California High-Speed Rail Authority-Construction Exemption-In Merced, Madera and Fresno Counties, CA, 22031-22033 [2013-08646]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BILLING CODE C Surface Transportation Board mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES California High-Speed Rail Authority— Construction Exemption—In Merced, Madera and Fresno Counties, CA Surface Transportation Board, DOT. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Apr 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 In accordance with Surface Transportation Board (Board) procedures for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 49 CFR part 1105, and consistent with the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing NEPA at 40 CFR 1506.3, the Board’s Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) is SUMMARY: [STB Docket No. FD 35724] AGENCY: Notice of Adoption Recommendation and Recirculation of Final Environmental Impact Statement. ACTION: E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM 12APN1 EN12AP13.004</GPH> [FR Doc. 2013–08653 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am] 22031 mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 22032 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices recommending that the Board adopt a Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) issued by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority). This Final EIS is titled ‘‘California High-Speed Train: Merced to Fresno Section, Final Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement.’’ The Final EIS assesses the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating a high-speed passenger train (HST) between Merced and Fresno in the San Joaquin Valley, California. OEA has independently reviewed the Final EIS and agrees with its analysis and conclusions. OEA is issuing this notice to advise the public and interested agencies that, should the Board find jurisdiction over the Authority’s project, OEA is recommending, in any decision ruling on the request for construction authority, that the Board adopt the Final EIS issued by FRA and the Authority to satisfy the Board’s NEPA obligations. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Navecky, Office of Environmental Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001, 202–245–0294. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. If you wish to file comments on the proposed adoption of the Final EIS by the Board, please send an original and one copy to Surface Transportation Board at the address above to the attention of Dave Navecky. Environmental comments may also be filed electronically on the Board’s Web site, www.stb.dot.gov, by clicking on the ‘‘E-FILING’’ link. Please refer to Docket No. FD 35724 in all correspondence, including e-filings, addressed to the Board. Comments may be submitted to OEA no later than May 20, 2013. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: By petition filed on March 27, 2013, the Authority seeks authority to construct a HST rail line between Merced and Fresno, California (Merced to Fresno HST Section). Concurrently on March 27, 2013, the Authority filed a Motion to Dismiss its Petition for Exemption asserting that the Merced to Fresno HST Section does not require the Board’s construction approval under 49 U.S.C. 10901.1 The Merced to Fresno HST Section would be the first of nine sections of the 1 The Authority’s Petition for Exemption and Motion to Dismiss are available on the Board’s Web site at www.stb.dot.gov (click on ‘‘Filings’’ under ‘‘Quick Links,’’ then search by Docket # ‘‘FD’’ and ‘‘35724’’). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Apr 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 planned California HST system, which would provide intercity, high-speed passenger rail service over more than 800 miles throughout California and connect the major population centers of the state. The HST system would be an electric-powered train system with automated train controls and would operate at up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated and dedicated rail line. The Merced to Fresno HST Section would include passenger stations in the cities of Merced and Fresno (i.e., this section’s termini), approximately 65 miles of doubletracked mainline, and four tracks at the two stations (i.e., two through tracks and two station tracks to load and unload passengers). According to the Authority, it filed a motion to dismiss its request for authority from the Board because it does not have any contracts or any other arrangements in place at this time that would come within the Board’s jurisdiction and require Board authority. Specifically, the Authority claims that the Board lacks jurisdiction because the Merced to Fresno HST Section would be located entirely within the State of California, would provide only intrastate passenger rail service, and would not be constructed or operated as part of the interstate rail network under 49 U.S.C. 10501(a)(2)(A). The Authority requests that the Board expedite its consideration of the Petition for Exemption and either grant it, or dismiss it pursuant to the Motion to Dismiss, effective by June 17, 2013 so that the Authority can award contracts for the design and construction of a 29mile sub-section of the project in the summer of 2013. Pending the Board’s decisions on the Authority’s Petition for Exemption and Motion to Dismiss, and considering the Authority’s request for an expedited decision, OEA is issuing this notice to advise the public and interested agencies that OEA is recommending that, in any decision in which the Board might determine that it has jurisdiction to rule on the Authority’s proposal, the Board adopt the Final EIS issued by FRA and the Authority for the construction of the Merced to Fresno HST Section to satisfy the Board’s NEPA obligations. Issuance of this notice now does not prejudge the Board’s review of the Authority’s petition or motion. Previous Environmental Reviews: For the Merced to Fresno HST Section, FRA and the Authority were joint lead agencies for Federal reviews under NEPA, and the Authority was lead agency for state reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The U.S. Army Corps of PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Engineers (USACE) and the Bureau of Reclamation 2 also served as cooperating agencies in the Federal environmental review of the project. To comply with NEPA and CEQA, FRA and the Authority jointly began the environmental review process for the Merced to Fresno HST Section in 2009 and issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIR/EIS) in August 2011.3 Considering information in and comments received on the Draft EIS, FRA and the Authority issued a Final EIS in April 2012. The Final EIS identified the Authority’s preferred build alternative. FRA and the USACE concurred with the Authority’s preferred build alternative. FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) under NEPA on September 18, 2012. Based on an analysis of potential project impacts, required mitigation measures, and substantive agency and public comments, FRA approved the preferred build alternative in the Final EIS that includes the north-south Hybrid Alternative, and the Downtown Merced Station and Downtown Fresno Mariposa Street Station alternatives. Board Environmental Review: CEQ’s regulations allow Federal agencies, such as the Board, to adopt the 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 CEQ’s regulations (40 CFR 1506.3). Furthermore, the CEQ regulations state that when actions are substantially the same, ‘‘the agency adopting the agency’s statement is not required to recirculate it except as a final statement.’’ OEA has conducted an independent review of the 2012 Final EIS for the purpose of determining whether the Board could adopt it under 40 CFR 1506.3. OEA concludes that (1) the proposed construction specified in the Authority’s Petition for Exemption is substantially the same as that described in the 2012 Final EIS; (2) the Final EIS adequately assessed the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Merced to Fresno HST Section and meets the standards of 2 The Bureau of Reclamation is a cooperating agency but does not have jurisdiction over a permit or approval for this section of the HST system. 3 The preparation of this single environmental review document, which covers both Federal and state environmental requirements, is consistent with CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1506.2. The EIS/ EIR will be referred to in this notice as an EIS because, should the Board assert jurisdiction over this project, NEPA would be triggered. E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM 12APN1 mstockstill on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 71 / Friday, April 12, 2013 / Notices CEQ’s NEPA regulations; and (3) to satisfy its NEPA obligations, the Board could adopt the 2012 Final EIS in any decision finding jurisdiction over the project and ruling on the Authority’s request for construction authority. If the Board finds jurisdiction to rule on the Authority’s proposal, in order to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), OEA, on behalf of the Board, would also join the existing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), signed and executed by FRA, Authority, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and California Historic Preservation Officer. The MOA describes the roles and responsibilities of the parties and would allow the Board to take into account the potential effect of the Board’s actions on historic properties pursuant to the requirements of Section 106. In accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulations (40 CFR 1506.3(b)) and guidelines (EIS Filing System Guidance, 77 Fed. Reg. 51530–51532) regarding the filings of adopted EISs, OEA has provided EPA with this notice of Final EIS adoption recommendation and electronically filed the recirculated Final EIS with EPA. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the recirculated Final EIS in the Federal Register consistent with its usual practices. Because of the multi-volume size of the Final EIS and its continued availability in the libraries of the affected communities and the Authority’s Web site, OEA is not republishing the document. This would be unduly costly, would defeat CEQ’s goals of reducing paperwork and duplication effort, and would be of little additional value to other agencies or the public. The Final EIS is available on the Authority’s Web site at www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ final-eir-m-f.aspx, and at local libraries in the following California communities: Atwater, Chowchilla, Fresno, Le Grand, Los Banos, Madera, and Merced. OEA has mailed this notification to the recipients of the Final EIS at the time it was issued by FRA and the Authority in April 2012, as well as the parties of record to the Board’s proceedings. Comments on the Board’s proposed adoption of the Final EIS may be submitted to Dave Navecky at the address noted above, or filed electronically on the Board’s Web site, no later than May 20, 2013. If the Board finds jurisdiction over the project, the final stage of the environmental review process under NEPA would be the issuance of the Board’s final decision on the Petition for Exemption (i.e., Record of Decision). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:47 Apr 11, 2013 Jkt 229001 This Board decision would describe the agency’s decision on whether to authorize the Authority’s proposed construction, and whether it adopts OEA’s recommendations, including OEA’s recommendation to formally adopt the Final EIS. In addition, the Board decision would take into account any substantive comments received in response to today’s notice of proposed Final EIS adoption. Under the timelines included in CEQ’s regulations (40 CFR 1506.10), the Board’s final decision cannot be issued any earlier than thirty days after EPA publishes its Federal Register notice notifying the public of OEA’s adoption recommendation and availability of the recirculated Final EIS (Note: OEA anticipates that EPA will publish this notice of Final EIS adoption in the Federal Register on Friday, April 19, 2013). Any final decision issued by the Board finding jurisdiction and ruling on the Authority’s proposal would be consistent with 40 CFR 1505.2 and the Board’s environmental rules at 49 CFR part 1105. By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Director, Office of Environmental Analysis. Jeffrey Herzig, Clearance Clerk. [FR Doc. 2013–08646 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION: Notice; correction. The Department of the Treasury published a document in the Federal Register on March 28, 2013, inviting comments on collections of information submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This document contained incorrect references. SUMMARY: Correction In the Federal Register of March 28, 2013, in FR Doc. 2013–07165, make the following corrections: • page 19070, in the third column, under OMB Number: 1513–0016, Type of Review: replace ‘‘Extension without change’’ with ‘‘Revision’’ and Estimated Total Burden Hours: replace ‘‘94’’ with ‘‘134.’’ Dated: April 9, 2013. Dawn D. Wolfgang, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 2013–08647 Filed 4–11–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–31–P PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 22033 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 9, 2013. The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice. DATES: Comments should be received on or before May 13, 2013 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV and (2) Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Suite 8140, Washington, DC 20220, or email at PRA@treasury.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927–5331, email at PRA@treasury.gov, or the entire information collection request maybe found at www.reginfo.gov. Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund OMB Number: 1559—NEW. Type of Review: New generic collection. Title: Native American Communities’ Access to Capital and Credit Study. Abstract: Pursuant to the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994, as amended (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.), the CDFI Fund provides training and technical assistance to CDFIs to enhance their ability to make loans and investments and provide services for the benefit of designated investment areas and targeted populations. Further, the CDFI Fund administers the Native Initiatives, which serve Native Communities. The information collected will be used to identify specific subject matter and data to develop and write the Study. The Study will update the 2001 Native American Lending Study conducted by the CDFI Fund, which resulted in the creation of the Native Initiatives. The requested information is necessary to support effective use of Federal resources. E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM 12APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22031-22033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08646]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. FD 35724]


California High-Speed Rail Authority--Construction Exemption--In 
Merced, Madera and Fresno Counties, CA

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Adoption Recommendation and Recirculation of Final 
Environmental Impact Statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with Surface Transportation Board (Board) 
procedures for complying with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) at 49 CFR part 1105, and consistent with the regulations of the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing NEPA at 40 CFR 
1506.3, the Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) is

[[Page 22032]]

recommending that the Board adopt a Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (Final EIS) issued by the Federal Railroad Administration 
(FRA) and California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority). This Final 
EIS is titled ``California High-Speed Train: Merced to Fresno Section, 
Final Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact 
Statement.''
    The Final EIS assesses the potential environmental impacts of 
constructing and operating a high-speed passenger train (HST) between 
Merced and Fresno in the San Joaquin Valley, California. OEA has 
independently reviewed the Final EIS and agrees with its analysis and 
conclusions. OEA is issuing this notice to advise the public and 
interested agencies that, should the Board find jurisdiction over the 
Authority's project, OEA is recommending, in any decision ruling on the 
request for construction authority, that the Board adopt the Final EIS 
issued by FRA and the Authority to satisfy the Board's NEPA 
obligations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Navecky, Office of Environmental 
Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, 
DC 20423-0001, 202-245-0294. Assistance for the hearing impaired is 
available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-
800-877-8339.
    If you wish to file comments on the proposed adoption of the Final 
EIS by the Board, please send an original and one copy to Surface 
Transportation Board at the address above to the attention of Dave 
Navecky. Environmental comments may also be filed electronically on the 
Board's Web site, www.stb.dot.gov, by clicking on the ``E-FILING'' 
link. Please refer to Docket No. FD 35724 in all correspondence, 
including e-filings, addressed to the Board. Comments may be submitted 
to OEA no later than May 20, 2013.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: By petition filed on March 27, 2013, the Authority 
seeks authority to construct a HST rail line between Merced and Fresno, 
California (Merced to Fresno HST Section). Concurrently on March 27, 
2013, the Authority filed a Motion to Dismiss its Petition for 
Exemption asserting that the Merced to Fresno HST Section does not 
require the Board's construction approval under 49 U.S.C. 10901.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Authority's Petition for Exemption and Motion to Dismiss 
are available on the Board's Web site at www.stb.dot.gov (click on 
``Filings'' under ``Quick Links,'' then search by Docket  
``FD'' and ``35724'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Merced to Fresno HST Section would be the first of nine 
sections of the planned California HST system, which would provide 
intercity, high-speed passenger rail service over more than 800 miles 
throughout California and connect the major population centers of the 
state. The HST system would be an electric-powered train system with 
automated train controls and would operate at up to 220 miles per hour 
over a fully grade-separated and dedicated rail line. The Merced to 
Fresno HST Section would include passenger stations in the cities of 
Merced and Fresno (i.e., this section's termini), approximately 65 
miles of double-tracked mainline, and four tracks at the two stations 
(i.e., two through tracks and two station tracks to load and unload 
passengers).
    According to the Authority, it filed a motion to dismiss its 
request for authority from the Board because it does not have any 
contracts or any other arrangements in place at this time that would 
come within the Board's jurisdiction and require Board authority. 
Specifically, the Authority claims that the Board lacks jurisdiction 
because the Merced to Fresno HST Section would be located entirely 
within the State of California, would provide only intrastate passenger 
rail service, and would not be constructed or operated as part of the 
interstate rail network under 49 U.S.C. 10501(a)(2)(A). The Authority 
requests that the Board expedite its consideration of the Petition for 
Exemption and either grant it, or dismiss it pursuant to the Motion to 
Dismiss, effective by June 17, 2013 so that the Authority can award 
contracts for the design and construction of a 29-mile sub-section of 
the project in the summer of 2013.
    Pending the Board's decisions on the Authority's Petition for 
Exemption and Motion to Dismiss, and considering the Authority's 
request for an expedited decision, OEA is issuing this notice to advise 
the public and interested agencies that OEA is recommending that, in 
any decision in which the Board might determine that it has 
jurisdiction to rule on the Authority's proposal, the Board adopt the 
Final EIS issued by FRA and the Authority for the construction of the 
Merced to Fresno HST Section to satisfy the Board's NEPA obligations. 
Issuance of this notice now does not prejudge the Board's review of the 
Authority's petition or motion.
    Previous Environmental Reviews: For the Merced to Fresno HST 
Section, FRA and the Authority were joint lead agencies for Federal 
reviews under NEPA, and the Authority was lead agency for state reviews 
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Bureau of Reclamation \2\ also 
served as cooperating agencies in the Federal environmental review of 
the project. To comply with NEPA and CEQA, FRA and the Authority 
jointly began the environmental review process for the Merced to Fresno 
HST Section in 2009 and issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIR/EIS) in August 2011.\3\ 
Considering information in and comments received on the Draft EIS, FRA 
and the Authority issued a Final EIS in April 2012. The Final EIS 
identified the Authority's preferred build alternative. FRA and the 
USACE concurred with the Authority's preferred build alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Bureau of Reclamation is a cooperating agency but does 
not have jurisdiction over a permit or approval for this section of 
the HST system.
    \3\ The preparation of this single environmental review 
document, which covers both Federal and state environmental 
requirements, is consistent with CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1506.2. 
The EIS/EIR will be referred to in this notice as an EIS because, 
should the Board assert jurisdiction over this project, NEPA would 
be triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) under NEPA on September 18, 
2012. Based on an analysis of potential project impacts, required 
mitigation measures, and substantive agency and public comments, FRA 
approved the preferred build alternative in the Final EIS that includes 
the north-south Hybrid Alternative, and the Downtown Merced Station and 
Downtown Fresno Mariposa Street Station alternatives.
    Board Environmental Review: CEQ's regulations allow Federal 
agencies, such as the Board, to adopt the 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 CEQ's regulations (40 CFR 1506.3). Furthermore, the CEQ 
regulations state that when actions are substantially the same, ``the 
agency adopting the agency's statement is not required to recirculate 
it except as a final statement.''
    OEA has conducted an independent review of the 2012 Final EIS for 
the purpose of determining whether the Board could adopt it under 40 
CFR 1506.3. OEA concludes that (1) the proposed construction specified 
in the Authority's Petition for Exemption is substantially the same as 
that described in the 2012 Final EIS; (2) the Final EIS adequately 
assessed the potential environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed Merced to Fresno HST Section and meets the standards of

[[Page 22033]]

CEQ's NEPA regulations; and (3) to satisfy its NEPA obligations, the 
Board could adopt the 2012 Final EIS in any decision finding 
jurisdiction over the project and ruling on the Authority's request for 
construction authority.
    If the Board finds jurisdiction to rule on the Authority's 
proposal, in order to comply with its obligations under Section 106 of 
the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), OEA, on 
behalf of the Board, would also join the existing Memorandum of 
Agreement (MOA), signed and executed by FRA, Authority, Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation, and California Historic Preservation 
Officer. The MOA describes the roles and responsibilities of the 
parties and would allow the Board to take into account the potential 
effect of the Board's actions on historic properties pursuant to the 
requirements of Section 106.
    In accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
regulations (40 CFR 1506.3(b)) and guidelines (EIS Filing System 
Guidance, 77 Fed. Reg. 51530-51532) regarding the filings of adopted 
EISs, OEA has provided EPA with this notice of Final EIS adoption 
recommendation and electronically filed the recirculated Final EIS with 
EPA. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the recirculated 
Final EIS in the Federal Register consistent with its usual practices. 
Because of the multi-volume size of the Final EIS and its continued 
availability in the libraries of the affected communities and the 
Authority's Web site, OEA is not republishing the document. This would 
be unduly costly, would defeat CEQ's goals of reducing paperwork and 
duplication effort, and would be of little additional value to other 
agencies or the public. The Final EIS is available on the Authority's 
Web site at www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/final-eir-m-f.aspx, and at local 
libraries in the following California communities: Atwater, Chowchilla, 
Fresno, Le Grand, Los Banos, Madera, and Merced. OEA has mailed this 
notification to the recipients of the Final EIS at the time it was 
issued by FRA and the Authority in April 2012, as well as the parties 
of record to the Board's proceedings. Comments on the Board's proposed 
adoption of the Final EIS may be submitted to Dave Navecky at the 
address noted above, or filed electronically on the Board's Web site, 
no later than May 20, 2013.
    If the Board finds jurisdiction over the project, the final stage 
of the environmental review process under NEPA would be the issuance of 
the Board's final decision on the Petition for Exemption (i.e., Record 
of Decision). This Board decision would describe the agency's decision 
on whether to authorize the Authority's proposed construction, and 
whether it adopts OEA's recommendations, including OEA's recommendation 
to formally adopt the Final EIS. In addition, the Board decision would 
take into account any substantive comments received in response to 
today's notice of proposed Final EIS adoption. Under the timelines 
included in CEQ's regulations (40 CFR 1506.10), the Board's final 
decision cannot be issued any earlier than thirty days after EPA 
publishes its Federal Register notice notifying the public of OEA's 
adoption recommendation and availability of the recirculated Final EIS 
(Note: OEA anticipates that EPA will publish this notice of Final EIS 
adoption in the Federal Register on Friday, April 19, 2013). Any final 
decision issued by the Board finding jurisdiction and ruling on the 
Authority's proposal would be consistent with 40 CFR 1505.2 and the 
Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR part 1105.

    By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Director, Office of Environmental 
Analysis.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2013-08646 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.