Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 31835 

environmental documents prepared by 

another Federal agency when the 

proposed actions are ‘‘substantially the 

same’’ and the adopting agency has 

concluded that the initial statement 

meets the standards for an adequate 

statement under the CEQ regulations. 40 

CFR 1506.3. Furthermore, the CEQ 

regulations state that when the actions 

are substantially the same, ‘‘the agency 

adopting the agency’s statement is not 

required to recirculate it except as a 

final statement.’’ Id. FRA has conducted 

an independent review of the 2004 EIS 

for the purpose of determining whether 

FRA could adopt it pursuant to 40 CFR 

1506.3. FRA’s review concluded that 

FRA’s action in funding the train box is 

substantially the same as the action 

documented in the 2004 EIS, that the 

EIS adequately assessed the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the train box and meets the standards of 

the CEQ NEPA Regulations (40 CFR 

parts 1500 through1508), and that the 

FRA can adopt the 2004 EIS. CEQ’s 

regulations implementing NEPA 

strongly encourage agencies to reduce 

paperwork and duplication. 40 CFR 

1500.4. One of the methods identified 

by CEQ to accomplish this goal is 

adopting the environmental documents 

prepared by other agencies in 

appropriate circumstances. 40 CFR 

1500.4(n), 1500.5(h), and 1506.3. 

In order to comply with its obligations 

under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 

et seq., the FRA also intends to join the 

existing Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) between the FTA and the 

California State Historic Preservation 

Officer. That MOA describes the roles 

and responsibilities of the parties and 

will allow FRA to take into account the 

potential effect of the FRA’s action on 

historic properties pursuant to the 

requirements of Section 106. In 

addition, the 2004 EIS includes a final 

determination according to the 

requirements of Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966. 49 U.S.C. 303. Section 4(f) 

requires that projects undertaken by 

DOT must avoid using parks, 

recreational areas, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges, or public and private 

historical sites unless there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative, and the 

action includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm to the property. By 

adopting the 2004 EIS, the FRA is also 

adopting the FTA’s Final Section 4(f) 

Evaluation and will therefore be in 

compliance with the requirements of 

that statute. 

Furthermore, FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (64 

FR 28545, May 26, 1999) require the 

reevaluation of a Final EIS if major steps 

toward implementation of the proposed 

action have not commenced within 

three years from the date of approval of 

the final EIS. The reevaluation is 

required to determine whether the final 

EIS is still accurate, adequate and valid. 

As described above, the train box was 

an element of the 2004 EIS; however, 

design modifications to the train box 

occurred, and the Environmental 

Reevaluation provides an update to 

those sections for which new 

information is available that is pertinent 

to the proposed action in Phase 1 of the 

Transbay Terminal project. In 

accordance with the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) requirements 

regarding the filing of EISs, FRA has 

provided the EPA with a notice of 

adoption and five copies of the FTA’s 

Final EIS and the Environmental 

Reevaluation. EPA will publish a notice 

of availability of the Final EIS in the 

Federal Register consistent with its 

usual practices. Because of the multivolume size of the FEIS and its 

continued availability in libraries in the 

affected community and on the TJPA’s 

and FRA’s Web sites, FRA is not 

republishing the document on its own. 

This would be costly, defeat CEQ’s goals 

of reducing paperwork and duplication 

of effort, and be of little or no additional 

value to other agencies or the public. 

The Environmental Reevaluation is also 

available on the TJPA’s Web site 

(www.transbaycenter.org), on the FRA’s 

Web site (http://www.fra.dot.gov), and at 

libraries in San Francisco, San Bruno, 

and Oakland, California. FRA has 

mailed a notification of FRA’s adoption 

and identified places where the 2004 

EIS and the Environmental Reevaluation 

are available to persons and parties of 

record who have participated in the 

most recent phase of the 2004 EIS 

process, as well as to elected officials, 

local transit agencies, regional agencies, 

local media, and potentially interested 

community organizations. Comments on 

the 2004 EIS or the Environmental 

Reevaluation may be submitted no later 

than June 28, 2010 to Melissa DuMond 

at the address noted above. 

The final stage in the environmental 

review process under NEPA is the 

issuance of a Record of Decision by the 

agency describing the agency’s decision 

and the basis for it. Under the timelines 

included in the CEQ regulation (40 CFR 

1506.10), a Record of Decision cannot be 

issued by an agency earlier than thirty 

days after the EPA publishes its Federal 

Register notice notifying the public of 

the availability of the final EIS. Any 

Record of Decision issued by the FRA 

will be consistent with 40 CFR 1505.2 

and section 15 of FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts. 

Accordingly, FRA has adopted and is 

recirculating the 2004 EIS and has 

issued an Environmental Reevaluation. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 28, 

2010. 

Joseph C. Szabo, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13398 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: 

Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, MD 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this 

notice to advise the public that a prior 

Notice of Intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the proposed roadway widening and 

bridge replacement project in Calvert 

and St. Mary’s Counties, Maryland 

(Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 203; FR 

Doc. 07–5190) is being withdrawn and 

an Environmental Assessment (EA), in 

lieu of an EIS, is being prepared for this 

proposed highway project. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Jeanette Mar, Environmental Program 

Manager, Federal Highway 

Administration, DelMar Division Office, 

City Crescent Building, Suite 2450, 10 

South Howard Street, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21201; Telephone: (410) 779– 

7152, e-mail address: 

Jeanette.Mar@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), in cooperation with the 

Maryland State Highway 

Administration (SHA), is advising the 

general public that SHA conducted 

studies of the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

roadway widening and bridge 

replacement of MD 4 from MD 2 to MD 

235 in Calvert and St. Mary’s Counties, 

a distance of approximately 4.1 miles. 

Improvements to the corridor are 

necessary to improve existing capacity 

and traffic operations, and to increase 

vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle safety 

along MD 4, while supporting existing 

and planned development in the area. 

Improvements to the bridge are 

necessary due to inadequate shoulder 

widths, major traffic delays and/or 

closures currently occur along the 

Thomas Johnson Memorial Bridge 

during crashes and maintenance 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
31836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 

activities. In addition, the rate on MD 4 

from FDR Boulevard to MD 235, as well 

as the rear end collision rate across the 

Thomas Johnson Memorial Bridge, is 

greater than the statewide average. 

Alternatives under consideration 

include taking no action and widening 

existing MD 4 to a four-lane divided 

highway, with various options for 

bridge improvements and/or 

reconstruction. The EA will be available 

for public and agency review and 

comment prior to a Public Hearing. 

Public notice will be given of the 

availability of the EA for review and of 

the time and place of this hearing. A 

Scoping Meeting was held in May 2007, 

and two Open House Workshops were 

held in June 2008 to solicit opinions 

and ideas on proposed improvements 

from local citizens. 

To ensure that the full range of issues 

related to this proposed action are 

addressed and all significant issues 

identified, comments and suggestions 

are invited from all interested parties. 

Comments or questions concerning this 

proposed action and the determination 

that an EA is the proper environmental 

document should be directed to FHWA 

at the address provided above. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, 

Planning and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

Issued on May 27, 2010. 

Jeanette Mar, 

Environmental Program Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13399 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Tennessee Division: Notice To Rescind 

a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): 

State Route 91 Improvements in 

Elizabethton, Carter County, TN 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Rescind NOI to prepare an EIS. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this 

notice to advise the public that the NOI 

published on February 22, 2007, at 72 

FR 8054, to prepare an EIS for the State 

Route 91 Improvements in Elizabethton, 

Carter County, Tennessee, is being 

rescinded. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Charles J. O’Neill, Planning and 

Program Management Team leader, 

FHWA–Tennessee Division Office, 404 

BNA Drive, Suite 508, Nashville, TN 

37217. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

FHWA, in cooperation with the 

Tennessee Department of 

Transportation (TDOT) is rescinding the 

NOI to prepare an EIS for the State 

Route 91 Improvements in Elizabethton, 

Carter County, Tennessee. 

The proposed project calls for 

improving the State Route 91 corridor 

from west of State Route 362 to just west 

of State Route-37 (U.S. 19E), a distance 

of approximately four miles. The 

purpose of the project is to improve 

traffic flow, travel time, and mobility; 

reduce the conflicts between vehicles on 

State Route 91; and create an easily 

navigable route to area businesses along 

State Route 91. Since the NOI to prepare 

an EIS was published in the Federal 

Register on February 22, 2007, TDOT 

has conducted public involvement and 

agency coordination, developed a 

purpose and need for the project, and 

developed preliminary alternatives to be 

examined in the EIS. The preliminary 

alternatives included No-Build, a 

Transportation System Management 

(TSM) alternative, build alternatives 

that would construct a roadway on new 

locations to the north and to the south 

of the existing roadway, and an upgrade 

to existing State Route 91. Preliminary 

screenings identified sensitive 

environmental features associated with 

new location alternatives that could 

result in potentially significant adverse 

impacts. 

FHWA and TDOT have determined 

that a combination of TSM and upgrade 

improvements along existing State 

Route 91 would meet the need and 

purpose of the project and could be 

accomplished without potentially 

significant adverse impacts to sensitive 

environmental features. FHWA and 

TDOT will evaluate these improvements 

of State Route 91 along the existing 

route as a Categorical Exclusion. 

Comments and questions concerning 

the proposed action should be directed 

to FHWA at the address provided above. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

proposed program.) 

Charles J. O’Neill, 

Planning and Program Management Team 

Leader, Nashville, TN. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13428 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

Withdrawal of Regulatory Guidance 

Concerning the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Regulations 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal of regulatory 

guidance. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces the 

withdrawal of a number of items of 

regulatory guidance concerning the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations (FMCSRs) that are now 

obsolete as a result of rules published by 

FMCSA and found in 49 CFR part 393, 

‘‘Parts and accessories necessary for safe 

operation.’’ All prior interpretations and 

regulatory guidance concerning the 

applicability of the obsolete FMCSRs 

that were published in the Federal 

Register, as well as memoranda and 

letters concerning those regulations, 

may no longer be relied upon as 

authoritative if they are inconsistent 

with the revised and/or amended 

regulations. 

DATES: Effective Date: This regulatory 

guidance is effective on June 4, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and 

Roadside Operations Division, Office of 

Bus and Truck Standards and 

Operations, (202) 366–5370, Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Legal Basis 

The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 

(Pub. L. 98–554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, 

October 30, 1984) (the 1984 Act) 

provides authority to regulate drivers, 

motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. 

It requires the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) to prescribe 

regulations on minimum safety 

standards for commercial motor vehicle 

(CMV) safety. At a minimum, the 

regulations shall ensure that: (1) CMVs 

are maintained, equipped, loaded, and 

operated safely; (2) the responsibilities 

imposed on operators of CMVs do not 

impair their ability to operate the 

vehicles safely; (3) the physical 

condition of operators of CMVs is 

adequate to enable them to operate the 

vehicles safely; and (4) the operation of 

CMVs does not have a deleterious effect 

on the physical condition of the 

operators (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)). Section 

211 of the 1984 Act also grants the 

Secretary broad power, in carrying out 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES