

4. Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Docket Operations, M–30, 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

make reference to the ‘‘Federal Transit 

Administration’’ and include docket 

number FTA–2013–0022. Due to the 

security procedures in effect since 

October 2011, mail received through the 

U.S. Postal Service may be subject to 

delays. Parties making submissions 

responsive to this notice should 

consider using an express mail firm to 

ensure the prompt filing of any 

submissions not filed electronically or 

by hand. Note that all submissions 

received, including any personal 

information therein, will be posted 

without change or alteration to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. For more 

information, you may review DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published April 11, 

2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

A. Overview 

B. FY 2013 Available Funding for Programs 

1. Funding Based on the Consolidated and 

Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2013 

2. FY 2013 Formula Apportionments 

3. FY 2013 Discretionary Program Funds 

i. Notices of Funding Availability 

ii. Research Program Funding 

iii. FY 2013 Fixed Guideway Capital 

Investment Grant Program Allocations 

iv. Washington Metropolitan Area 

Transportation Authority (WMATA) 

Allocation 

v. FY 2012 Transit in the Parks Allocations 

C. State Safety Oversight (SSO) Program 

1. Available Funding 

2. Proposed Formula Apportionment 

i. Proposed Tiers 

ii. Proposed Apportionments To Oversee 

Multi-State Rail Fixed Guideway Public 

Transportation Systems 

iii. Soliciting Comments 

3. Steps To Enhance Readiness for SSO 

Grant Application and Certification 

Process 

4. Certification of State Safety Oversight 

Program 

D. FY 2013 Program Guidance 

E. Corrections 

A. Overview 

On October 1, 2012, MAP–21 (Pub. L. 

112–141) authorized FTA’s Public 

Transportation Assistance Programs for 

FYs 2013–2014. On October 16, 2012, 

FTA published an apportionments 

notice that apportioned the FY 2013 

formula funds in an amount of 

approximately one-half of the FY 2012 

funding level among potential program 

recipients pursuant to both the 

authorization statute and the Continuing 

Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (Pub. 

L. 112–175). (See 77 FR 63670). A copy 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES