Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices 22067

addressed and all significant issues

identified, comments, and suggestions

are invited from all interested parties.

Comments or questions concerning this

proposed action and the EIS should be

directed to the FHWA at the address

provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning

and Construction. Regulations implementing

Executive Order 12372 regarding

intergovernmental consultation on Federal

programs and activities apply to this

program.)

Issued on: April 23, 2001.

C. Glenn Clinton,

Team Leader, Program Delivery Team, North

Sacramento, California.

[FR Doc. 01–10891 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement for the California High

Speed Train System

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), U.S. Department

of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to

advise the public that FRA will join the

California High Speed Rail Authority

(Authority) in the preparation of a

programmatic environmental impact

statement (EIS) and programmatic

environmental impact report (EIR) for

the California High-Speed Train System.

FRA is also issuing this notice to solicit

public and agency input into the

development of the scope of the EIR/EIS

and to advise the public that outreach

activities conducted by the Authority

and its representatives will be

considered in the preparation of the

EIR/EIS. Alternatives to be evaluated

and analyzed in the Programmatic EIR/

EIS include (1) take no action (NoProject or No-Build); (2) construction of

a steel-wheel-on-steel-rail or Maglev

high-speed train system and stations;

and (3) modal alternatives that would

include a combination of air, highway,

and conventional passenger rail

improvements. Possible environmental

impacts include displacement of

commercial and residential properties;

disproportionate impacts to minority

and low-income populations;

community and neighborhood

disruption; increased noise and electromagnetic interference along rail

corridors; traffic impacts associated

with stations; effects to historic

properties or archaeological sites;

impacts to parks and recreation

resources; visual quality effects;

exposure to seismic and flood hazards;

impacts to water resources, wetlands,

and sensitive biological species and

habitat; land use compatibility impacts;

energy use; and impacts to agricultural

lands.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information regarding the

programmatic environmental review,

please contact: Mr. John Barna, Deputy

Director of the California High-Speed

Rail Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425,

Sacramento, CA 95814, (telephone 916–

322–0827) or Mr. David Valenstein,

Environmental Program Manager, Office

of Passenger Programs, Federal Railroad

Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue

(Mail Stop 20), Washington, DC 20590,

(telephone 202 493–6368).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Authority has determined that the need

for a high-speed train system is directly

related to the expected growth in

population and resulting increases in

intercity travel demand in California

over the next twenty years and beyond.

As a result of this growth in travel

demand, there will be increases in travel

delays from the growing congestion on

California’s highways and at airports. In

addition, there will be effects on the

economy and quality of life from a

transportation system that is less and

less reliable as travel demand increases

and from deteriorating air quality in and

around California’s metropolitan areas.

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 in order to meet existing

demand and future growth. The

proposed high-speed train system

would provide a new mode of highspeed intercity travel that would link

the 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.

Background

The California High-Speed Rail

Commission, established in 1993 to

investigate the feasibility of high-speed

rail in California, concluded that a highspeed train system is technically,

environmentally, and economically

feasible and set forth recommendations

for the technology, corridors, financing,

and operations of a proposed system.

Following the Commission’s work, a

new nine-member California HighSpeed Rail Authority (Authority) was

established in 1996 and is authorized

and directed by statute to undertake the

planning for the development of a

proposed statewide high-speed train

network that is fully coordinated with

other public transportation services. The

Legislature has granted the Authority

the powers necessary to oversee the

construction and operation of a

statewide high-speed train network once

financing is secured. As part of the

Authority’s efforts to implement a highspeed train system, the Authority

adopted a Final Business Plan in June

2000, which reviewed the economic

feasibility of a 700-mile-long high-speed

train system capable of speeds in excess

of 200 miles per hour on a dedicated,

fully grade-separated state-of-the-art

track. 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 California

proposal, the FRA would need to take

certain regulatory actions before any

new high-speed train system could

operate.

Alternatives

An initial system alternatives

evaluation will consider all reasonable

system alternatives at a broad level of

analysis. This analysis will be followed

by a more detailed consideration of the

most practical and feasible alternatives

in the Programmatic EIR/EIS. The

alternatives will include:

No-Build Alternative

The take no action (No-Project or NoBuild) alternative is defined to serve as

the baseline for comparison of all

alternatives. The No-Build Alternative

represents the state’s transportation

system (highway, air, and conventional

rail) as it existed in 1999–2000, and as

it would exist after completion of

programs or projects currently planned

for funding and implementation by

2020.

The No-Build Alternative defines the

existing and future statewide intercity

transportation system based on

programmed and funded improvements

to the intercity transportation system

through 2020, according to 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

(Amtrak Five- and Twenty-year Plans)

22068 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices

High-Speed Train Alternative

The Authority has defined a 700-milelong (1,126-kilometer-long) high-speed

train system capable of speeds in excess

of 200 miles per hour (mph) (320

kilometers per hour [km/h]) on

dedicated, fully grade-separated tracks,

with state-of-the-art safety, signaling,

and automated train control systems.

Both steel-wheel-on-steel-rail and

magnetic levitation (maglev) train

technologies are being considered for

the system that would serve the major

metropolitan centers of California,

extending from Sacramento and the San

Francisco Bay Area, through the Central

Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego.

The Authority has identified highspeed train corridors and station

locations in their 2000 Business Plan.

Within these corridors, there are several

potential alignment and station location

options that will undergo a screening

evaluation prior to detailed

environmental and engineering

technical studies. In heavily constrained

urban areas, alignment options that

assume sharing corridors and/or tracks

with other passenger rail services will

also be considered. The high-speed train

corridors are defined as follows:

San Diego To Los Angeles: Mainline

service connecting Los Angeles and San

Diego would follow either an inland

route (along existing transportation

corridors) and/or a coastal route (along

the existing LOSSAN corridor). The

inland route runs from Los Angeles

Union Station to Riverside along

existing rail corridors and new rights-ofway, continuing to San Diego along the

I–15/I–215 Corridor. The coastal route

extends from Los Angeles Union Station

to San Diego along the existing LOSSAN

rail corridor. A link between Los

Angeles Union Station and Los Angeles

International Airport (LAX) will also be

studied.

Los Angeles To Bakersfield: From Los

Angeles Union Station to Santa Clarita,

existing rail corridors would be

followed. There are two corridors

crossing the Tehachapi Mountains, the

first links Bakersfield to Los Angeles via

the I–5 Grapevine Corridor. The second

corridor connects Bakersfield and Los

Angeles through the Antelope Valley

(Palmdale).

Bakersfield To Sacramento: Between

Bakersfield and Sacramento, specific

options to be evaluated will include

minimizing impacts to prime

agricultural lands, utilizing existing rail

corridors, and serving downtown

stations or airports in Bakersfield and

Fresno.

Merced To Bay Area: From the

vicinity of Merced in the Central Valley,

the alignment would follow the Pacheco

Pass to Gilroy. From Gilroy to San Jose,

the alignment would follow the existing

Caltrain corridor. North of San Jose,

mainline service would continue to

follow the existing Caltrain corridor

along the peninsula to San Francisco

and/or existing rail corridors in the East

Bay to Oakland.

Stations: Station placement would be

determined on the basis of ridership

potential, system-wide needs, and local

planning constraints/conditions. Station

placement will be coordinated with

local and regional planning agencies,

and will provide for seamless

connectivity with other modes of travel.

Potential station locations to be

evaluated in the screening evaluation

prior to detailed environmental and

engineering technical studies in the

Programmatic EIR/EIS include: San

Diego, Mira Mesa, Escondido,

Temecula, Riverside, Ontario

International Airport (ONT), East San

Gabriel Valley, University Town Center

(La Jolla), Oceanside, Irvine, Anaheim,

Norwalk, Los Angeles International

Airport (LAX), Los Angeles Union

Station, Burbank, Santa Clarita,

Palmdale, Bakersfield, Tulare County/

Visalia, Fresno, Merced, Modesto,

Stockton, Sacramento, Los Banos,

Gilroy, San Jose, Redwood City, San

Francisco International Airport (SFO),

San Francisco, Fremont/Newark,

Oakland International Airport (OAK),

and Oakland. The potential sites listed

represent general locations for planning

purposes.

Other Modal Alternatives

There are currently three main

options for intercity travel between the

major urban areas of San Diego, Los

Angeles, the Central Valley, San Jose,

Oakland/San Francisco, and

Sacramento: vehicles on the highway

system, commercial air service, and

conventional passenger trains (Amtrak).

The FRA and the Authority will

evaluate a set of Modal/System

Alternatives consisting of expansion of

highways, airports, and intercity and

commuter rail systems serving the

markets identified for the High-Speed

Train Alternative at a similar level of

investment. The modal alternatives will

be defined by assigning the expected

incremental travel demand forecasted

for the horizon years of 2020 and 2040

to the state’s transportation

infrastructure, then identifying

alternatives for accommodating that

travel demand without a high-speed

train system.

Scoping and Comments

FRA encourages broad participation

in the EIS process during scoping and

review of the resulting environmental

documents. Comments and suggestions

are invited from all interested agencies

and the public at large to insure the full

range of issues related to the proposed

action and all 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 the potential for

significant impacts identifiable at a

program level. Public agencies with

jurisdiction are requested to advise the

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.

A statewide scoping meeting is

scheduled for 1:00—3:30 p.m. on

Tuesday, April 24, 2001 in Sacramento,

California, at 1416 Ninth Street. Scoping

meetings will be advertised locally and

are planned for the following major

cities along the planned 700-mile-long

high-speed train corridor alternatives at

the dates and times indicated:

• Oakland on April 25—Oakland City

Hall, Council Chambers, 3rd Floor One

Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland 94612,

from 11 a.m.–12:30 p.m. and in Hearing

Rm. 3 from 6:00–8 p.m.

• Bakersfield on April 30—Kern

County Administration Building, 1115

Truxtun Ave., Bakersfield 93301, from

3:00–5 p.m. and from 6:00–8 p.m.

• Los Angeles on May 2—Japanese/

American National Museum, 369 East

First St., Los Angeles 90012, from 4:00–

6 p.m. and from 6:30–9 p.m.

• Fresno on May 7—Fresno City Hall,

2600 Fresno St., Fresno 93721 from

3:00–5 p.m. and from 6:00–8 p.m.

• Riverside on May 8—Riverside

Convention Center, La Sierra Rm., 3443

Orange St., Riverside 92501, from 6:30–

9 p.m.

• San Diego on May 10—San Diego

Association of Governments, Main

Boardroom, 401 B St., Suite 800, San

Diego 92101, from 2:30–4 p.m. and at

the University Town Center, Forum

Room, 4545 La Jolla Village Dr., Suite

E25, San Diego 92122, from 6:00–8:30

p.m

• Modesto on May 14—Modesto City/

County Administration Building, 1010

Tenth St., Modesto 95354, from 3:00–5

p.m. and from 6:00–8 p.m.

• San Jose on May 15—Berger Drive

Facility, Auditorium, 1555 Berger Dr.,

San Jose 95112, from 1:30–3 p.m. and

from 6:00–8 p.m.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices 22069

• Irvine on May 23—Irvine Civic

Center, Conference and Training Center,

One Civic Center Plaza, Irvine 92623,

from 3:00–5 p.m. and from 6:00–8 p.m.

Persons interested in providing

comments on the scope of the

programmatic EIR/EIS should do so by

May 31, 2001. Comments can be sent in

writing to Mr. David Valenstein at the

FRA address identified above.

Comments may also be addressed to Mr.

John Barna of the Authority at their

address identified above. Information

and documents regarding the

environmental review process will also

be made available through the

Authority’s Internet site: [http://

www.cahighspeedrail.gov/].

Signed on Thursday, April 19, 2001.

Mark E. Yachmetz,

Associate Administrator for Railroad

Development.

[FR Doc. 01–10903 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3848; Notice 4]

Beall Trailers of Washington, Inc.;

Grant of Petition for Renewal of

Temporary Exemption From Federal

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224

This notice grants the petition by

Beall Trailers of Washington, Inc., of

Kent, Washington (‘‘Beall’’), a whollyowned subsidiary of Beall Corporation,

for a renewal of the temporary

exemption we granted it in July 1998

from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 224 Rear Impact

Protection. The basis of the petition is

that compliance would cause

substantial economic hardship to a

manufacturer that has tried in good faith

to comply with the standard.

Notice of receipt of the petition was

published on January 20, 2000, and an

opportunity afforded for comment (65

FR 3267).

On July 8, 1998, we granted Beall’s

initial exemption petition, assigning it

NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. 98–

5, expiring July 1, 1999 (63 FR 36989).

On April 20, 1999, we received Beall’s

application for renewal , which was

filed in time to stay the expiration date

of the exemption, as provided by 49

CFR 555.8(e). Following our request,

Beall provided more current financial

and production information on October

28, 1999 to supplement its new petition.

Beall manufactures and sells dump

body trailers. It (identified in the

petition as ‘‘Truckweld’’) produced a

total of 311 trailers in 1997, of which

124 were dump body types. Truckweld

trailer production in 1998 was down to

135 units but the number of dump body

types was not stated.

Standard No. 224 requires, effective

January 26, 1998, that all trailers with a

GVWR of 4536 Kg or more, including

dump body types, be fitted with a rear

impact guard that conforms to Standard

No. 223 Rear impact guards. Beall

argued earlier that ‘‘alterations may

have to be made to the trailer chassis or

even raising the dump box to provide

space for the retractable guard,’’

indicating that a guard that retracts

when the dump body is in operation is

the solution it is seeking in order to

comply. During the time that its

exemption has been in effect, Beall

‘‘has, in good faith, made attempts to

design a compliant device.’’ It states that

it has developed ‘‘a number of potential

designs’’ including an articulating

design, but ‘‘these devices * * * do not

meet FMVSS 224, have interferences

with paving equipment, or have severe

maintenance issues.’’ The company is

still testing hinged, retractable devices

but three issues must be overcome.

First, space for a retracted device is not

readily available ‘‘due to the clearance

issues in connecting to pavers.’’ Raising

the box also raises the center of gravity

and reduces the stability of the trailers

‘‘thereby endangering others.’’ Second,

‘‘asphalt service will, over a period of

time, render such devices unusable.’’

Finally, ‘‘it would be possible to operate

a trailer with these type (sic) of devices

in the retracted position, therefore not

in compliance.’’ It will continue its

efforts to conform during the three-year

exemption period it has requested.

If a renewal of the exemption is not

granted, substantial economic hardship

will result. First, it would lose a trailer

that accounts for 40 percent of its

overall production. In addition, ‘‘some

percentage of the remaining 60% would

be lost since our customers typically

purchase matching truck mounted

dump bodies which may also be lost.’’

It also believes that 31 of its 63

employees would have to be laid off if

its application is denied. It argues that

maintenance of full employment would

be in the public interest . Beall’s net

income was $39,317 in fiscal year 1995,

$72,213 in 1996, $697,040 before

income taxes in 1997, and $326,255 in

1998.

One comment was received on the

petition, from Pioneer Truck Equipment

of Salem, Oregon, which opposed it.

Pioneer, a manufacturer of ‘‘multi axle

dump body trailers,’’ argues that Beall’s

exemption has given it a competitive

advantage. It believes that Beall’s

petition should be denied, or,

alternatively, that there be ‘‘a blanket

exemption for all affected

manufacturers.’’ In considering whether

to grant a temporary exemption,

however, the test we must apply is

whether denying an exemption would

cause substantial economic hardship to

a manufacturer that has tried in good

faith to comply.

Beall is a small volume manufacturer

by any standard, producing only 135

units in the year preceding the filing of

its application for renewal. Its net

income at that point was $326,255. We

note that this figure reflects Beall’s

financial situation during the first year

that Standard No. 224 and its exemption

was in effect. This new income was

substantially lower than the previous

year, before Standard No. 224’s effective

date, when it was $697,040 (which,

however, was more than six times the

combined net income for the two years

prior to that). While the company is not

showing net losses, its average net

income over the four-year period 1995–

98 is roughly $284,000. If we assume

that Beall’s net income is reduced 50%

if an exemption is not granted, the

possible result is a net income of only

$142,000. In the meantime, it must

continue to expend resources in

searching for means to conform to

Standard No. 224 within the strictures

of reduced income. The company

assures us that it has been testing

hinged, retractable devices, but reports

that it continues to experience

difficulty. An exemption will be in the

public interest because it will allow it

to retain full employment. The effect

upon safety will be minimal due to the

low volume of production.

In consideration of the foregoing, we

hereby find that the petitioner has met

its burden of persuasion that

compliance would cause substantial

economic hardship to a manufacturer

that has tried to meet the standard in

good faith, and that a temporary

exemption would be in the public

interest and consistent with the

objectives of motor vehicle safety. Given

the facts that more than two years have

passed between our receipt of Beall’s

petition and our decision to grant it, and

that Beall has continued to manufacture

its trailers as allowed by the tolled

expiration date, we are providing an

exemption until August 1, 2001, which,

is in effect, slightly more than a twoyear exemption. In view of the comment

from Pioneer, we are not providing the

three-year exemption Beall requested. If

Beall has still not achieved compliance,

this exemption period should be

sufficient to allow the company to file