22066 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices

This memorandum shall be published

in the Federal Register.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Colin L. Powell,

Secretary of State, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 01–11015 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements

filed during week ending April 20,

2001.

The following Agreements were filed

with the Department of Transportation

under provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sections

412 and 414. Answers may be filed

within 21 days after the filing of the

applications.

Docket Number: OST–2001–9480.

Date Filed: April 19, 2001.

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association.

Subject: PTC2 AFR 0104 dated 17

April 2001 Mail Vote 121—Resolution

010y. TC2 Within Africa Special

Passenger Amending Resolution from

Botswana to Malawi. Intended effective

date: 1 May 2001.

Docket Number: OST–2001–9499.

Date Filed: April 20, 2001.

Parties: Members of the International

Air Transport Association.

Subject: PTC12 NMS–AFR 0105 dated

26 March 2001 (Mail Vote 119). North

Atlantic-Africa Resolutions r21-r22.

PTC12 NMS–AFR 0111 dated April

2001 adopting (Mail Vote 119).

Minutes—PTC12 NMS–AFR 0107 dated

30 March 2001. Summary of Agreement

(Applicable to/from USA, US

Territories). Description of Agreement

(Not Applicable to/from US, USA

Territories). Tables—PTC12 NMS–AFR

Fares 0061 dated 20 April 2001.

Intended effective date: 1 May 2001.

Dorothy Y. Beard,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 01–10968 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates

of Public Convenience and Necessity

and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed

Under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q)

during the Week Ending April 20, 2001

The following Applications for

Certificates of Public Convenience and

Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier

Permits were filed under Subpart B

(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department

of Transportation’s Procedural

Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et

seq.). The due date for Answers,

Conforming Applications, or Motions to

Modify Scope are set forth below for

each application. Following the Answer

period, DOT may process the

application by expedited procedures.

Such procedures may consist of the

adoption of a show-cause order, a

tentative order, or in appropriate cases

a final order without further

proceedings.

Docket Number: OST–2001–9455.

Date Filed: April 17, 2001.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming

Applications, or Motion to Modify

Scope: May 8, 2001.

Description: Application of Kuwait

Airways Corporation, pursuant to

Section 402(c), 14 CFR Parts 211 and

377, and Subpart B, requesting renewal

of its foreign air carrier permit,

authorizing Kuwait Airways to engage

in scheduled air transportation and

charter operations of persons, property

and mail between the State of Kuwait

and the United States.

Docket Number: OST–2001–9484.

Date Filed: April 19, 2001.

Due Date for Answers, Conforming

Applications, or Motion to Modify

Scope: May 10, 2001.

Description: Application of Singapore

Airlines Cargo PTE Limited, pursuant to

49 U.S.C. Section 41301 and Subpart B,

requesting a foreign air carrier permit to

provide scheduled and nonscheduled

foreign air transportation of property

and mail on any and all routes

authorized pursuant to the April 8,

1997, Air Transportation Service

Agreement between the Government of

the United States and the Government

of the Republic of Singapore on the

following routes: from points behind

Singapore via Singapore and

intermediate points to a point or points

in the United States and beyond, and

between the United States and any point

or points.

Dorothy Y. Beard,

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 01–10967 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement:

Marin and Sonoma County, CA

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

notice to advise the public that an

Environmental Impact Statement will be

prepared for a proposed highway project

in Marin and Sonoma County,

California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

C. Glenn Clinton, Team Leader, Project

Delivery Team-North, Federal Highway

Administration, 980 9th Street, Suite

400, Sacramento, California 95814–

2724, Telephone: (916) 498–5020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA in cooperation with the

California Department of Transportation

(Caltrans) will prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS)

for a proposal to relieve recurring traffic

congestion and to reduce high

occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane user

delay on US 101 between State Route 37

in Marin County and the Old Redwood

Highway Interchange in Sonoma

County, a distance of approximately

27.5 kilometers (16 miles). The

proposed project is an important

component of a comprehensive, multimodal transportation plan.

The Marin-Sonoma Narrows Project

proposes to extend the existing high

occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane system in

Marin County northward into southern

Sonoma County. Alternatives under

consideration include: (1) taking no

action; (2) addition of a northbound and

a southbound high occupancy vehicle

(HOV) lane; (3) constructing a reversible

HOV lane; and (4) construction of high

occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. The project

proposes conversion of existing

expressway to access-controlled freeway

and the addition and/or upgrade of

intersections. Additional alternatives

and design options will be developed

during public scoping meetings.

Information describing the proposed

action and soliciting comments will be

sent to appropriate Federal, State, and

local agencies, and to private

organizations and citizens who have

previously expressed or are known to

have interest in this proposal. Public

scoping meetings will be held in Marin

County and in Sonoma County in late

spring and early summer 2001. A public

hearing will be held later in the

environmental process, after the draft

environmental impact statement (DEIS)

is completed. Public notice will be

given of the time and place of the

meetings and hearing. The draft EIS will

be available for public and agency

review and comment prior to the public

hearing.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to this proposed action are

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)