California High-Speed Rail Authority-Construction Exemption-In Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties, California, 73921-73923 [2013-29281]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2013 / Notices
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556),
Morgan submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Morgan’s
petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent
any agency decision or other exercise of
judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
II. Vehicles involved: Affected are
approximately 139 MY 2012 and 2013
Morgan model M3W three-wheeled
motorcycles manufactured during the
period August 1, 2012 to August 14,
2013.
III. Noncompliance: Morgan explains
that the noncompliance is that the
affected vehicles were equipped with
dual horizontally-mounted headlamps
mounted 29 inches apart (lens edge to
lens edge) rather than within 200 mm as
stated in FMVSS No. 108. In addition,
Morgan states that the headlamps are
not marked with the symbol ‘‘DOT.’’
IV. Rule Text: Paragraphs S7.9.6.2(b)
and S10.17.1.2.2 of FMVSS No. 108
require in pertinent part:
Paragraph S7.9.6.2(b) (applies only to the
subject vehicles manufactured before
December 1, 2012).
If the system consists of two headlamps,
each of which provides both an upper and
lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted
either at the same height and symmetrically
disposed about the vertical centerline or
mounted on the vertical centerline. If the
headlamps are horizontally disposed about
the vertical centerline, the distance between
the closest edges of their effective projected
luminous lens areas shall not be greater than
200 mm (8 in.).
Paragraph S10.17.1.2.2 (applies only to the
subject vehicles manufactured after
December 1, 2012).
If the headlamps are horizontally disposed
about the vertical centerline, the distance
between the closest edges of their effective
projected luminous lens areas must not be
greater than 200 mm.
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
V. Summary of Morgan’s Analyses:
Morgan stated its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety for the following
reasons:
1. Horizontal Separation of the
Headlamps
• Morgan contends that the
headlamps meet the technical
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and
that the current horizontal spacing of 29
inches is in the best interests of road
safety. If the M3W were compliant with
the existing motorcycle head lamp
spacing requirement, other road users
would not have an accurate indication
of the width of an oncoming M3W.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:03 Dec 06, 2013
Jkt 232001
• For ongoing production Morgan
shall source an FMVSS No. 108
compliant headlamp and shall install
such lamp in accordance with FMVSS
No. 108 along the vertical centerline of
the M3W. This lamp shall be wired to
the vehicle lighting switch. The two
lamps separated by 29 inches shall
remain available as optional driving
lamps wired to a separate switch and
shall be supplemental driving lamps.
This change in specification shall apply
to any US retail sales after the date of
Morgan’s notification of noncompliance
submitted under 49 CFR part 573 for the
subject vehicles.
II. Lens Marking
• Morgan contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety on the
basis that the lamps meet the
substantive requirements of FMVSS No.
108 and Morgan owners almost
exclusively go to Morgan dealers for
replacement parts.
• For ongoing production, the
headlamps shall have all FMVSS
required markings.
Morgan also presents several
arguments as to how it believes previous
NHTSA inconsequential noncompliance
determinations can be applied to a
decision on its petition. See Morgan’s
petition for a complete discussion of its
reasoning.
In addition, Morgan knows of no
reports of injuries or other safety issues
in the US or the rest of the world caused
by the subject noncompliance.
In summation, Morgan believes that
the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt from providing
recall notification of noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be
granted.
In its petition, Morgan also requested
that NHTSA amend the headlamp
spacing requirements in FMVSS No. 108
during future rulemaking. This request
cannot be considered as part of the
instant petition as filed under 49 CFR
part 556. However, Morgan may
consider petitioning the Agency for
rulemaking. The appropriate type of
petition to request a change in a rule is
one filed under 49 CFR Part 552
Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and
Non-Compliance Orders.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73921
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any
decision on this petition only applies to
the vehicles that Morgan no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However, a
decision on this petition cannot relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale,
introduction or delivery for introduction
into interstate commerce of the
noncompliant motor vehicles under
their control after Morgan notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Issued on: December 2, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013–29249 Filed 12–6–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. FD 35724 (Sub-No. 1)]
California High-Speed Rail Authority—
Construction Exemption—In Fresno,
Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties,
California
By petition filed on September 26,
2013, California High-Speed Rail
Authority (Authority), a state agency
formed in 1996, seeks an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C.
10901 for authority to construct an
approximately 114-mile high-speed
passenger rail line between Fresno and
Bakersfield, Cal. (the Line).
The Line is the second of nine
segments of the planned California
High-Speed Train System (HST System),
which would, when completed, provide
high-speed intercity passenger rail
service over more than 800 miles of new
rail line throughout California.1 The
complete system would connect the
major population centers of Sacramento,
the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central
Valley, Los Angeles, the ‘‘Inland
Empire’’ (i.e., the region east of the Los
Angeles metropolitan area), Orange
County, and San Diego. The Authority
states that it plans to contract with a
1 Earlier this year the Board granted an exemption
for construction of the first segment of the HST
System, between Merced and Fresno, Cal. (Mercedto-Fresno segment). See Cal. High-Speed Rail
Auth.—Constr. Exemption—in Merced, Madera &
Fresno Cntys., Cal., FD 35724 (STB served June 13,
2013) (June Decision).
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
73922
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2013 / Notices
passenger rail operator to commence
HST System operations once it has
completed construction of the portion of
the HST system between Merced and
the San Fernando Valley, which
includes the Line.
Request for Conditional Approval.
The Authority requests that the Board
conditionally grant the exemption
authority by addressing the
transportation aspects of the project in
advance of the environmental issues.
The Authority states that its designbuild contract for a 29-mile segment of
the HST System, which is composed of
a five-mile portion of the Line and a 24mile portion of the Merced-to-Fresno
segment, requires the Authority to give
its contractor a notice to proceed with
construction of the five-mile Line
segment by July 12, 2014. The Authority
asserts that if it cannot issue the notice
to proceed by then, the five-mile
segment will be removed from the
contract and the Authority will need to
renegotiate the price for the
construction of the 24-mile segment and
the price and timetable for the five-mile
segment, which could result in a
substantial aggregate increase in the cost
of construction of the two segments. The
Authority also expresses concern
regarding a possible Board member
vacancy after January 1, 2014, and thus
asks that the requested conditional grant
of authority be effective by year’s end.
A Board vacancy, however, would not
prevent the Board from carrying out its
functions.
Although the Board has sometimes
made conditional grants of construction
exemption authority in the past, it has
not done so in several years. It has also
questioned the benefits to a construction
applicant given that the Board must
consider the environmental effects of
the construction proposal before any
final approval can be given and before
any construction may begin.2 Therefore,
in the absence of a showing of some
unique or compelling circumstances, it
is our policy to determine the
transportation merits of a construction
proposal based on a complete record,
including the environmental record.3
The Authority has not presented any
unique or compelling circumstances
that demonstrate that a two-step
decisional process is warranted. We
have an independent statutory
obligation to review thoroughly
transactions brought before the agency
for authorization under the Interstate
2 See Alaska R.R.—Constr. & Operation
Exemption—Rail Line Between Eielson Air Force
Base (N. Pole) & Fort Greely (Delta Junction),
Alaska, FD 34658 (STB served Oct. 4, 2007).
3 See id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:03 Dec 06, 2013
Jkt 232001
Commerce Act. The fact that the
Authority contractually agreed to notify
its contractor by a certain date that
construction can proceed is not a
sufficient basis for the Board to carry
out its independent statutory obligation
in a piecemeal fashion. Moreover, no
construction may begin until after the
environmental review is completed and
the Board issues its final decision.4
Neither a contractual obligation nor a
notice to proceed can change that fact.
There is also the possibility that the
Board could deny the petition for
exemption notwithstanding a prior
conditional grant. Accordingly, the
Authority’s request for a conditional
grant of the requested exemption
authority, subject to the completion of
the environmental review process, will
be denied.
Replies to the Petition for Exemption.
Given that the original deadline for
replies to the petition fell during the
recent Federal government shutdown,
during which the Board did not accept
any filings,5 we will extend the period
for replies to December 24, 2013, to
permit sufficient time for interested
persons to prepare and file responses.6
Such replies should address the
transportation merits of the petition.
Environmental Review. Currently, the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
and the Authority are jointly leading a
project-level environmental review of
the Line.7 In August 2011, FRA and the
Authority issued a Draft Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement (EIR/EIS), an analysis of the
environmental impacts and benefits of
implementing the high-speed train
between Fresno and Bakersfield. Public
comments on the Draft EIR/EIS were
due in September 2011. Thereafter, FRA
and the Authority issued a Revised Draft
4 As the Board noted in its decision approving the
Merced-to-Fresno segment of the HST System, there
is a controversy regarding California’s bond funding
process. See June Decision, slip op. at 20 n.104.
Since the Board’s June Decision, the bond issue has
continued to be litigated in state court. See High
Speed Rail Auth. v. All Persons Interested in re the
Validity of the Authorization & Issuance of Gen.
Obligation Bonds to be Issued Pursuant to the Safe,
Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for
the 21st Century, Case No. 34–2013–00140689–CU–
MC–GDS (Sup. Ct. Cal., Sacramento, Nov. 25, 2013).
5 Replies were due October 16, 2013. See 49 CFR
1104.13(a).
6 On November 27, 2013, Michael E. LaSalle filed
a letter requesting that the Board give notice of the
Authority’s petition in this sub-docket to all parties
of record in the main docket and provide adequate
time for interested parties to reply. This decision
will be published in the Federal Register, which
will serve as public notice of this proceeding and
of the extended deadline for replies to the petition.
7 FRA and the Authority jointly began the
environmental review related to the entire HST
System in 2000, and in 2005 they finalized a
Program EIR/EIS, a programmatic analysis on
implementing the entire HST System.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
EIR/EIS in July 2012, on which public
comments were due in October 2012.
Preparation of the Final EIR/EIS is
underway.
In August 2013, the Board became a
cooperating agency, as defined by 40
CFR 1508.5, for the preparation of the
project-level EIR/EIS for the Line, as
well as for the other remaining segments
of the HST System. As a cooperating
agency, the Board, through its Office of
Environmental Analysis (OEA), will
work with the Authority and FRA to
fulfill its obligations under the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq. OEA is currently working
with FRA and the Authority in the
preparation of the Final EIR/EIS for the
Line. The entire environmental record
for the Line, including the Draft EIR/
EIS, Revised Draft EIR/EIS, public
comments on those draft documents,
and the Final EIR/EIS will serve as the
basis for OEA’s recommendation to the
Board regarding whether, from an
environmental perspective, the
Authority’s construction exemption
should be granted, denied, or granted
with environmental conditions. Because
the public comment periods on the
project-level Draft EIR/EIS and Revised
Draft EIR/EIS have closed, the Board is
not soliciting additional comments on
environmental matters in this
proceeding.
By this decision, we are instituting a
proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 10502(b).
This action will not significantly
affect either the quality of the human
environment or the conservation of
energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. A proceeding is instituted under 49
U.S.C. 10502(b).
2. Replies to the petition for
exemption are due by December 24,
2013.
3. The Authority’s request for a
conditional construction exemption is
denied.
4. This decision will be published in
the Federal Register.
5. This decision is effective on its
service date.
Decided: December 3, 2013.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice
Chairman Begeman, and Commissioner
Mulvey. Vice Chairman Begeman
concurred with a separate expression.
Vice Chairman Begeman, concurring:
I support the Board’s decision to
reject the California High-Speed Rail
Authority’s request for a decision on the
transportation aspects of the project
before the environmental review of the
project is completed. The Board should
not approve any segment of this
enormous public works project unless it
first carries out a comprehensive
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2013 / Notices
analysis of the segment at issue,
including its financial fitness.
Earlier this year, the Board rushed to
meet the Authority’s request for
expedited action on the first segment of
the project. Unfortunately, in order to
do so and over my objections, the Board
chose to ignore key components of the
project’s viability—its projected costs
and funding. The Board reached a
decision without looking at the project’s
financial fitness. For this and other
reasons that I explained at the time, I
could not fully support the Board’s
decision.
Today’s decision acknowledges the
growing controversy regarding
California’s bond funding process.
Considerable federal taxpayers’ dollars
are already at stake and the recent state
court decisions may very likely impact
construction timing and costs.
Just as we need to consider the
environmental aspects along with the
transportation merits of this project
before granting further approval, we
should also understand its funding
aspects, and then make a decision on a
full record. The Authority’s current
petition fails to include any details
about the project’s finances. That void
needs to be corrected before the Board
acts further.
Derrick A. Gardner,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2013–29281 Filed 12–6–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Bureau of the Fiscal Service,
Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of new Privacy Act
system of records.
In accordance with the
Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5
U.S.C. 552a, the Department of the
Treasury proposes to establish a new
system of records entitled, ‘‘Department
of the Treasury/Bureau of the Fiscal
Service .023—Do Not Pay Payment
Verification Records.’’ This system of
records allows the Department of the
Treasury/Bureau of the Fiscal Service to
collect, maintain, analyze, and disclose
records that will assist Federal agencies
in identifying, preventing, and
recovering payment error, waste, fraud
and abuse within Federal spending as
required by the Improper Payment
Elimination and Recovery Improvement
Act of 2012 (IPERIA), 31 U.S.C. 3321
maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
17:03 Dec 06, 2013
Jkt 232001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general questions please contact:
Kevin R. Jones, Executive Director, Do
Not Pay Business Center, 401 14th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20227,
Phone: (202) 504–3516, Bureau of the
Fiscal Service, Email: Kevin.Jones@
bpd.treas.gov.
For privacy issues please contact:
David Ambrose, Acting Chief Privacy
Officer, Bureau of the Fiscal Service,
3700 East-West Highway, Room 803–A,
Hyattsville, MD 20782, Phone: (202)
874–6488, Email: David.Ambrose@
fms.treas.gov.
I. Background
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given
a 30-day period in which to comment.
Therefore, comments must be received
no later than January 8, 2014. If no
comments are received, the system will
become effective on January 21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent by
mail or electronic mail (email). Mail
address: Disclosure Officer, Bureau of
the Fiscal Service, 401 14th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20227. Email Address:
David.Ambrose@fms.treas.gov.
Comments received will be available for
inspection by appointment at the
address listed above between the hours
of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through
Friday.
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended;
System of Records
SUMMARY:
note, Public Law 112–248. Information
regarding the operation of this system of
records and additional privacy
protections (e.g., additional disclosure
restrictions, active computer matching
agreements, additional safeguards, etc.)
can be found at
www.donotpay.treas.gov.
Federal agencies make more than $2
trillion in payments for contracts,
grants, loans, benefits, and other
congressionally-authorized purposes to
individuals and a variety of other
entities each year. Most of these
payments are proper. However,
improper payments occur when (a)
funds go to the wrong recipient; (b) the
recipient receives the incorrect amount
of funds; (c) documentation is not
available to support a payment; or (d)
the recipient receives the funds in an
improper or fraudulent manner.
In accordance with the Improper
Payment Elimination and Recovery
Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA), the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) designated the Department of the
Treasury to host the Do Not Pay
Working System, also known as the
Treasury Working System, which will
help Federal agencies verify that their
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
73923
payments are proper before a payment
is made. The Do Not Pay Working
System will provide authorized Federal
agencies with centralized access to
various data sources, as well as access
to analytical services designed to detect
fraud and systemic improper payments.
Treasury’s Do Not Pay Working System
also can help agencies identify why
improper payments are made, so that
agencies can take action to avoid future
improper payments. By strengthening
and enhancing financial management
controls, Federal agencies can better
detect and prevent improper payments
and bolster taxpayer confidence in the
Federal Government’s management of
taxpayer dollars.
Under current practices, Federal
agencies use information from multiple
data sources to verify eligibility of a
benefit recipient, loan applicant,
contractor, grantee, or other recipient of
Federal payments at various times
during the payment cycle, most
significantly pre-award and prepayment. Examples of data sources
include the Department of Health and
Human Services’ List of Excluded
Individuals/Entities, which contains
information about individuals excluded
from participation in Federal healthcare
programs, such as Medicare, and the
General Services Administration’s
System for Award Management
(formerly the Excluded Parties List
System), which contains information
about contractors who are barred from
doing business with the Federal
Government. Typically, agencies do not
solely rely on information contained in
a single data source to make eligibility
determinations, but use the data to
confirm or supplement information
received from the payment recipient
and through other means. By
centralizing access to multiple relevant
data sources, Treasury is able to provide
agencies with information to help them
make better and timelier eligibility
decisions.
The Do Not Pay Working System
provides authorized agencies with
information about intended and actual
payees of Federal funds in two ways.
First, the Do Not Pay Working System
enables authorized Federal agencies to
access information from multiple
databases through a central web portal
maintained by Treasury. Second,
Treasury compares information about
payees from payment files submitted by
Federal paying agencies to information
contained in multiple data sources. For
both methods, the paying agency
reviews any data provided by the Do
Not Pay Working System to determine
whether the data are correct and how
the data impacts payment eligibility in
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73921-73923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29281]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. FD 35724 (Sub-No. 1)]
California High-Speed Rail Authority--Construction Exemption--In
Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern Counties, California
By petition filed on September 26, 2013, California High-Speed Rail
Authority (Authority), a state agency formed in 1996, seeks an
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior approval requirements of
49 U.S.C. 10901 for authority to construct an approximately 114-mile
high-speed passenger rail line between Fresno and Bakersfield, Cal.
(the Line).
The Line is the second of nine segments of the planned California
High-Speed Train System (HST System), which would, when completed,
provide high-speed intercity passenger rail service over more than 800
miles of new rail line throughout California.\1\ The complete system
would connect the major population centers of Sacramento, the San
Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the ``Inland
Empire'' (i.e., the region east of the Los Angeles metropolitan area),
Orange County, and San Diego. The Authority states that it plans to
contract with a
[[Page 73922]]
passenger rail operator to commence HST System operations once it has
completed construction of the portion of the HST system between Merced
and the San Fernando Valley, which includes the Line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Earlier this year the Board granted an exemption for
construction of the first segment of the HST System, between Merced
and Fresno, Cal. (Merced-to-Fresno segment). See Cal. High-Speed
Rail Auth.--Constr. Exemption--in Merced, Madera & Fresno Cntys.,
Cal., FD 35724 (STB served June 13, 2013) (June Decision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Conditional Approval. The Authority requests that the
Board conditionally grant the exemption authority by addressing the
transportation aspects of the project in advance of the environmental
issues. The Authority states that its design-build contract for a 29-
mile segment of the HST System, which is composed of a five-mile
portion of the Line and a 24-mile portion of the Merced-to-Fresno
segment, requires the Authority to give its contractor a notice to
proceed with construction of the five-mile Line segment by July 12,
2014. The Authority asserts that if it cannot issue the notice to
proceed by then, the five-mile segment will be removed from the
contract and the Authority will need to renegotiate the price for the
construction of the 24-mile segment and the price and timetable for the
five-mile segment, which could result in a substantial aggregate
increase in the cost of construction of the two segments. The Authority
also expresses concern regarding a possible Board member vacancy after
January 1, 2014, and thus asks that the requested conditional grant of
authority be effective by year's end. A Board vacancy, however, would
not prevent the Board from carrying out its functions.
Although the Board has sometimes made conditional grants of
construction exemption authority in the past, it has not done so in
several years. It has also questioned the benefits to a construction
applicant given that the Board must consider the environmental effects
of the construction proposal before any final approval can be given and
before any construction may begin.\2\ Therefore, in the absence of a
showing of some unique or compelling circumstances, it is our policy to
determine the transportation merits of a construction proposal based on
a complete record, including the environmental record.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Alaska R.R.--Constr. & Operation Exemption--Rail Line
Between Eielson Air Force Base (N. Pole) & Fort Greely (Delta
Junction), Alaska, FD 34658 (STB served Oct. 4, 2007).
\3\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Authority has not presented any unique or compelling
circumstances that demonstrate that a two-step decisional process is
warranted. We have an independent statutory obligation to review
thoroughly transactions brought before the agency for authorization
under the Interstate Commerce Act. The fact that the Authority
contractually agreed to notify its contractor by a certain date that
construction can proceed is not a sufficient basis for the Board to
carry out its independent statutory obligation in a piecemeal fashion.
Moreover, no construction may begin until after the environmental
review is completed and the Board issues its final decision.\4\ Neither
a contractual obligation nor a notice to proceed can change that fact.
There is also the possibility that the Board could deny the petition
for exemption notwithstanding a prior conditional grant. Accordingly,
the Authority's request for a conditional grant of the requested
exemption authority, subject to the completion of the environmental
review process, will be denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As the Board noted in its decision approving the Merced-to-
Fresno segment of the HST System, there is a controversy regarding
California's bond funding process. See June Decision, slip op. at 20
n.104. Since the Board's June Decision, the bond issue has continued
to be litigated in state court. See High Speed Rail Auth. v. All
Persons Interested in re the Validity of the Authorization &
Issuance of Gen. Obligation Bonds to be Issued Pursuant to the Safe,
Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century,
Case No. 34-2013-00140689-CU-MC-GDS (Sup. Ct. Cal., Sacramento, Nov.
25, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replies to the Petition for Exemption. Given that the original
deadline for replies to the petition fell during the recent Federal
government shutdown, during which the Board did not accept any
filings,\5\ we will extend the period for replies to December 24, 2013,
to permit sufficient time for interested persons to prepare and file
responses.\6\ Such replies should address the transportation merits of
the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Replies were due October 16, 2013. See 49 CFR 1104.13(a).
\6\ On November 27, 2013, Michael E. LaSalle filed a letter
requesting that the Board give notice of the Authority's petition in
this sub-docket to all parties of record in the main docket and
provide adequate time for interested parties to reply. This decision
will be published in the Federal Register, which will serve as
public notice of this proceeding and of the extended deadline for
replies to the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Review. Currently, the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) and the Authority are jointly leading a project-
level environmental review of the Line.\7\ In August 2011, FRA and the
Authority issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), an analysis of the environmental impacts
and benefits of implementing the high-speed train between Fresno and
Bakersfield. Public comments on the Draft EIR/EIS were due in September
2011. Thereafter, FRA and the Authority issued a Revised Draft EIR/EIS
in July 2012, on which public comments were due in October 2012.
Preparation of the Final EIR/EIS is underway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ FRA and the Authority jointly began the environmental review
related to the entire HST System in 2000, and in 2005 they finalized
a Program EIR/EIS, a programmatic analysis on implementing the
entire HST System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2013, the Board became a cooperating agency, as defined
by 40 CFR 1508.5, for the preparation of the project-level EIR/EIS for
the Line, as well as for the other remaining segments of the HST
System. As a cooperating agency, the Board, through its Office of
Environmental Analysis (OEA), will work with the Authority and FRA to
fulfill its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq. OEA is currently working with FRA and the Authority
in the preparation of the Final EIR/EIS for the Line. The entire
environmental record for the Line, including the Draft EIR/EIS, Revised
Draft EIR/EIS, public comments on those draft documents, and the Final
EIR/EIS will serve as the basis for OEA's recommendation to the Board
regarding whether, from an environmental perspective, the Authority's
construction exemption should be granted, denied, or granted with
environmental conditions. Because the public comment periods on the
project-level Draft EIR/EIS and Revised Draft EIR/EIS have closed, the
Board is not soliciting additional comments on environmental matters in
this proceeding.
By this decision, we are instituting a proceeding under 49 U.S.C.
10502(b).
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. A proceeding is instituted under 49 U.S.C. 10502(b).
2. Replies to the petition for exemption are due by December 24,
2013.
3. The Authority's request for a conditional construction exemption
is denied.
4. This decision will be published in the Federal Register.
5. This decision is effective on its service date.
Decided: December 3, 2013.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Begeman, and
Commissioner Mulvey. Vice Chairman Begeman concurred with a separate
expression.
Vice Chairman Begeman, concurring:
I support the Board's decision to reject the California High-Speed
Rail Authority's request for a decision on the transportation aspects
of the project before the environmental review of the project is
completed. The Board should not approve any segment of this enormous
public works project unless it first carries out a comprehensive
[[Page 73923]]
analysis of the segment at issue, including its financial fitness.
Earlier this year, the Board rushed to meet the Authority's request
for expedited action on the first segment of the project.
Unfortunately, in order to do so and over my objections, the Board
chose to ignore key components of the project's viability--its
projected costs and funding. The Board reached a decision without
looking at the project's financial fitness. For this and other reasons
that I explained at the time, I could not fully support the Board's
decision.
Today's decision acknowledges the growing controversy regarding
California's bond funding process. Considerable federal taxpayers'
dollars are already at stake and the recent state court decisions may
very likely impact construction timing and costs.
Just as we need to consider the environmental aspects along with
the transportation merits of this project before granting further
approval, we should also understand its funding aspects, and then make
a decision on a full record. The Authority's current petition fails to
include any details about the project's finances. That void needs to be
corrected before the Board acts further.
Derrick A. Gardner,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2013-29281 Filed 12-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
