Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 2023 / Notices 81511 

51 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 

52 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f). 

53 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

1On September 17, 2018, DesertXpress’ 

ownership group entered into an agreement to sell 

the company to Brightline Holdings LLC 

(Brightline). Fortress Inv. Grp. LLC—Continuance in 

Control—Cent. Me. & Que. Ry., FD 36225, slip op. 

at 1–2 (STB served Oct. 11, 2018). Brightline’s 

acquisition of DesertXpress was consummated on 

March 4, 2019. (Pet. to Reopen 4.) 

Intermarket Competition. The 

Exchange believes that the proposed 

fees do not impose a burden on 

competition on other exchanges that is 

not necessary or appropriate; indeed, 

the Exchange believes the proposed fee 

changes would have the effect of 

increasing competition. As described 

above, exchanges are platforms for 

market data and trading. In setting the 

proposed fees, the Exchange is 

constrained by the availability of 

substitute platforms also offering market 

data products and trading, and low 

barriers to entry mean new exchange 

platforms are frequently introduced. 

The fact that exchanges are platforms 

ensures that no exchange can make 

pricing decisions for one side of its 

platform without considering, and being 

constrained by, the effects that price 

will have on the other side of the 

platform. In setting fees at issue here, 

the Exchange is constrained by the fact 

that, if its pricing across the platform is 

unattractive to customers, customers 

will have its pick of an increasing 

number of alternative platforms to use 

instead of the Exchange. Given this 

intense competition between platforms, 

no one exchange’s market data fees can 

impose an unnecessary burden on 

competition, and the Exchange’s 

proposed fees do not do so here. 

In addition, the Exchange believes 

that the proposed fees do not impose a 

burden on competition or on other 

exchanges that is not necessary or 

appropriate because of the availability 

of numerous substitute market data 

products. Specifically, as described 

above, NYSE BQT competes head-tohead with the Nasdaq Basic product and 

the Cboe One Feed. These products each 

serve as reasonable substitutes for one 

another as they are each designed to 

provide investors with a unified view of 

real-time quotes and last-sale prices in 

all Tape A, B, and C securities. Each 

product provides subscribers with 

consolidated top-of-book quotes and 

trades from multiple U.S. equities 

markets. NYSE BQT provides top-ofbook quotes and trades data from five 

NYSE-affiliated U.S. equities exchanges, 

while Cboe One Feed similarly provides 

top-of-book quotes and trades data from 

Cboe’s four U.S. equities exchanges. 

NYSE BQT, Nasdaq Basic, and Cboe 

One Feed are all intended to provide 

indicative pricing and therefore, are 

reasonable substitutes for one another. 

Additionally, market data vendors are 

also able to offer close substitutes to 

NYSE BQT. Because market data users 

can find suitable substitute feeds, an 

exchange that overprices its market data 

products stands a high risk that users 

may substitute another source of market 

data information for its own. These 

competitive pressures ensure that no 

one exchange’s market data fees can 

impose an unnecessary burden on 

competition, and the Exchange’s 

proposed fees do not do so here. 

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s 

Statement on Comments on the 

Proposed Rule Change Received From 

Members, Participants, or Others 

No written comments were solicited 

or received with respect to the proposed 

rule change. 

III. Date of Effectiveness of the 

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for 

Commission Action 

The foregoing rule change has become 

effective upon filing pursuant to Section 

19(b)(3)(A) 51 of the Act and paragraph 

(f) of Rule 19b–4 thereunder.52 At any 

time within 60 days of the filing of the 

proposed rule change, the Commission 

summarily may temporarily suspend 

such rule change if it appears to the 

Commission that such action is 

necessary or appropriate in the public 

interest, for the protection of investors, 

or otherwise in furtherance of the 

purposes of the Act. 

IV. Solicitation of Comments 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views and 

arguments concerning the foregoing, 

including whether the proposed rule 

change is consistent with the Act. 

Comments may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s internet 

comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml); or 

• Send an email to rule-comments@

sec.gov. Please include file number SR– 

NYSE–2023–42 on the subject line. 

Paper Comments 

• Send paper comments in triplicate 

to Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549–1090. 

All submissions should refer to file 

number SR–NYSE–2023–42. This file 

number should be included on the 

subject line if email is used. To help the 

Commission process and review your 

comments more efficiently, please use 

only one method. The Commission will 

post all comments on the Commission’s 

internet website (https://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the 

submission, all subsequent 

amendments, all written statements 

with respect to the proposed rule 

change that are filed with the 

Commission, and all written 

communications relating to the 

proposed rule change between the 

Commission and any person, other than 

those that may be withheld from the 

public in accordance with the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 

available for website viewing and 

printing in the Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20549, on official 

business days between the hours of 10 

a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also 

will be available for inspection and 

copying at the principal office of the 

Exchange. Do not include personal 

identifiable information in submissions; 

you should submit only information 

that you wish to make available 

publicly. We may redact in part or 

withhold entirely from publication 

submitted material that is obscene or 

subject to copyright protection. All 

submissions should refer to file number 

SR–NYSE–2023–42 and should be 

submitted on or before December 13, 

2023. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.53

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25788 Filed 11–21–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

[Docket No. FD 35544] 

Desertxpress Enterprises, LLC, and 

Desertxpress HSR Corporation— 

Construction and Operation 

Exemption—In Victorville, Cal., and 

Las Vegas, Nev. 

In 2019, DesertXpress Enterprises, 

LLC, (DesertXpress) 1 filed a petition to 

reopen this proceeding, seeking 

modification of a 2011 condition 

concerning the construction of an 

approximately 190-mile rail line for 

high-speed passenger rail service 

between Victorville, Cal., and Las Vegas, 

Nev. (the LV Line). That condition 

authorized construction of a designated 

alignment. DesertXpress seeks authority 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
81512 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 2023 / Notices 

2On July 8, 2011, FRA published its Record of 

Decision (ROD) approving the environmentally 

preferred alternative for the route, facilities, and 

technology (2011 Selected Alternative), subject to 

mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential 

adverse environmental impacts. (See Pet. for 

Exemption, Ex. D.) 

3The 2011 Selected Alternative contemplated a 

double-track rail line to be located almost entirely 

on the north/west side of the I–15 freeway travel 

lanes. (DesertXpress Letter 1, Sept. 15, 2020; Pet. for 

Exemption, Ex. D, 34–35, 63–64.) 

4The FRA 2020 Reevaluation is available on 

FRA’s website at https://railroads.dot.gov/railnetwork-development/environment/environmentalreviews/brightline-west-las-vegas-victor-valley. 

5 In addition to locating the LV Line primarily 

within the I–15 freeway median, the modified 

alignment would also relocate the LV Line’s 

southern terminus in Victor Valley from the City of 

Victorville to the Town of Apple Valley. (FRA 2020 

Reevaluation, Summary 1 n1.) 

for modifications to the previously 

approved alignment. 

Environmental review of the modified 

route had been ongoing and was 

recently completed. Specifically, the 

Board’s Office of Environmental 

Analysis (OEA) has worked with the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 

the lead agency on the environmental 

and historic review for this project 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and related 

environmental laws, including Section 

106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA). As part of this 

process, OEA has reviewed a 2020 

reevaluation by FRA (FRA 2020 

Reevaluation) of the modified 

alignment, as well as a subsequent 

reevaluation by FRA (FRA 2023 

Reevaluation) considering further route 

modifications proposed by DesertXpress 

in 2022. OEA concludes that FRA 

adequately assessed the potential 

environmental and historic impacts 

associated with the project 

modifications and concurs with FRA’s 

determination that a Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

is not necessary. OEA also recommends 

that the Board impose the revised 

mitigation measures in Appendix D of 

the FRA 2023 Reevaluation. Historic 

review of the project modifications had 

also been ongoing and was completed 

this year. A Programmatic Agreement 

(PA) setting out the final terms for 

compliance with Section 106 was 

executed on August 15, 2023. 

As discussed below, the Board will 

reopen this proceeding and grant 

DesertXpress’ petition for exemption 

seeking authority for the modified 

alignment. The Board will also adopt 

FRA’s 2020 and 2023 Reevaluations and 

impose the environmental mitigation 

measures listed in Appendix D of the 

FRA 2023 Reevaluation. 

Background 

On July 28, 2011, DesertXpress and its 

wholly owned subsidiary, DesertXpress 

HSR Corporation (collectively, DXE), 

filed a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 

for an exemption from the prior 

approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

10901 to construct and operate the LV 

Line. FRA, with OEA’s participation as 

a cooperating agency, conducted an 

environmental review of the proposed 

project by preparing an EIS.2 Following 

an examination of the entire record on 

both the transportation merits and 

potential environmental impacts, the 

Board granted the petition for a 

construction and operation exemption, 

subject to environmental conditions and 

the condition that DXE construct the 

2011 Selected Alternative. See 

DesertXpress Enters.—Constr. & 

Operation Exemption—in Victorville, 

Cal., & Las Vegas, Nev. (October 2011 

Decision), FD 35544, slip op. at 8 (STB 

served Oct. 25, 2011).3

On March 27, 2019, DesertXpress 

filed a petition to reopen this 

proceeding, seeking modification of the 

condition authorizing construction of 

the 2011 Selected Alternative to permit 

the LV Line to be constructed along a 

modified route, referred to as the ‘‘I–15 

median’’ alignment. (Pet. to Reopen 1, 

5.) DesertXpress stated that it had 

determined that it would be more 

efficient to construct the LV Line 

primarily in the median between the 

northbound and southbound lanes of 

the I–15 freeway and to utilize a singletrack configuration with passing sidings. 

(Id. at 5.) 

In a notice served on June 24, 2019, 

the Director of the Board’s Office of 

Proceedings (Director) explained that 

FRA had agreed to reevaluate the 

environmental analysis relied upon by 

the Board in the October 2011 Decision 

in light of the alignment changes 

proposed by DesertXpress and that OEA 

would participate in that process as a 

cooperating agency. See DesertXpress 

Enters.—Constr. & Operation 

Exemption—in Victorville, Cal., & Las 

Vegas, Nev., FD 35544, slip op. at 2 

(STB served June 24, 2019). The 

Director added that the petition to 

reopen would be addressed after the 

FRA 2020 Reevaluation was completed. 

DesertXpress Enters.—Constr. & 

Operation Exemption—in Victorville, 

Cal., & Las Vegas, Nev., FD 35544, slip 

op. at 2 (STB served June 24, 2019). 

On September 15, 2020, DesertXpress 

filed a letter stating that FRA had 

completed the FRA 2020 Reevaluation 4

and concluded that a Supplemental EIS 

was not required for the proposed 

modifications to the alignment. 

(DesertXpress Letter 2, Sept. 15, 2020.) 

DesertXpress also asserted that ‘‘[t]he 

Board need not revisit the [October 2011 

Decision’s] findings with respect to the 

transportation merits of the Line,’’ as 

‘‘[n]one of those findings would be 

affected by substituting the modified I– 

15 median alignment for the siderunning alignment previously 

designated by FRA.’’ (DesertXpress 

Letter 2 n.4, Sept. 15, 2020.) 

Accordingly, DesertXpress asked the 

Board to grant its petition to reopen the 

October 2011 Decision to revise the 

routing condition to authorize it to build 

the modified alignment and project 

design specified in the FRA 2020 

Reevaluation. (DesertXpress Letter 3, 

Sept. 5, 2020.) 5

OEA then prepared an Environmental 

Memorandum (OEA 2020 Memo) 

concurring with the conclusions 

reached in the FRA 2020 Reevaluation. 

The Board also recommended that the 

Board consider FRA’s 2020 

Reevaluation, along with the EIS, when 

determining whether to authorize the 

LV Line as modified, and that it impose 

revised mitigation measures 

recommended by FRA in the FRA 2020 

Reevaluation. OEA 2020 Memo 2. OEA 

further explained that FRA was working 

with appropriate consulting parties to 

complete the historic review under 

Section 106. Id. 

The Board provided an opportunity 

for the public to comment in a decision 

served on December 3, 2020. See 

DesertXpress Enters.—Constr. & 

Operation Exemption—in Victorville, 

Cal., & Las Vegas, Nev., FD 35544 (STB 

served Dec. 3, 2020). The Board did not 

receive any comments. In that decision, 

the Board also noted that review of 

historic and cultural resources was 

ongoing pursuant to Section 106 and 

that it could not issue a final decision 

modifying the routing condition, if 

appropriate, until that process was 

complete. 

In 2022, DesertXpress proposed 

additional modifications, which were 

developed through the final design 

phase for the LV Line. DesertXpress’ 

further modifications include, among 

other things, moving ‘‘additional miles 

of track along the Las Vegas-Victorville 

route (as well as the Victor Valley 

station building) into the median 

between the northbound and 

southbound lanes’’ of the I–15 freeway, 

relocating certain facilities, and adding 

temporary construction areas. 

(DesertXpress Letter 2, Sept. 19, 2023.) 

It asks the Board to modify the routing 

condition again to reflect those 

modifications. (Id. at 3.) After evaluating 

these additional modifications, FRA 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 2023 / Notices 81513 

6The FRA 2023 Reevaluation is also available on 

FRA’s website at https://railroads.dot.gov/railnetwork-development/environment/environmentalreviews/brightline-west-las-vegas-victor-valley. 7See note 10, infra. 

8 In Docket No. FD 36488, DesertXpress filed a 

petition for exemption to construct and operate the 

RC Line, an approximately 50-mile high-speed 

passenger rail line, between the Victor Valley and 

Rancho Cucamonga in Southern California. The RC 

Line would connect with the southern terminal of 

the LV Line at the Victor Valley. The Board 

instituted a proceeding in Docket No. FD 36488 on 

July 12, 2021. DesertXpress Enters.—Constr. & 

Operation Exemption—Passenger Rail Line Between 

Victor Valley & Rancho Cucamonga, Cal., FD 36488 

(STB served July 12, 2021). The Board issued a 

decision today authorizing DesertXpress to 

construct and operate the RC Line. 

issued the 2023 FRA Reevaluation,6

concluding that a Supplemental EIS is 

not necessary and updating the 

mitigation measures. OEA then 

prepared the OEA 2023 Environmental 

Memorandum (OEA 2023 Memo) 

(appended to this decision) concurring 

with FRA’s conclusions and 

recommending that the Board consider 

FRA’s 2023 Reevaluation, along with 

the 2020 Reevaluation and the EIS, in 

deciding whether to authorize the LV 

Line as modified, and that it impose the 

updated mitigation measures contained 

in Appendix D of the FRA 2023 

Reevaluation. OEA 2023 Memo 5. As 

noted above, a PA was executed on 

August 15, 2023, completing the Section 

106 historic review process for this 

proceeding. 

Discussion and Conclusions 

Reopening the Proceeding 

A party may seek to reopen a Board 

proceeding by submitting a petition that 

(1) presents new evidence or 

substantially changed circumstances 

that would materially affect the case or 

(2) demonstrates material error in a 

prior decision. 49 U.S.C. 1322(c); 49 

CFR 1115.4. ‘‘To warrant reopening, the 

new evidence must be newly available, 

and the new evidence or substantially 

changed circumstances must materially 

affect the prior decision.’’ Port of Moses 

Lake—Constr. Exemption—Moses Lake, 

Wash., FD 34936, slip op. at 2 (STB 

served Jan. 28, 2019) citing Riffin—Pet. 

for Declaratory Ord., FD 34997 et al., 

slip op. at 6 (STB served, Oct. 29, 2012). 

Here, DesertXpress has proposed to 

construct the LV Line along a modified 

alignment somewhat different from that 

which the Board authorized in the 

October 2011 Decision. The 

modifications led to the 2020 and 2023 

FRA Reevaluations and the updated 

mitigation measures in Appendix D of 

the 2023 FRA Reevaluation. These 

developments constitute new evidence 

and changed circumstances that warrant 

reopening the October 2011 Decision to 

consider the modified alignment and 

revised mitigation. 

Rail Transportation Analysis 

The construction of new railroad lines 

requires prior Board authorization, 

through either a certificate under 

section 10901 or, as requested here, an 

exemption under section 10502 from the 

prior approval requirements of section 

10901. Section 10901(c) directs the 

Board to grant authority for rail line 

construction proposals unless it finds 

the proposal ‘‘inconsistent with the 

public convenience and necessity.’’ See 

Alaska R.R.—Constr. & Operation 

Exemption—A Rail Line Extension to 

Port MacKenzie, Alaska, FD 35095, slip 

op. at 5 (STB served Nov. 21, 2011), 

aff’d sub nom. Alaska Survival v. STB, 

705 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2013). Under 

section 10502(a), the Board shall, to the 

maximum extent permissible, exempt a 

proposed rail line construction from the 

prior approval requirements of section 

10901 when it finds that: (1) those 

procedures are not necessary to carry 

out the rail transportation policy of 49 

U.S.C. 10101 and (2) either (a) the 

proposal is of limited scope or (b) the 

full application procedures are not 

needed to protect shippers from an 

abuse of market power. 

In the October 2011 Decision, the 

Board concluded that DesertXpress met 

the standards of section 10502 for an 

exemption to construct and operate the 

LV Line. The Board found that the LV 

Line would provide additional 

transportation options and alleviate 

both automobile congestion on the I–15 

freeway as well as constraints on the 

expansion of air travel in Southern 

California. See Oct. 2011 Decision, FD 

35544, slip op. at 3. The Board further 

found that the LV Line would reduce air 

pollution and overall fuel consumption 

and noted the expected multi-billiondollar beneficial impact on the 

economies of Nevada and California. 

See id. at 2 n.4 & 3 (referencing forecasts 

of LV Line ridership and automobile 

diversions, jobs, and economic impacts). 

The Board concluded that the requested 

exemption would reduce the need for 

federal regulation (49 U.S.C. 10101(2)), 

ensure the development of a sound rail 

transportation system with effective 

competition to meet the needs of the 

shipping public (49 U.S.C. 10101(4)), 

foster sound economic conditions in 

transportation (49 U.S.C. 10101(5)), 

reduce regulatory barriers to entry (49 

U.S.C. 10101(7)), and promote energy 

conservation and reduce congestion 

consistent with 49 U.S.C. 10101(14). See 

Oct. 2011 Decision, FD 35544, slip op. 

at 3–4. The Board also found that other 

aspects of the rail transportation policy 

would not be affected. Finally, the 

Board found that regulation of the 

proposed construction is not necessary 

to protect shippers from the abuse of 

market power. Id. 

No party challenged in this 

proceeding the Board’s 2011 

conclusions on the transportation merits 

of the proposal,7 and nothing in the 

record developed since then, including 

the environmental analysis discussed in 

the next section, calls those conclusions 

into question. The LV Line, with a 

modified median alignment, would 

reduce highway congestion by diverting 

vehicle traffic from the I–15 freeway to 

a faster and more efficient rail option. 

As previously noted, diversions would 

also benefit the environment, in part 

due to the far lower emissions 

associated with rail. (See also Titus 

Letter 2, July 27, 2023 (‘‘Estimates show 

that over 700 million vehicle miles 

traveled will be removed annually from 

the highway which will eliminate more 

than 400,000 tons of CO2 emissions 

from the atmosphere.’’).) And, as 

previously noted, construction of the LV 

Line is anticipated to generate billions 

of dollars in economic activity and tax 

revenue, and lead to the creation of 

thousands of jobs. (See also id. at 1–2.) 

Simply put, the benefits to the traveling 

public and, ultimately, the environment 

of adding a high-speed passenger rail 

option between Southern California and 

Las Vegas are considerable, and the 

project modifications do not change this 

conclusion. Moreover, the merits are 

enhanced by the Victor Valley-toRancho Cucamonga extension (RC Line), 

which would connect passengers on the 

LV Line to the Southern California 

commuter rail network.8 The Board 

therefore reaffirms its 2011 conclusions 

regarding the transportation merits of 

the LV Line. 

Environmental Analysis 

NEPA requires that the Board 

examine the environmental effects of 

proposed federal actions and inform the 

public concerning those effects. Balt. 

Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. 

Council, 462 U.S. 87, 97 (1983). Under 

NEPA, the Board must consider 

potential beneficial and adverse 

environmental effects in reaching its 

decision. The two-fold purpose of NEPA 

is to ensure that the agency’s decisionmaking process includes environmental 

considerations and to inform the public 

about those considerations. Citizens 

Against Rails-to-Trails v. STB, 267 F.3d 

1144, 1151 (D.C. Cir. 2001). While 

NEPA prescribes the process that must 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
81514 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 2023 / Notices 

9 In response to DesertXpress’ petition for 

exemption to construct and operate the RC Line, see 

note 9, supra, the San Manuel Band of Mission 

Indians (San Manuel Band, now the Yuhaaviatam 

of San Manuel Nation) and Morongo Band of 

Mission Indians (Morongo Band), filed comments 

challenging the sufficiency of FRA’s historic review 

process with respect to the modified alignment of 

the LV Line. (San Manuel Band Comments 1–2, FD 

36488, May 5, 2021; Morongo Band Comments 1– 

2, FD 36488, June 4, 2021). Since those comments 

were filed, a new PA has been executed between 

(among others) FRA, STB, the California State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Nevada 

SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP). See note 11, infra. Execution 

of the PA satisfies the requirements of Section 106 

for the modified route of the LV Line. 

Also in the docket for the RC Line, the National 

Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) filed a 

comment suggesting that the LV Line was not 

adequately assessed under NEPA. (NPCA 

Comments 1, FD 36488 June 8, 2021.) NPCA further 

argued that the LV Line should have been 

considered simultaneously with the RC Line 

because, according to NPCA, ‘‘there is no viable 

project’’ absent the RC Line. (Id.) The Board 

disagrees. As explained above, both the LV Line’s 

and RC Line’s environmental and historic impacts 

have been thoroughly evaluated under NEPA and 

NHPA. And, as the Board found in 2011, the LV 

Line has considerable merit—including ridership 

demand—even without the RC Line. See Oct. 2011 

Decision, FD 35544, slip op. at 2–3. 

10The PA is available on FRA’s website at https:// 

railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/ 

environment/environmental-reviews/brightlinewest-las-vegas-victor-valley. 

be followed, it does not mandate a 

particular result. Robertson v. Methow 

Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 

350–51 (1989). Thus, once the adverse 

environmental effects of a proposed 

action have been adequately identified 

and evaluated, the Board may conclude 

that ‘‘other values outweigh the 

environmental costs.’’ Id. 

The FRA 2020 Reevaluation 

reassessed the project modifications 

alongside the proposed action described 

in the EIS and ROD. OEA 2020 Memo 

3. FRA also updated and revised certain 

mitigation measures developed in the 

EIS to address changes in the affected 

environment and project changes since 

publication of the EIS. OEA 2020 Memo 

3. FRA determined that, with 

mitigation, the project modifications 

would result in similar impacts to those 

evaluated in the EIS and concluded that 

the project modifications would reduce 

certain environmental impacts of the LV 

Line. OEA 2020 Memo 3. For example, 

the modified alignment assessed in the 

FRA 2020 Reevaluation, which would 

be single track and primarily in an 

existing median, would reduce the 

project’s impact on land use, visual 

resources, air quality and climate 

change, and biological resources. Id. at 

5, 7, 10, 12. 

As part of FRA’s review, it also 

identified regulatory changes that had 

taken effect since the issuance of the EIS 

and analyzed the affected environment 

to ensure that the conclusions of the EIS 

remained valid. OEA 2020 Memo 3. 

Based on the analysis and findings in 

the FRA 2020 Reevaluation, FRA 

concluded that the project 

modifications, with the implementation 

of the proposed mitigation, did not 

constitute changes to the proposed 

action that would result in significant 

environmental impacts that were not 

evaluated in the EIS and that a 

Supplemental EIS was not necessary. Id. 

OEA concluded that FRA had 

adequately assessed the potential 

environmental impacts associated with 

the project modifications and concurred 

with FRA’s determination that a 

Supplemental EIS was not necessary. 

OEA 2020 Memo 13. Accordingly, OEA 

recommended that the Board consider 

the FRA 2020 Reevaluation, along with 

the EIS, in deciding whether to 

authorize the project as modified. OEA 

2020 Memo 13–14. OEA also 

recommended that the Board impose the 

revised mitigation measures 

recommended in the FRA 2020 

Reevaluation. OEA 2020 Memo 14. As 

noted above, the Board provided an 

opportunity for public comment, and no 

comments were filed.9

Likewise, in the FRA 2023 

Reevaluation, FRA determined that (1) 

the additional modifications proposed 

by DesertXpress in 2022, with the 

imposition of final proposed mitigation, 

would not result in substantial changes 

in the evaluation of impacts disclosed in 

the EIS or the FRA 2020 Reevaluation 

and (2) no Supplemental EIS is 

required. OEA 2023 Memo 4. FRA also 

determined that the modifications 

would generally avoid or minimize the 

overall effects of the project. Id. For 

example, FRA concluded that 

placement of additional components of 

the rail alignment and a greater portion 

of ancillary facilities within the I–15 

freeway right-of-way would reduce 

biological resource impacts compared to 

the EIS or the FRA 2020 Reevaluation. 

OEA 2023 Memo 4 n.7. Similarly, 

constructing along the modified route 

would result in fewer air emissions 

compared to the route examined in the 

EIS because there would be no 

tunneling and less of a need to elevate 

the alignment. Id. 

OEA further concluded that the FRA 

2023 Reevaluation adequately assessed 

the potential environmental impacts 

associated with DesertXpress’ additional 

modifications and concurred with 

FRA’s determination that a 

Supplemental EIS is not necessary. OEA 

2023 Memo 5. Accordingly, OEA 

recommends that the Board consider the 

FRA 2023 Reevaluation, along with the 

FRA 2020 Reevaluation and the EIS, 

when it decides whether to authorize 

the LV Line as modified. OEA 2023 

Memo 5. OEA also recommends that, in 

any decision granting an exemption for 

construction and operation of the LV 

Line modified as described in the FRA 

2020 and 2023 Reevaluations, the Board 

should impose all the mitigation 

measures included in Appendix D of the 

FRA 2023 Reevaluation. OEA 2023 

Memo 5. 

NHPA 

Section 106 of NHPA requires federal 

agencies to ‘‘take into account the effect 

of’’ their licensing decisions (in this 

case, whether to grant DesertXpress’ 

request to modify the LV Line 

alignment) on properties included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in, the National 

Register of Historic Places and, prior to 

the approval of an undertaking, to afford 

ACHP a reasonable opportunity to 

comment. See 54 U.S.C. 306108. 

Consultation with the SHPO is also 

required. See 36 CFR 800.2(a)(4) & 

(c)(1), 800.3(c)(3). 

FRA determined that the project 

modifications would not result in 

substantial changes to the evaluation of 

cultural resource impacts from those 

identified in the EIS. OEA 2020 Memo 

8. However, FRA concluded that the 

modified project would encounter new 

archaeological resources and historic 

built environment resources that were 

not previously evaluated. OEA 2020 

Memo 8. In accordance with 36 CFR 

part 800, FRA moved the Section 106 

process forward in consultation with the 

appropriate parties, including ACHP, 

the California and Nevada SHPOs, and 

federally recognized Native American 

tribes with an interest in the project 

area. OEA 2020 Memo 8. In response to 

requests from several consulting parties 

after FRA completed the FRA 2020 

Reevaluation, FRA decided to resolve 

any adverse effects to historic 

archeological and built environment 

resources through the execution of a 

new PA. OEA 2020 Memo 8–9. 

As noted in the PA executed on 

August 15, 2023, FRA identified 197 

historic properties, assessed the adverse 

effects to those properties, and prepared 

a Historic Properties Treatment Plan 

that provides detailed methodology for 

implementing mitigation prescribed by 

the agreement and resolves adverse 

effects to all known historic properties. 

(2023 PA 6, 20.) 10 OEA concludes, and 

the Board agrees, that execution of the 

PA satisfies the requirements of Section 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 2023 / Notices 81515 

1FRA was the lead agency in the environmental 

review because of its jurisdiction and expertise 

related to high-speed train operations and railroad 

safety. See DesertXpress Enters., LLC & 

DesertXpress HSR Corp.—Constr. & Operation 

Exemption—in Victorville, Cal. & Las Vegas, Nev., 

Docket No. FD 35544, slip op. at 4 n.6 (STB served 

Oct. 25, 2011). 

2The DEIS, Supplemental DEIS, and FEIS are 

referred to collectively as the EIS. 

3See 2011 Decision at 1, 8. 

4FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 

1999), provide that if major steps toward 

implementation of the proposed action have not 

occurred within the time frame, if any, set forth in 

the Final EIS, or within five years from the date of 

approval of the Final EIS, a written reevaluation of 

the adequacy, accuracy, and validity of the Final 

EIS is prepared, to determine if a new or 

supplemental EIS is necessary. 

106 for the modified route. OEA 2023 

Memo 4. 

The Board’s Analysis of the 

Environmental Issues 

The Board will adopt the analyses and 

conclusions in the FRA 2020 and 2023 

Reevaluations. The Board will also 

impose the final recommended 

mitigation measures listed in Appendix 

D of the FRA 2023 Reevaluation, which 

would lessen impacts from constructing 

and operating the modified alignment. 

The Board is satisfied that the FRA 2020 

and 2023 Reevaluations took the 

requisite ‘‘hard look’’ at the potential 

environmental and historic impacts 

associated with modifications to the LV 

Line and properly determined that, with 

the mitigation in Appendix D of FRA’s 

2023 Reevaluation, the proposed 

modifications would not have 

potentially significant environmental 

impacts, and that preparation of a 

Supplemental EIS is unnecessary. 

Conclusions 

The Board already authorized 

construction and operation of the LV 

Line by exemption in 2011, and the 

modified alignment would lessen or 

avoid a number of potential 

environmental impacts by placing much 

of the routing in the I–15 median. As 

noted above, the merits of a high-speed 

rail passenger line connecting Las Vegas 

and Southern California are substantial, 

and are strengthened by the RC Line and 

its connection to the greater Southern 

California commuter rail network. 

Moreover, providing a rail alternative 

along the I–15 corridor would not only 

create a transportation benefit for 

passengers; it would also create 

environmental benefits in replacing 

highway vehicle traffic, and its 

associated emissions, with more 

environmentally-friendly rail travel. 

Therefore, after considering the 

transportation merits, the environmental 

issues, and the entire record, the Board 

will grant the petition for exemption 

and authorize the modified alignment of 

the LV Line by modifying the 2011 

routing condition, subject to compliance 

with the mitigation measures listed in 

Appendix D of the FRA 2023 

Reevaluation. 

This action, as conditioned, will not 

significantly impact the quality of the 

human environment or the conservation 

of energy resources. 

It is ordered: 

1. DesertXpress’ petition to reopen 

and modify the 2011 routing condition 

is granted. 

2. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board 

exempts construction of the LV Line 

from the prior approval requirements of 

4 U.S.C. 10901, with the modifications 

evaluated in the FRA 2020 and 2023 

Reevaluations. 

3. The Board adopts the 

environmental mitigation measures set 

forth in Appendix D of the FRA 2023 

Reevaluation and imposes them as 

conditions to the exemption granted 

here. 

4. Notice will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

5. Petitions for reconsideration must 

be filed by December 6, 2023. 

6. This decision is effective December 

16, 2023. 

Decided: November 15, 2023. 

By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, 

Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

Appendix 

Surface Transportation Board 

Washington, DC 20423 

Office of Environmental Analysis 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Martin Oberman, Chairman; Karen 

Hedlund, Vice Chairman; Patrick Fuchs, 

Member; Michelle Schultz, Member; Robert 

Primus, Member 

Cc: Mai Dinh, Director, Office of Proceedings 

FROM: Danielle Gosselin, Director, Office of 

Environmental Analysis 

DATE: October 30, 2023 

SUBJECT: Docket No. FD 35544, 

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC and 

DesertXpress HSR Corporation— 

Construction and Operation Exemption—in 

Victorville, Cal. and Las Vegas, Nev.: 

Environmental Memorandum 

This memorandum summarizes a second 

reevaluation undertaken by the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) in 2023 (2023 

Reevaluation) of additional proposed project 

modifications to DesertXpress Enterprises, 

LLC’s, d/b/a Brightline West (the Applicant), 

construction and operation of a high-speed 

passenger rail line between Southern 

California and Las Vegas, Nevada. This 

memorandum also presents the Office of 

Environmental Analysis’ (OEA) final 

recommendations to the Board based on 

FRA’s 2023 Reevaluation, including a 

recommendation that the Board impose the 

revised environmental mitigation in FRA’s 

2023 Reevaluation in any decision 

authorizing the project, as modified. 

Introduction 

On July 28, 2011, the Applicant submitted 

a petition for exemption under 49 U.S.C. 

10502 for the construction and operation of 

an approximately 190-mile high-speed 

passenger rail line between the Victor Valley, 

in Southern California, and Las Vegas, 

Nevada (Line). The purpose of the Line was 

to create an alternative transportation option 

(in addition to auto and air) from Southern 

California to Las Vegas. The Applicant plans 

to provide passenger rail service on the Line. 

The Board, through OEA, participated in 

the environmental review as a cooperating 

agency under the lead of FRA.1 A number of 

other agencies, including the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), the Federal Highway 

Administration, the National Park Service, 

the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Nevada Department of 

Transportation (NDOT), participated in the 

environmental review process as cooperating 

agencies or consulting parties. FRA, with the 

assistance of the cooperating agencies, 

prepared a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (Draft EIS) in March 2009, a 

Supplemental Draft EIS in August 2010, and 

a Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(Final EIS) in March 2011.2

The EIS identified a preferred alternative 

and developed environmental mitigation 

conditions to avoid or minimize potential 

environmental impacts. Following the 

issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) by 

FRA, the Board, on October 20, 2011, granted 

the Applicant’s petition for exemption, 

subject to environmental conditions and the 

condition that the Applicant build the route 

designated in the EIS and ROD as 

environmentally preferable (2011 Decision).3

Despite having the requisite agency 

approvals to construct and operate the Line, 

construction did not immediately proceed. 

In 2018, the Applicant proposed design 

modifications to the Line, including 

modifying the rail alignment between the 

Victor Valley and Las Vegas so that it was 

located primarily within the I–15 freeway 

median with portions following the east side 

of the I–15 freeway; relocating the Southern 

California terminus from Victorville to the 

Town of Apple Valley (both located in the 

Victor Valley); collocating an operations 

maintenance storage facility with the 

passenger station in Apple Valley; and 

constructing certain ancillary facilities not 

previously evaluated in the EIS. 

FRA prepared a written reevaluation 4 of 

the design modifications (2020 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICESEN22NO23.255</GPH>
81516 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 2023 / Notices 

5FRA reinitiated consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act for the additional 

modifications. USFWS recommended updates to 

the mitigation measures described in the project’s 

Biological Opinion prepared in 2011, specifically 

mitigation for impacts from the Sloan VMF on the 

desert tortoise and desert tortoise habitat. FRA 

incorporated the revised mitigation measures into 

the 2023 Reevaluation. On September 1, 2023, 

USFWS concluded re-initiation of Section 7 

consultation and determined that formal 

consultation was not required for the Line. 

6With the exception of biological resources and 

cultural resources, FRA performed a desktop/ 

qualitative evaluation for the above-listed resources 

as changes to the affected environment for those 

resources would be unlikely to occur or were easily 

assessed using publicly available resources. FRA 

performed more detailed evaluations to assess 

impacts to cultural resources and biological 

resources, which it documented in technical 

reports/memoranda. To facilitate review by BLM, 

FRA included a separate analysis for the Sloan VMF 

in the 2023 Reevaluation because the Sloan VMF 

has been proposed on land owned and managed by 

BLM. FRA’s determination as to whether a 

Supplemental EIS is required considered all project 

modifications, including the Sloan VMF. 

7For example, FRA concluded that placement of 

additional components of the rail alignment and a 

greater portion of ancillary facilities within the I– 

15 freeway right-of-way would reduce biological 

resource impacts compared to the EIS or the FRA 

2020 Reevaluation. (FRA 2023 Reevaluation 51–54.) 

Similarly, constructing along the modified route 

would result in fewer air emissions compared to the 

route examined in the EIS because there would be 

no tunneling and less of a need to elevate the 

alignment. (Id. at 45.) 

8The 2023 Reevaluation, including its 

attachments, is available on FRA’s website at 

https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network-development/ 

environment/environmental-reviews/brightlinewest-las-vegas-victor-valley. 

Reevaluation), in which it determined that 

the project modifications would reduce 

certain environmental impacts; updated and 

revised some mitigation measures developed 

in the EIS to address changes in the affected 

environment and project modifications since 

publication of the EIS; and concluded that a 

Supplemental EIS was not required and that 

the proposed project modifications are 

consistent with the proposed action 

described in FRA’s EIS and ROD. The Board, 

through OEA, participated as a cooperating 

agency in FRA’s reevaluation process. 

On March 27, 2019, the Applicant filed a 

petition with the Board to reopen this 

proceeding, seeking modification to the 

condition in the 2011 Decision authorizing 

construction of the Line along the previously 

selected preferred alternative route due to the 

Applicant’s proposed design modifications 

and other changes. OEA prepared an 

Environmental Memorandum to the Board 

agreeing with FRA’s conclusions in the 2020 

Reevaluation that no Supplemental EIS was 

required, and recommending that, in any 

decision approving the proposed project, the 

Board impose the revised mitigation 

measures in FRA’s 2020 Reevaluation. The 

Board then issued a decision on December 3, 

2020 attaching the OEA memorandum, 

seeking public comment, and noting that the 

review of historic and cultural resources 

pursuant to Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act was still ongoing 

and that, therefore, the Board could not issue 

a final decision addressing the modified 

route and other changes until that process 

was complete. No comments were received. 

FRA’S 2023 Reevaluation 

In 2022, the Applicant proposed additional 

modifications, which were developed 

through the final design phase for the Line. 

These modifications included relocating the 

rail alignment on certain portions of the Line 

from the east side of the I–15 freeway to the 

median; revising the design of the Apple 

Valley station to include the passenger 

boarding and alighting platforms in the 

median of the I–15 freeway; raising and 

moving east a portion of the existing I–15 

northbound lanes to provide the necessary 

footprint and access for these passenger 

platforms; adding or modifying certain 

ancillary features not previously evaluated in 

the EIS or 2020 Reevaluation, such as 

highway ramps, state highway patrol 

emergency crossovers, and culverts; and 

locating a vehicle maintenance facility and 

connecting freight track corridor at a site that 

had not previously been evaluated in Sloan, 

Nevada (Sloan VMF). A detailed table from 

the 2023 Reevaluation describing all of the 

additional modifications is attached to this 

memorandum. 

FRA evaluated the additional 

modifications and issued a memorandum on 

September 15, 2023, concluding that a 

Supplemental EIS is not necessary. The 2023 

Reevaluation focused on the modifications to 

the project footprint and facilities proposed 

since the issuance of FRA’s 2020 

Reevaluation, and also reflected changes 

since then to the affected environment, 

regulatory setting, and project effects. FRA 

reassessed each of the environmental 

resource areas analyzed in the EIS and 2020 

Reevaluation: land use, community, and 

environmental justice communities; growth; 

farmlands and grazing lands; utilities/ 

emergency services; traffic and 

transportation; visual resources; cultural 

resources; hydrology and water quality; 

geology and soils; paleontological resources; 

hazardous materials; air quality and global 

climate change; noise and vibration; energy; 

biological resources; 5 and cumulative 

impacts.6 FRA determined that the additional 

modifications, with the imposition of final 

proposed mitigation (including, in most 

cases, mitigation that had already been 

proposed in the EIS and 2020 Reevaluation), 

would not result in substantial changes in the 

evaluation of impacts disclosed in the EIS or 

2020 Reevaluation, that the modifications 

would generally avoid or minimize the 

overall effects of the project, and that no 

Supplemental EIS is required.7

Mitigation Measures 

FRA has updated the mitigation measures 

included in the 2011 ROD and the 2020 

Reevaluation to account for the additional 

project modifications, and principally to 

mitigate impacts on the desert tortoise and 

the desert tortoise habitat from the Sloan 

VMF footprint. The mitigation measures are 

described in detail in Attachment D of the 

2023 Reevaluation.8 The 2023 Reevaluation 

concludes that the mitigation measures 

developed in the EIS and the 2020 

Reevaluation, as updated in the 2023 

Reevaluation, would avoid or minimize 

potential environmental impacts and that no 

Supplemental EIS is required. 

Section 106 Process 

A Programmatic Agreement (PA) to govern 

the approach for ongoing compliance with 

Section 106 and implementation of the 

resolution of adverse effects was executed on 

August 15, 2023. This completed the Section 

106 process for the proceeding. 

OEA’S Final Environmental 

Recommendations 

After participating in the reevaluation 

process and reviewing FRA’s 2023 

Reevaluation, OEA concludes that the 2023 

Reevaluation adequately assesses the 

potential environmental impacts associated 

with the Applicant’s additional 

modifications and concurs with FRA’s 

determination that a Supplemental EIS is not 

necessary. Accordingly, OEA recommends 

that the Board consider FRA’s 2023 

Reevaluation, along with the 2020 

Reevaluation and the EIS, when it decides 

whether to authorize the Line as modified. 

Mitigation measures imposed in FRA’s ROD 

and the Board’s prior decision, and refined 

in the 2020 Revaluation, were further refined 

in the 2023 Reevaluation. Therefore, OEA 

recommends that, in any decision approving 

the Line as modified in the 2020 and 2023 

Reevaluations, the Board impose all the 

mitigation measures included in Appendix D 

of the 2023 Reevaluation. 

Attachment 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 2023 / Notices 81517 

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS (SINCE THE SEPTEMBER 2020 REEVALUATION) 9

Project feature Description of modification 

Segment 1 Alignment (Apple Valley to Lenwood) ................................... The Project modifications involve relocating the rail alignment between 

the Victor Valley Station and Sidewinder Road from east side of the 

I–15 freeway to the median. As such, the entirety of the Segment 1 

rail alignment is now within the I–15 freeway median, which would 

result in reduced impacts and increase the efficiency of train operations. This design change is also favorable with Caltrans and 

FHWA as it would improve constructability of potential future I–15 

freeway improvements in either the northbound or southbound directions. Additionally, the Segment 1 rail alignment would be extended 

less than one mile south of the Victor Valley Station to access a 

maintenance of way track that will be constructed to move equipment from the median rail mainline to the maintenance of way facility. Construction of a median-running rail alignment in this area, 

south of the Dale Evans Parkway intersection, would require realignment of the existing I–15 northbound travel lanes approximately 50 

feet east, and reconstruction of the Dale Evans Parkway interchange 

including the overpass.10 This is discussed further under the Victor 

Valley Station description below. Additionally, the I–15 northbound 

travel lanes would be elevated approximately 25 feet south of the 

interchange to allow the maintenance of way track to pass from the 

median to the maintenance of way facility. All roadway work would 

occur within existing Caltrans/NDOT ROW. 

Segment 5 Alignment (PRIMM to Sloan Road) ....................................... Project modifications would relocate the rail alignment, between Primm 

and north of Goodsprings Road near Jean, from the east side of the 

I–15 freeway to the freeway median. As such, the entirety of the 

Segment 5 rail alignment is now located within the I–15 freeway median, which would result in reduced impacts, increase the safety and 

efficiency of train operations, and improve constructability for future 

I–15 widening in this portion of the alignment. Additionally, the previously considered Braid Structures near Primm and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing are no longer needed and have been 

removed. 

Victor Valley Station (Previously Referred to as Dale Evans Station) .... The Project design evaluated in September 2020 considered collocating an operations, maintenance, and storage facility (OMSF) with 

the Victor Valley Station, with a permanent footprint of approximately 

300 acres. As discussed below, the current Project modifications include a relocation of the Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) to a site 

on the west side of I–15 in Sloan. The Victor Valley Station permanent footprint would remain unchanged. As noted above, under Segment 1, the Project Modifications include relocating the rail alignment 

into the median of the I–15 freeway. To accommodate this new rail 

alignment, the Victor Valley Station layout has been revised to include the passenger boarding and alighting platforms in the median 

of the I–15 freeway. In order to provide the necessary footprint and 

access for these platforms, the existing I–15 northbound lanes would 

be raised and moved east within the Caltrans ROW south of the 

Dale Evans Parkway interchange. Passengers would access station 

platforms using a walkway underneath the relocated I–15 freeway 

northbound lanes. 

Highway Ramp Realignments/Modifications ............................................ The Project design evaluated in September 2020 included realignment 

of portions of approximately 17 existing freeway on and off- ramps to 

accommodate the rail line within the I–15 freeway ROW. The current 

Project modifications include extending these on and off ramp realignments and ramp modifications and changing the location where 

these ramp realignment/reconstructions transition to the existing 

roadway/pavement. There are locations where these proposed freeway ramp modifications occur (from south to north): 

• The I–15 southbound ramps at Dale Evans Parkway. 

• The I–15 northbound ramps at Main Street in Barstow. 

• The I–15 northbound ramps and southbound ramps at East 

Primm Boulevard. 

• The I–15 southbound ramps at Goodsprings Road. 

• The I–15 southbound ramps at Sloan Road. 

These modifications would be located primarily on previously evaluated 

Project footprint within existing Caltrans/NDOT, and local ROW along 

the I–15 freeway. These modifications are the result of coordination 

with Caltrans and NDOT on final design details, in order to update 

the modified median-running alignment to adhere to current safety 

design standards. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
81518 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 2023 / Notices 

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS (SINCE THE SEPTEMBER 2020 REEVALUATION) 9—Continued 

Project feature Description of modification 

California Highway Patrol (CHP) Emergency Crossovers ....................... The Project design evaluated in September 2020 included eight emergency crossovers along the alignment in California. The current 

Project modifications include two new emergency crossovers at 

Zzyzx Road and Halloran Springs. Additionally, five previously evaluated emergency crossovers in Segment 3 would be relocated. These 

are located near Coyote Lake Road, Basin Road, Baker, and both 

north and south of Halloran Springs. Emergency crossovers would 

be located mainly on previously evaluated Project footprint within the 

existing Caltrans ROW. In total, the modified Project would include 

10 emergency crossovers in California, located in Segment 3 between Yermo and Mountain Pass, and one emergency crossover in 

Nevada approximately 1.5-miles south of Sloan. 

Roadwork .................................................................................................. The Project design evaluated in September 2020 included roadwork at 

local interchanges and along the I–15 freeway at various locations. 

The current Project modifications include: 

• Realigning the I–15 freeway northbound lane approximately 50 

feet east and raising the lane approximately 25 feet, to accommodate the passenger platforms in the I–15 median, tail track 

for train storage, a pedestrian underpass for access to/from the 

platforms, and a maintenance of way access track for trains. 

These roadwork improvements would occur along a 60-foot portion of the I–15 freeway northbound lane adjacent to the Victor 

Valley Station. 

• Additional roadwork at the Dale Evans Parkway interchange accessing the I–15 freeway southbound ramps. 

• I–15 freeway median widening at Segment 5 to accommodate 

the modified median-running alignment. 

• Raising of I–15 southbound lanes just south of the Sloan Road 

interchange to allow for tracks to exit the I–15 median under the 

southbound lanes and into the Sloan VMF site. 

The Project modifications also include small, on-road lane realignments 

along the I–15 freeway at Segment 6, near Silverado Ranch Boulevard and Blue Diamond Road. 

Culverts ..................................................................................................... The Project design evaluated in September 2020 included drainage 

and culvert work throughout the Project limits. The current Project 

modifications include revised designs for three culverts and the addition of four culverts within Segment 5. The associated drainage and 

grading activities have also been modified accordingly. 

Cemex Facility and Rail Connection ........................................................ A new connection to the existing Cemex industrial rail track is proposed on the north side of Apple Valley, CA near the proposed Victor Valley Station. The connection would consist of a turnout off the 

existing Cemex track and approximately 2 miles of new track along 

the east side of I–15 freeway heading north, all within the Caltrans 

ROW limit. This connection would allow rail transportation of construction materials such as track ballast to the Project area. This reduces the need for trucking construction materials to the Project 

area. 

Ivanpah Traction Power Substation (TPSS) ............................................ The Ivanpah modified TPSS 3-mile utility line and 3.5-mile redundant 

utility line would travel north of the existing solar field to connect to a 

Southern California Edison (SCE) substation adjacent to the 

BrightSource Ivanpah Electrical Generating System, west of the I–15 

freeway, resulting in the reduction of approximately 0.18 acres of 

permanent footprint. These modifications are the result of coordination with SCE, BLM and USFWS. 

California Maintenance Of Way (MOW) Facility ...................................... The Project design evaluated in September 2020 considered the relocation of the California MOW Facility from Baker, California, to the I– 

15 freeway median approximately six miles south of the California/ 

Nevada state line, adjacent to the existing California Agricultural Inspection Station (CAIS). The 25-acre facility was proposed to be utilized for passive equipment storage. The MOW is no longer located 

adjacent to the CAIS and will be divided between the new site at 

Sloan and the Victor Valley Station area. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 22, 2023 / Notices 81519 

1On September 17, 2018, DesertXpress’ 

ownership group entered into an agreement to sell 

the company to Brightline Holdings LLC 

(Brightline). Fortress Inv. Grp. LLC—Continuance in 

Control—Cent. Me. & Que. Ry., FD 36225, slip op. 

at 1–2 (STB served Oct. 11, 2018). Brightline’s 

acquisition of DesertXpress was consummated on 

March 4, 2019. (DesertXpress Pet. 2 n.2.) 

2On July 21, 2023, DesertXpress filed a letter 

requesting that the Board expedite a final decision 

in this proceeding. On July 27, 2023, U.S. 

Representative Dina Titus filed a letter urging the 

Board to expeditiously consider DesertXpress’ 

petition. 

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS (SINCE THE SEPTEMBER 2020 REEVALUATION) 9—Continued 

Project feature Description of modification 

Sloan Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) .............................................. The Project design evaluated in the DesertXpress EIS included an 

OMSF in close proximity to the original Victorville Station west of the 

I–15 freeway and included facilities for maintaining and storing trains. 

Project modifications evaluated in 2020 included relocating the 

Victorville Station to the south side of the I–15 freeway at Dale 

Evans Parkway in Apple Valley. At that time, it was proposed the 

OMSF would be collocated with the Victorville Station, and a separate location for vehicle maintenance and storage had not been identified. The current Project modifications include locating the vehicle 

maintenance and storage activities at a site located in Segment 6 

west of and within 1.5 miles of the I–15 freeway, and south of Sloan 

Road; the Victor Valley Station permanent footprint would remain unchanged. An additional freight track corridor will be constructed to 

connect the VMF to the adjacent UPRR. Brightline West have filed a 

connection request and are coordinating with UPRR regarding the 

connection design and operational concepts. UPRR have granted 

preliminary approval of this rail connection, which would be subject 

to additional design development. The Sloan VMF and adjacent 

UPRR connection would require 246 acres of permanent footprint 

and 105 acres of temporary footprint,6 and includes: 

• Storage and staging tracks and overhead catenary system from 

which trains would be mobilized for daily operations. 

• Equipment and operations associated with the Sloan VMF, including but not limited to a train car wash station, a train performance monitoring station, an Operations Control Center, a 

power substation and distribution lines, utility connections, circulation system, site control, fencing, and parking. 

The Sloan VMF will be a permanent workplace for approximately 100 

employees related to either the maintenance of the Brightline West 

train fleet or performing other functions such as driving the trains. 

These facilities would be located on land under BLM jurisdiction and 

would therefore require a ROW grant lease from BLM. 

Temporary Construction Areas (TCAS) ................................................... TCAs are areas that would be utilized for construction staging and storage. No permanent project features would be installed in these 

areas, and they would be restored/vacated upon completion of construction. The modified Project includes an additional 202 TCAs located within Caltrans/NDOT ROW along the I–15 freeway corridor 

for construction of the rail alignment. These are in addition to TCAs 

previously identified in the original project description and the September 2020 Reevaluation. Most of these additional TCAs are areas 

located within the existing I–15 freeway ROW. The addition of these 

TCAs adds 1,492 acres of temporary footprint to the project 11 The 

Sloan VMF facility footprint includes 105 acres of temporary footprint 

required for constructing the Sloan VMF and UPRR Connection. 

9Brightline West Victor Valley, CA to Las Vegas, NV High-Speed Rail Project Reevaluation (September 15, 2023) pgs. 4–7. 

10This Reevaluation has assumed full reconstruction and replacement of the overpass. Caltrans will determine the necessary modifications to 

the I–15/Dale Evans interchange which may not include full reconstruction and replacement of the overpass. 11As more of the alignment has been shifted to be within the I–15 freeway median, additional TCAs are proposed since room for construction 

within the I–15 freeway median is more limited and needs to be spread out throughout the alignment. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25789 Filed 11–21–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

[Docket No. FD 36488] 

Desertxpress Enterprises, LLC— 

Authority To Construct and Operate— 

Petition for Exemption From 49 U.S.C. 

10901—Passenger Rail Line Between 

the Victor Valley, Cal. and Rancho 

Cucamonga, Cal. 

On April 13, 2021, DesertXpress 

Enterprises, LLC, a Nevada limited 

liability company, d/b/a Brightline West 

(DesertXpress),1 filed a petition under 

49 U.S.C. 10502 for an exemption from 

the prior approval requirements of 49 

U.S.C. 10901 to construct and operate 

an approximately 50-mile high-speed 

passenger rail line between the Victor 

Valley, in Southern California, and 

Rancho Cucamonga, Cal. (the RC Line). 

DesertXpress plans to operate as a 

common carrier providing passenger rail 

service on the rail line to be 

constructed. DesertXpress does not plan 

to provide freight rail service. No 

comments opposing the transportation 

merits of DesertXpress’ petition were 

filed. 

On July 12, 2021, the Board instituted 

a proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 10502.2

As discussed below, the Board, through 

the Office of Environmental Analysis 

(OEA), participated in the 

environmental and historic review of 

the RC Line as a cooperating agency 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES