11172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 49 / Monday, March 16, 2009 / Notices 

ensure the full range of issues related to 

the proposed action and reasonable 

alternatives are addressed and all 

significant issues are identified. In 

particular, FRA is interested in 

determining whether there are areas of 

environmental concern where there 

might be a potential for significant sitespecific impacts. Public agencies with 

jurisdiction are requested to advise FRA 

and the Authority of the applicable 

permit and environmental review 

requirements of each agency, and the 

scope and content of the environmental 

information that is germane to the 

agency’s statutory responsibilities in 

connection with the proposed project. 

Public agencies are requested to advise 

FRA if they anticipate taking a major 

action in connection with the proposed 

project and if they wish to cooperate in 

the preparation of the Project EIR/EIS. 

Public scoping meetings have been 

scheduled as an important component 

of the scoping process for both the State 

and Federal environmental review. The 

scoping meetings described in this 

Notice will also be the subject of 

additional public notification. 

FRA is seeking participation and 

input of all interested Federal, State, 

and local agencies, Native American 

groups, and other concerned private 

organizations and individuals on the 

scope of the EIR/EIS. Implementation of 

the San Jose to Merced section of the 

HST system is a federal undertaking 

with the potential to affect historic 

properties. As such, it is subject to the 

requirements of section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f). In accordance 

with regulations issued by the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, 36 

CFR part 800, FRA intends to coordinate 

compliance with section 106 of this Act 

with the preparation of the EIR/EIS, 

beginning with the identification of 

consulting parties through the scoping 

process, in a manner consistent with the 

standards set out in 36 CFR 800.8. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 

2009. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

[FR Doc. E9–5573 Filed 3–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the California High Speed Train Project 

From Merced to Bakersfield, CA 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise the 

public that FRA and the California High 

Speed Rail Authority (Authority) will 

jointly prepare a project Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) and project 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 

the Merced-to-Bakersfield section of the 

Authority’s proposed California HighSpeed Train (HST) System in 

compliance with relevant State and 

Federal laws, in particular the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

the California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA). 

In 2001, the Authority and FRA 

started a tiered environmental review 

process for the HST system and in 2005, 

completed the first tier California High 

Speed Train Program EIR/EIS and 

approved the statewide HST system for 

intercity travel in California between the 

major metropolitan centers of 

Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay 

Area in the north, through the Central 

Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in 

the south. The approved HST system 

would be about 800-miles long, with 

electric propulsion and steel-wheel-onsteel-rail trains capable of operating 

speeds of 220 miles per hour (mph) on 

a dedicated system of fully gradeseparated, access-controlled steel tracks 

and with state-of-the-art safety, 

signaling, communication, and 

automated train control systems. In 

approving the HST system, the 

Authority and FRA also selected 

preferred corridor alignments and 

station location options throughout 

most of the system. In 2008, the 

Authority and FRA completed a second 

program EIR/EIS to evaluate alignments 

and station locations within the broad 

corridor between and including the 

Altamont Pass and the Pacheco Pass to 

connect the Bay Area and Central Valley 

portions of the HST system. The 

Authority and FRA selected the Pacheco 

Pass with San Francisco and San Jose 

termini network alternative, as well as 

preferred corridor alignments and 

station location options. The selected 

alignment uses the Union Pacific 

(UPRR) railroad corridor through the 

portion of the Central Valley from just 

north of Madera to just south of 

Stockton and the Burlington Northern 

Santa Fe (BNSF) alignment from Madera 

to Bakersfield, as selected with the 

Statewide Program EIR/EIS. 

The preparation of the Merced to 

Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS will 

involve development of preliminary 

engineering designs and assessment of 

environmental effects associated with 

the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the HST system, 

including track, ancillary facilities and 

stations, along the preferred alternative 

corridors from Merced to Bakersfield. 

DATES: Written comments on the scope 

of the Merced to Bakersfield HST 

Project EIR/EIS should be provided to 

the Authority by April 10, 2009. Public 

scoping meetings are scheduled from 

March 18, 2009 to March 26, 2009, as 

noted below in the cities of Merced, 

Madera, Fresno, Visalia, and 

Bakersfield. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

scope should be sent to Ms. Carrie 

Pourvahidi, Deputy Director, ATTN. 

Merced to Bakersfield, California HighSpeed Rail Authority, 925 L Street, 

Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA 95814, or 

via e-mail with subject line ‘‘Merced to 

Bakersfield HST’’ to: 

comments@hsr.ca.gov. Comments may 

also be provided orally or in writing at 

the scoping meetings scheduled as 

follows: 

• March 18, 2009: Merced 

Community Senior Center, from 3 p.m. 

to 7 p.m. 

• March 19, 2009: Madera County 

Fairgrounds, 1850 West Cleveland 

Avenue, Madera, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. 

• March 24, 2009: Visalia Convention 

Center, 303 E. Acequia Avenue, Visalia, 

from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. 

• March 25, 2009: Fresno Convention 

Center (Exhibit Hall), 848 M Street, 

Fresno, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. 

• March 26, 2009: Rabobank Theater, 

1001 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, from 

3 p.m. to 7 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Valenstein, Environmental 

Program Manager, Office of Railroad 

Development, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE. (Mail Stop 20), 

Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 

(202) 493–6368, or Ms. Carrie 

Pourvahidi, Telephone: (916) 324–1541 

at the above noted address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Authority was established in 1996 and 

is authorized and directed by statute to 

undertake the planning and 

development of a proposed statewide 

HST network that is fully coordinated 

with other public transportation 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 49 / Monday, March 16, 2009 / Notices 11173 

services. The Authority adopted a Final 

Business Plan in June 2000, which 

reviewed the economic feasibility of an 

800-mile-long HST capable of operating 

speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour 

on a dedicated, fully grade-separated 

state-of-the-art track. The Authority 

released an updated Business Plan in 

November 2008. 

The FRA has responsibility for 

oversight of the safety of railroad 

operations, including the safety of any 

proposed high-speed ground 

transportation system. For the proposed 

HST, it is anticipated that FRA would 

need to take certain regulatory actions 

prior to operation. 

In 2005, the Authority and FRA 

completed a Final Program EIR/EIS for 

the Proposed California High Speed 

Train System (Statewide Program EIR/ 

EIS), as the first phase of a tiered 

environmental review process. The 

Authority certified the Final Program 

EIR under CEQA and approved the 

proposed HST System, and FRA issued 

a Record of Decision under NEPA on the 

Final Program EIS. This statewide 

program EIR/EIS established the 

purpose and need for the HST system, 

analyzed an HST system, and compared 

it with a No Project/No Action 

Alternative and a Modal Alternative. In 

approving the statewide program EIR/ 

EIS, the Authority and FRA selected the 

HST Alternative, selected certain 

corridors/general alignments and 

general station locations for further 

study, incorporated mitigation strategies 

and design practices, and specified 

further measures to guide the 

development of the HST system at the 

site-specific project level of 

environmental review to avoid and 

minimize potential adverse 

environmental impacts. In the 

subsequent Bay Area to Central Valley 

HST Final Program EIR/EIS, the 

Authority and FRA selected the Pacheco 

Pass alternative, via Henry Miller Road, 

as the preferred alternative to connect 

the Bay Area to the Central Valley. 

The Merced to Bakersfield HST 

Project EIR/EIS will tier from the Final 

Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the 

Final Bay Area to Central Valley HST 

Program EIR/EIS in accordance with 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations, (40 CFR 1508.28) and 

State CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. 

15168[b]). Tiering will ensure that the 

Merced to Bakersfield HST Project EIR/ 

EIS builds upon all previous work 

prepared for and incorporated in the 

Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the Bay 

Area to Central Valley HST Program 

EIR/EIS. 

This Project EIR/EIS will describe 

site-specific environmental impacts, 

will identify specific mitigation 

measures to address those impacts and 

will incorporate design practices to 

avoid and minimize potential adverse 

environmental impacts. The FRA and 

the Authority will assess the site 

characteristics, size, nature, and timing 

of proposed site-specific projects to 

determine whether the impacts are 

potentially significant and whether 

impacts can be avoided or mitigated. 

This project EIR/EIS will identify and 

evaluate reasonable and feasible sitespecific alignment alternatives, and 

evaluate the impacts from construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the HST 

system. Information and documents 

regarding this HST environmental 

review process will be made available 

through the Authority’s Internet site: 

http://www.cahighspeedrail.gov/. 

Purpose and Need: The purpose of the 

proposed HST system is to provide a 

new mode of high-speed intercity travel 

that would link major metropolitan 

areas of the State; interface with 

international airports, mass transit, and 

highways; and provide added capacity 

to meet increases in intercity travel 

demand in California in a manner 

sensitive to and protective of 

California’s unique natural resources. 

The need for a HST system is directly 

related to the expected growth in 

population, and increases in intercity 

travel demand in California over the 

next twenty years and beyond. With the 

growth in travel demand, there will be 

an increase in travel delays arising from 

the growing congestion on California’s 

highways and at airports. In addition, 

there will be negative effects on the 

economy, quality of life, and air quality 

in and around California’s metropolitan 

areas from a transportation system that 

will become less reliable as travel 

demand increases. The intercity 

highway system, commercial airports, 

and conventional passenger rail serving 

the intercity travel market are currently 

operating at or near capacity, and will 

require large public investments for 

maintenance and expansion to meet 

existing demand and future growth. 

Alternatives: The Merced to 

Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS will 

consider a No Action or No Project 

Alternative and an HST Alternative for 

the Merced to Bakersfield section. 

No Action Alternative: The No Action 

Alternative (No Project or No Build) 

represents the conditions in the corridor 

as it existed in 2007, and as it would 

exist based on programmed and funded 

improvements to the intercity 

transportation system and other 

reasonably foreseeable projects through 

2035, taking into account the following 

sources of information: State 

Transportation Improvement Program 

(STIP), Regional Transportation Plans 

(RTPs) for all modes of travel, airport 

plans, intercity passenger rail plans, city 

and county plans. 

HST Alternative: The Authority 

proposes to construct, operate and 

maintain an electric-powered steelwheel-on-steel-rail HST system, about 

800 miles long, capable of operating 

speeds of 220 mph on dedicated, fully 

graded-separated tracks, with state-ofthe-art safety, signaling, and automated 

train control systems. As part of the Bay 

Area to Central Valley HST Program 

EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected 

the Union Pacific (UPRR) railroad 

alignment through the portion of the 

Central Valley from just north of Madera 

to just south of Stockton as the preferred 

alternative. This Project EIR/EIS will 

also evaluate the BNSF railroad 

alignment in this part of the Central 

Valley because of the uncertainty of 

negotiating with the UPRR for some of 

their right-of-way and will continue 

investigation of alignments/linkages to a 

potential maintenance facility at Castle 

AFB. The BNSF alignment from Madera 

to Bakersfield was selected as the 

preferred alignment for this portion of 

the Central Valley in the Statewide 

Program EIR/EIS. As defined in the 

Statewide Program EIR/EIS, this 

alignment would utilize the UPRR 

corridor through the urban area of 

Fresno, and would require a new highspeed alignment around the city of 

Hanford. Alignment alternatives will 

also be evaluated to serve a potential 

station in the Visalia/Hanford/Tulare 

area. The HST would operate in this 

area at speeds up to 220 mph on tracks 

separate from the existing BNSF and UP 

tracks. Further engineering studies to be 

undertaken as part of this EIR/EIS 

process will examine and refine 

alignments in the BNSF and UP 

corridors. The entire alignment would 

be grade separated from existing 

roadways. In addition, alternative sites 

for right-of-way maintenance, train 

storage facilities and a heavy 

maintenance and repair facility will be 

evaluated in the Merced to Bakersfield 

HST project area. 

The three preferred station locations 

selected by the Authority and FRA 

through the Bay Area to Central Valley 

HST Final Program-Level EIR/EIS will 

be evaluated in the Merced to 

Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS. These 

stations are downtown Merced, 

downtown Fresno, and downtown 

Bakersfield. Alternative station sites at 

or near the selected station locations 

may be identified and evaluated. A 

potential HST station to serve the 

11174 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 49 / Monday, March 16, 2009 / Notices 

Visalia/Hanford/Tulare area will also be 

evaluated in this Project EIR/EIS. 

Probable Effects: The purpose of the 

EIR/EIS process is to explore in a public 

setting the effects of the proposed 

project on the physical, human, and 

natural environment. The FRA and the 

Authority will continue the tiered 

evaluation of all significant 

environmental, social, and economic 

impacts of the construction and 

operation of the HST system. Impact 

areas to be addressed include 

transportation impacts; safety and 

security; land use and zoning; land 

acquisition, displacements, and 

relocations; agricultural land impacts; 

cumulative and secondary impacts; 

cultural resource impacts, including 

impacts on historical and archaeological 

resources and parklands/recreation 

areas; neighborhood compatibility and 

environmental justice; and natural 

resource impacts including air quality, 

wetlands, water resources, noise, 

vibration, energy, wildlife and 

ecosystems, including endangered 

species. Measures to avoid, minimize, 

and mitigate adverse impacts will be 

identified and evaluated. 

The Merced to Bakersfield HST 

Project EIR/EIS will be prepared in 

accordance with FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (64 

FR 28545 [May 26, 1999]) and will 

address not only NEPA and CEQA but 

will also address as necessary other 

applicable statutes, regulations, and 

executive orders, including the Clean 

Air Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act, Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) of 

the Department of Transportation Act, 

the Endangered Species Act, and 

Executive Order 12898 on 

Environmental Justice. 

This EIR/EIS process will also 

continue the NEPA/Clean Water Act 

Section 404 integration process 

established through the Statewide 

Program EIR/EIS process. The EIR/EIS 

will evaluate project alignment 

alternatives, and station and 

maintenance facility locations to 

support a determination of the Least 

Environmentally Damaging Practicable 

Alternative (‘‘LEDPA’’) by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. 

Scoping and Comments: FRA 

encourages broad participation in the 

EIS process during scoping and review 

of the resulting environmental 

documents. Comments are invited from 

all interested agencies and the public to 

ensure the full range of issues related to 

the proposed action and reasonable 

alternatives are addressed and all 

significant issues are identified. In 

particular, FRA is interested in 

determining whether there are areas of 

environmental concern where there 

might be a potential for significant sitespecific impacts. Public agencies with 

jurisdiction are requested to advise FRA 

and the Authority of the applicable 

permit and environmental review 

requirements of each agency, and the 

scope and content of the environmental 

information that is germane to the 

agency’s statutory responsibilities in 

connection with the proposed project. 

Public agencies are requested to advise 

FRA if they anticipate taking a major 

action in connection with the proposed 

project and if they wish to cooperate in 

the preparation of the Project EIR/EIS. 

Public scoping meetings have been 

scheduled as an important component 

of the scoping process for both the State 

and Federal environmental review. The 

scoping meetings described in this 

Notice will also be the subject of 

additional public notification. 

FRA is seeking participation and 

input of all interested Federal, State, 

and local agencies, Native American 

groups, and other concerned private 

organizations or individuals on the 

scope of the EIR/EIS. Implementation of 

the Merced to Bakersfield section of the 

HST system is a Federal undertaking 

with the potential to affect historic 

properties. As such, it is subject to the 

requirements of section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f). In accordance 

with regulations issued by the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, 36 

CFR part 800, FRA intends to coordinate 

compliance with section 106 of this Act 

with the preparation of the EIR/EIS, 

beginning with the identification of 

consulting parties through the scoping 

process, in a manner consistent with the 

standards set out in 36 CFR 800.8. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 

2009. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

[FR Doc. E9–5579 Filed 3–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0118; Notice 2] 

Continental Tire North America, Inc., 

Grant of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Continental Tire North America, Inc. 

(Continental), has determined that 

certain passenger car tires manufactured 

during December of 2007 and January of 

2008 did not fully comply with 

paragraph S5.5(e) of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

139 New Pneumatic Radial Tires for 

Light Vehicles. Continental has filed an 

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) and the rule implementing 

those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, 

Continental has petitioned for an 

exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of 

the petition was published, with a 30- 

day public comment period, on June 26, 

2008 in the Federal Register (73 FR 

36371). No comments were received. To 

view the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System Web site at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the 

online search instructions to locate 

docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2008–0118.’’ 

For further information on this 

decision, contact Mr. George Gillespie, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–5299, facsimile (202) 366– 

7002. 

Affected are approximately 1,925 size 

255/60R17 106 H Continental 

CrossContact LX ETRTO passenger car 

tires manufactured in Continental’s 

Mount Vernon, Illinois plant during 

December of 2007 and January of 2008. 

Paragraph S5.5(e) of FMVSS No. 139 

requires in pertinent part: 

S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in 

paragraphs (a) through (i) of S5.5, each tire 

must be marked on each sidewall with the 

information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) 

and on one sidewall with the information 

specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to 

the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this 

standard. The markings must be placed 

between the maximum section width and the 

bead on at least one sidewall, unless the 

maximum section width of the tire is located 

in an area that is not more than one-fourth 

of the distance from the bead to the shoulder 

of the tire. If the maximum section width 

falls within that area, those markings must 

appear between the bead and a point one-half 

the distance from the bead to the shoulder of 

the tire, on at least one sidewall. The 

markings must be in letters and numerals not 

less than 0.078 inches high and raised above 

or sunk below the tire surface not less than 

0.015 inches * * *. 

(e) The generic name of each cord material 

used in the plies (both sidewall and tread 

area) of the tire; * * *. 

Continental explains that the 

noncompliance is that the sidewall 

marking incorrectly identifies the