Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Notices 26473

Region/State/TMA Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept.

Region 9

California:

Fresno ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 14–15 ........... ........... ...........

Los Angeles ................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 12–14

Stockton ...................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 13–14 ........... ...........

Hawaii: Honolulu (EPR

January 9–12, 1995) ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........

Region 10

Oregon: Portland ............... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 19–21 ........... ........... ...........

Washington:

Seattle (EPR Week of

May 8–12, 1995) ..... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........

Vancouver ................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 19–21 ........... ........... ...........

Note: ‘‘X’’ indicates month of certification review; dates are specified where they are scheduled.

*Enhanced Planning Reviews (EPR) generally are scheduled for approximately 3-4 days during a given week.

Guidance and Responsibility

The FHWA and the FTA published

guidance on the certification of

planning processes (59 FR 42873). The

guidance indicated that the primary

responsibility for the certification

process rested with the respective

regional offices of the FHWA and the

FTA. The preparatory work and analysis

would be conducted by the appropriate

division office of the FHWA or regional

office of FTA, as a prelude to a site visit

by representatives of both agencies to

the metropolitan planning area to be

certified. During the site visit, the

FHWA and FTA representatives would,

in addition to meeting with

representatives of the MPO, State DOTs,

and transit agencies serving the

metropolitan planning area, also

provide an opportunity to meet with

citizens and elected local officials of the

principal local governments in the area.

The purpose of these meetings is to

afford the officials and citizens an

opportunity to provide input to the

certification decision in terms of the

performance of the planning process.

As indicated above, the MPO and/or

State DOT or transit operator may make

arrangements for these meetings through

their normal procedures. Other

alternatives are acceptable based on

arrangements between the Federal

agencies and the appropriate

transportation planning agencies.

Officials and citizens wishing to obtain

information regarding the process of

providing input should contact the MPO

for the metropolitan planning areas

identified above. Alternatively, the

Transportation Planner or Planning and

Research Engineer for the appropriate

Division office of the FHWA also can

provide this information. Each FHWA

Division office is located in or near the

capitol of each State.

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48;

Pub. L. 102–240, Sections 1024, 1025 and

3012; 105 Stat. 1914, 1955, 1962, and 2098.

Issued on: May 10, 1995.

Gordon J. Linton,

Administrator, Federal Transit

Administration.

Rodney E. Slater,

Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–12164 Filed 5–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

Federal Transit Administration

Environmental Impact Statement:

Peninsula Commute Service San

Francisco Downtown Extension (PCS–

DTX) Project in the San Francisco Bay

Area, California

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration,

DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit

Administration (FTA), in cooperation

with the Penninsula Corridor Joint

Powers Board (PCJPB), is resuming

preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement for the PCS-DTX in

accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The

PCJPB will ensure that the EIS also

satisfies the requirements of the

California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA). The NEPA Lead Agency will be

FTA. The CEQA Lead Agency will be

the PCJPB.

The Peninsula Commute Service,

commonly referred to as CalTrain, is the

commuter rail system that serves the

San Francisco Peninsula between Gilroy

and the existing terminal station in San

Francisco located at Fourth and

Townsend Streets. The present location

of the terminal is not considered

desirable from a transportation, land

use, or public policy perspective. The

prosposed project would extend

CalTrain to a new station closer to

downtown San Francisco.

The project was determined by the

Bay Area Partnership, a body of

transportation officials representing

different modes, regulatory agencies and

federal agencies, to belong in the

category of projects ‘‘requiring a Major

Investment Study (MIS) but may be

satisfied by prior studies’’. The

consultation group convened to discuss

MIS requirements for this project agreed

that past corridor studies such as

PENTAP, SCR 74, BART/SFO AA/DEIS,

and the MTC/JPBCalTrain Downtown

Extension/System Upgrades Study

satisfy MIS requirements and that the

project could advance into preliminary

engineering and environmental

documentation.

DATES: Written comments on the

alternatives and impacts to be

considered must be postmarked no later

than June 15, 1995, and send to PCJPB

at the address below. Two public

informational meetings will be held

June 21, 1995 at 10 AM-noon and 5:30

PM-7:30 PM in Auditorium B, Golden

Gate University, 536 Mission Street, San

Francisco 94105. These meetings will

mark the resumption of environmental

studies and preparation of the EIS/EIR

(see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

below).

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to Ms. Marie Pang,

Environmental Manager, PCS-DTX

Project, Peninsula Corridor JPB, P.O.

Box 3006, San Carlos, CA 94070–1306.

Phone: (415) 508–6338.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert Hom, Director, Program

Development, FTA Region IX, 201

Mission Street, San Francisco, CA

94105. Phone: (415) 744–3116.
26474 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Scoping

A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS

was previously published in the Federal

Register on January 18, 1989. The

Scoping Process began with two public

scoping meetings on February 15, 1989.

An Administrative Draft EIS was

prepared in 1991 but was not circulated

due to lack of local funding

commitments for the project.

The project was held in abeyance

until March, 1993, when the PCJPB

conducted four public meetings to

solicit public input on key project

issues, including which alternatives

deserved further consideration. As a

result, the PCJPB, jointly with the

Metropolitan Transportation

Commission (MTC), conducted a study

to develop fundable extension

alternatives and system upgrades that

could be recommended by the PCJPB for

inclusion in the MTC’s financially

constrained Regional Transportation

Plan (RTP). The study evaluated nine

alternatives and the results were

reviewed in public meetings. In March,

1994, the PCJPB designated Alternative

8B (extension of CalTrain to an

underground terminal at Beale and

Market Streets) of that study as the

Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for

inclusion in the RTP. This alternative

was subsequently included in the 1994

RTP adopted by MTC after extensive

public review. The PCJPB is now

resuming environmental studies for the

preparation of a Draft EIS/EIR for public

review and comment.

The public informational meetings

will announce resumption of

environmental studies. The

environmental process will be outlined,

and the public will be invited to become

involved in this process through the

Public Participation/Consensus

Building Program that will be

implemented for this project. The public

will be invited to comment on all

aspects of the project, including

alignments, station design, and the

environmental, social and economic

impacts to be analyzed. The public will

also be notified of future informational

meetings and workshops as the studies

progress.

II. Description of Study Area

The Peninsula Commute Service

traverses three counties (San Francisco,

San Mateo, and Santa Clara) from San

Francisco to Gilroy for a distance of

approximately 77 miles. However, most

of the proposed project is located in the

City of San Francisco, in an area

generally bounded by Market Street, the

Embarcadero, China Basin Channel,

Sixteenth Street, Seventh Street, Bryant

Street and Second Street. The primary

east-west corridors are along Brannan,

Townsend and King Streets; primary

north-south corridors are along Beale

Street and Colin P. Kelly/Essex Streets

(to the Transbay Terminal). The

proposed station location is at Beale and

Market Streets; however, the existing

Transbay Transit Terminal location will

also be evaluated in the envent the LPA

location proves infeasible.

III. Alternatives

Three alternatives with sub-options

emerged from the evaluation and public

involvement processes conducted

previously. These alternatives will be

evaluated in the DEIS/DEIR as follows:

• Alternative 1—No Build. The San

Francisco station would remain at 4th

and Townsend.

• Alternative 2 (The Proposed Project

[LPA])—CalTrain would be extended to

a station at Beale and Market Streets

with the following routing and fuel

options:

Option A—CalTrain would be routed

on the surface along Townsend Street to

4th Street, underground via cut and

cover under public streets from 4th

Street to Market and Beale Streets. King

and Brannan Streets, would be

considered should Townsend Street

prove infeasible. Full system

electrification is included in this option.

Option B—Same as Option A, except

existing locomotives with diesel power

would be used or would be converted to

liquified natural gas.

Option C—Same as Option A, except

that a direct mined or bored tunnel

alignment would be used from

approximately 3rd Street to

approximately Harrison and Beale

Streets under private properties in the

South Beach Area.

• Alternative 3—CalTrain would be

extended to a station at the existing

Transbay Transit Terminal location. The

PCS would be routed on the surface

along Townsend Street, underground

via cut and cover and/or mined tunnel

to Folsom/Essex Streets and from there

to a new or rehabilitated Transbay

Transit Terminal. King or Brannan

Streets would be considered should

Townsend prove infeasible. Full system

electrification is included in this

alternative.

IV. Probable Effects

Impacts proposed for analysis include

changes in the physical environment

(air quality, noise, water quality,

geology, visual); changes in the social

environment (land use, business

disruptions, and neighborhoods);

changes in traffic and pedestrian

circulation; impacts on parklands and

historic sites; changes in transit service

and partonage; associated changes in

highway congestion; capital, operating

and maintenance costs; and financial

implications. Impacts will be identified

both for the construction period and for

the long term operation of the

alternatives. The proposed evaluation

criteria include transportation,

environmental, social, economic and

financial measures as required by

current Federal (NEPA) and State

(CEQA) environmental laws and current

Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) and FTA guidelines. Mitigating

measures will be explored for adverse

impacts that are identified.

Issued on: May 12, 1995.

Stewart F. Taylor,

Region IX Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–12165 Filed 5–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–57–M

Maritime Administration

[Docket S–920]

Kadampanattu Corp.; Notice of

Application for Temporary Written

Consent Pursuant to Section 506 of the

Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as

Amended, for the Temporary Transfer

of the M/V STRONG/AMERICAN to the

Domestic Trade

Notice is hereby given that Allen

Freight Trailer Bridge (ATFB), by letter

of April 25, 1995, requested written

consent pursuant to section 506 of the

Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended

(Act), to temporarily transfer during the

year commencing October 31, 1995, the

construction-differential subsidy (CDS)

built, M/V STRONG/AMERICAN,

exclusively to the domestic trade for a

period not to exceed six months in any

year period. The M/V STRONG/

AMERICAN is an integrated tug barge

unit, built in the United States with the

aid of CDS, and owned by

Kadampanattu Corp., an affiliate of

ATFB.

ATFB states that it operates a weekly

RO/RO barge service between

Jacksonville, Florida, and San Juan,

Puerto Rico, utilizing two RO/RO barges

owned by Kadampanattu Corp., the

JAX-SAN JUAN BRIDGE and SAN

JUAN-JAX BRIDGE. Each of these barges

will require regulatory drydocking and

repairs prior to February 28, 1996.

AFTB explains that the M/V

STRONG/AMERICAN has a capacity

equivalent of 56 percent of the RO/RO

barges to be drydocked. The STRONG/

AMERICAN will require drydocking at

considerable expense before it can be