Preparation of a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Transit Improvements in the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2, Eastern Portion of Los Angeles County, California, 24857-24860 [2019-11089]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2019 / Notices
Conservation and Management Act of
1976, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.]; Bald and Golden Eagle Protection
Act [16 U.S.C. 668–668d].
5. Historic and Cultural Resources:
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
[16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archeological
Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16
U.S.C. 470(aa)-11]; Archeological and
Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C.
469–469(c)]; Native American Grave
Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA) [25 U.S.C. 3001–3013].
6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights
Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)2000(d)(1)]; Farmland Protection Policy
Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201–4209];
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Act [42 U.S.C. 61];
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
[42 U.S.C. 1996].
7. Noise: 23 U.S.C. 109(i) (Pub. L. 91–
605), (Pub. L. 93–87).
8. Wetlands and Water Resources:
Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1251–1377
(Section 404, Section 402, Section 401,
Section 319)]; Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) [42 U.S.C. 300(f)-300(j)(6)];
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 [33
U.S.C. 401–406]; Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271–1287];
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act [16
U.S.C. 3921, 3931]; Flood Disaster
Protection Act [42 U.S.C. 4001–4128].
9. Hazardous Materials:
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) [42 U.S.C. 9601–9675];
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA);
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) [42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k)].
10. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990
Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988
Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898,
Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income
Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and
Enhancement of Cultural Resources;
E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred Sites; E.O.
13287 Preserve America; E.O. 13175
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments; E.O. 11514
Protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality; E.O. 13112
Invasive Species; E.O. 13166 Improving
Access to Services for Persons with
Limited English Proficiency; E.O. 13186
Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to
Protect Migratory Birds.
(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
program.)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 May 28, 2019
Jkt 247001
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Issued on: May 20, 2019.
Emily O. Lawton,
Division Administrator, Columbia, South
Carolina.
[FR Doc. 2019–11076 Filed 5–28–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Preparation of a Supplemental Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for
Proposed Transit Improvements in the
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2,
Eastern Portion of Los Angeles
County, California
AGENCY:
Federal Transit Administration,
DOT.
Notice of intent to prepare a
Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
ACTION:
The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) and the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro) issue
this Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a
Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Eastside
Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project
(Project) pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The purpose of this notice is to alert
interested parties regarding the intent to
prepare the Supplemental Draft EIS, to
provide information on the nature of the
proposed Project, potential minimal
operable segments, and possible
alternatives, and to invite public
participation in the EIS process. With
this notice, FTA and Metro invite public
comments on the scope of the
Supplemental Draft EIS and announce
public scoping meetings that will be
conducted. Consistent with Executive
Order 11988: Floodplain Management
and Executive Order 11990: Protection
of Wetlands, this NOI also serves as a
notice to the public that one or more of
the alternatives under consideration
may affect floodplains and/or wetlands.
DATES: Written comments on the scope
of the Supplemental Draft EIS,
including the project’s purpose and
need, the alternatives to be considered,
the impacts to be evaluated, and the
methodologies to be used in the
evaluations should be sent to Metro on
or before July 15, 2019. An interagency
scoping meeting will be held on June
10, 2019 at 3:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m. at Metro
Headquarters One Gateway Plaza, Los
Angeles, CA 90012, Gateway Plaza
Conference Room, 3rd floor. See
ADDRESSES below for the address to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24857
which written public comments may be
sent. Public scoping meetings to accept
comments on the scope of the
Supplemental Draft EIS will be held on
the following dates:
• Thursday, June 13, 2019 6:00 p.m.–
8:00 p.m., Whittier Community
Center, 7630 Washington Avenue,
Whittier, CA 90602
• Monday, June 17, 2019 6:00 p.m.–8:00
p.m., Commerce Senior Citizens
Center, 2555 Commerce Way,
Commerce, CA 90040
• Wednesday, June 19, 2019 6:00 p.m.–
8:00 p.m., 4th Street New Primary
Center, 469 Amalia Avenue, Los
Angeles, CA 90022
• Saturday, June 22, 2019, 10:00 a.m.–
12:00 p.m., South El Monte
Community Center, 1530 Central
Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733
• Monday, June 24, 2019, 6:00 p.m.–
8:00 p.m., Quiet Cannon Banquet
Center, 901 Via San Clemente,
Montebello, CA 90640.
• Wednesday, June 26, 2019, 6:00 p.m.–
8:00 p.m., Pio Pico Women’s Club,
9214 Mines Avenue, Pico Rivera, CA
90660
The meeting facilities are accessible to
persons with disabilities. Individuals
who require special assistance, such as
a sign language interpreter, to
participate in the scoping meeting or
scoping materials in alternate formats
may contact Ms. Lillian De Loza
Gutierrez, Community Relations
Manager, Metro, at (213) 922–7479, or
delozagutierrezl@Metro.net at least 72
hours prior to the meeting. Scoping
materials will be available at the
scoping meetings and on the Project
website (https://www.Metro.net/
projects/eastside_phase2/).
ADDRESSES: Comments will be accepted
at the public scoping meetings or they
may be sent via mail to Ms. Jenny
Cristales-Cevallos, Senior Manager, Los
Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, One Gateway
Plaza, Mail Stop 99–22–6, Los Angeles,
CA 90012, or via email at
cristalescevallosj@Metro.net. The
locations of the scoping meetings are
given above under DATES.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Mary Nguyen, Environmental Protection
Specialist, Federal Transit
Administration, 888 South Figueroa
Street, Suite 440, Los Angeles, CA
90017, phone (213) 202–3960, email
Mary.Nguyen@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Draft
EIS was circulated for public review on
August 22, 2014. Since that time,
changes to the alternatives have
occurred and additional studies have
been conducted. Therefore, a
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
24858
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2019 / Notices
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Supplemental Draft EIS will be prepared
in accordance the requirements of NEPA
and its implementing regulations and 23
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
771.130. Metro will also be preparing a
Recirculated Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) document jointly with the
EIS to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed Project would extend
the Metro Gold Line, a light rail transit
line (LRT), from its current terminus at
Atlantic Station in the unincorporated
area of East Los Angeles to eastern Los
Angeles County. The extension would
serve the cities and communities of
Commerce, Montebello, Monterey Park,
Pico Rivera, Rosemead, Santa Fe
Springs, South El Monte, and Whittier,
and unincorporated areas of Los
Angeles County, which include East Los
Angeles and West Whittier-Los Nietos.
The Supplemental Draft EIS will be
prepared in accordance with the
requirements of NEPA and its
implementing regulations. Metro will
also use the environmental document,
in conjunction with the Recirculated
Draft EIR to comply with CEQA.
Scoping
Scoping is the process of determining
the scope, focus, and content of an EIS.
FTA and Metro invite all interested
individuals and organizations, public
agencies, and Native American Tribes to
comment on the scope of the
Supplemental Draft EIS, including the
project’s purpose and need, the
alternatives to be studied, the impacts to
be evaluated, and the evaluation
methods to be used. Comments should
focus on: Alternatives that may be less
costly or have less environmental or
community impacts while achieving
similar transportation objectives and the
identification of any significant social,
economic, or environmental issues
relating to the alternatives.
NEPA ‘‘scoping’’ has specific and
limited objectives, one of which is to
identify the significant issues associated
with alternatives that will be examined
in detail in the document, while
simultaneously limiting consideration
and development of issues that are not
truly significant. It is in the NEPA
scoping process that potentially
significant environmental impacts—
those that give rise to the need to
prepare an environmental impact
statement—should be identified;
impacts that are deemed not to be
significant need not be developed
extensively in the context of the impact
statement, thereby keeping the
statement focused on impacts of
consequence. Transit projects may also
generate environmental benefits; these
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 May 28, 2019
Jkt 247001
should be highlighted as well—the
impact statement process should draw
attention to positive impacts, not just
negative impacts.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The Draft EIS/EIR indicated that the
purpose of the Eastside Transit Corridor
Phase 2 Project is to improve transit
access and mobility by connecting
communities of eastern Los Angeles
County to Metro’s regional transit
system. The Draft EIS/EIR indicated that
Project would serve the large number of
transit-dependent and low-income
populations in the project area and
increase access to major employment
centers, activity centers, and
destinations in the project area and Los
Angeles County. The Draft EIS/EIR
included that the Project also aims to
reduce travel times on local and
regional transportation networks and
offer a convenient and reliable
transportation alternative to address
increased travel demand and projected
employment and population growth in
eastern Los Angeles County. This
information, in addition to the project
Purpose and Need, will be updated as
part of the Supplemental Draft EIS.
Mobility problems and potential
improvements for this corridor have
been well documented in many studies
that are available from Metro’s Records
Management Department, including
numerous Metro Red Line planning
studies, Eastside Transit Corridor
Studies: Re-Evaluation Major
Investment Study (2000), the Eastside
Transit Corridor Phase 2 Final
Alternatives Analysis Report (2009), the
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Alternatives Analysis Addendum
(2009), Eastside Transit Corridor Phase
2, Draft EIS/EIR (2014), Eastside Transit
Corridor Phase 2, Technical Study
(2015), Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) planning
studies, the Metro Rapid Demonstration
Project (2000), and in SCAG’s Regional
Transportation Plan (2004).
Project Location and Environmental
Setting
The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Project is located in eastern Los Angeles
County and is generally bounded by
Pomona Boulevard and State Route 60
(SR 60) Freeway to the north, Peck Road
and Painter Avenue to the east, Olympic
and Washington Boulevards to the
south, and Atlantic Boulevard to the
west. The project area consists of
portions of eight jurisdictions, including
the cities of Commerce, Montebello,
Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead,
Santa Fe Springs, South El Monte,
Whittier and portions of unincorporated
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
areas in Los Angeles County which
include East Los Angeles and West
Whittier-Los Nietos. A diverse mix of
land uses are located within the project
area, including single- and multi-family
residences, commercial and retail uses,
industrial development, parks and
recreational uses including the Whittier
Narrows Recreation Center, health and
medical uses, educational institutions,
flood control facilities, and vacant land.
The Project would extend the existing
Metro Gold Line from 6.9 to
approximately 16 miles, depending on
the alternative, from its current
terminus at Atlantic Station in the
unincorporated area of East Los Angeles
to eastern Los Angeles County. It would
traverse densely populated, low-income,
and heavily transit-dependent
communities with major activity centers
within the Gateway Cities and San
Gabriel Valley subregions of Los
Angeles County.
Alternatives
The project Alternatives Analysis
(AA) was initiated in 2007 wherein 47
alternatives were evaluated. In January
2009, the Metro Board approved the AA
and identified two build alternatives to
be carried forward for environmental
review. The project is identified in
Metro’s 2009 Long-Range
Transportation Plan, as amended, and is
a transit project funded by local tax
measures, Measure R (approved by
voters in November 2008) and Measure
M (approved by voters in November
2016).
A Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft
EIS/EIR was issued in 2010. The Draft
EIS/EIR analyzed the two build
alternatives—State Route 60 (SR 60) and
Washington Boulevard—in addition to
the No Build and Transportation
Systems Management (TSM)
Alternatives. To address technical
issues regarding proximity to the
Operating Industries, Inc. (OII)
Superfund site and in close
coordination with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the SR 60 North Side Design
Variation (SR 60 NSDV) was added as
a design variation. A total of 24 agencies
accepted the invitation to become a
Participating Agency and EPA, United
States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), and Caltrans (as assigned by
the Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA]) requested to be Cooperating
Agencies. Outreach efforts to agencies
affiliated with the project included
agency scoping meetings, participation
in the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), and 37 individual agency
coordination meetings with EPA,
USACE, Caltrans, Southern California
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2019 / Notices
Edison (SCE), and Union Pacific
Railroad. As part of the outreach
program during the AA and Draft EIS/
EIR phases, Metro also held over 300
meetings with a wide array of
stakeholder groups.
The Draft EIS/EIR was released on
August 22, 2014 for a public comment
period of 60 days. In November 2014,
the Metro Board approved carrying
forward two build alternatives for
further study: The SR 60 NSDV, referred
to herein as the SR 60 Alternative, and
the Washington Boulevard Alternative.
Based on the volume and scope of
comments received on the Draft EIS/
EIR, the Board deferred the selection of
a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
and determined that additional
technical investigation, a Post Draft EIS/
EIR Technical Study, would be needed
to address major areas of concern raised
by Cooperating Agencies, corridor cities
and stakeholders for both build
alternatives. The Metro Board also
eliminated the Garfield Avenue aerial
segment of the Washington Boulevard
Alternative and directed staff to carry
out additional technical work, including
identifying a new north-south alignment
to connect to the Washington Boulevard
Alternative, and explore the feasibility
of operating both the SR 60 and
Washington Boulevard Alternatives.
Extensive coordination with Caltrans,
EPA, USACE, CDFW and SCE occurred
on the design of the SR 60 Alternative
to address these agencies’ respective
comments on the Draft EIS/EIR
throughout the technical investigation
process. Some of the issues discussed
with resource agencies throughout the
technical study included: Addressing
concerns related to the former OII
Superfund site; minimizing impacts to
adjacent developments such as the
MarketPlace in Monterey Park;
minimizing potential impacts to the
ability to add high-occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lanes to the SR 60 Freeway;
avoiding impacts to the on and offramps at Paramount Boulevard;
mitigating conflicts with transmission
lines; and preserving the ability to
develop a station and park and ride
structure on Santa Anita Avenue.
The route planning process for the
Washington Boulevard Alternative
started with 27 potential connection
options to Washington Boulevard. These
route options were evaluated based on
several factors including physical
constraints, ridership, cost, travel time,
access to major activity centers,
economic development opportunities,
transit-oriented communities potential,
and consistency with community goals.
Three north-south connection options
were shared at community meetings
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 May 28, 2019
Jkt 247001
held in March 2016, June 2016, and
February 2017. The community
provided extensive feedback on the
Washington Boulevard Alternative
north-south connection options. The
feedback was instrumental in
confirming Metro’s understanding of
key issues for each routing concept and
in focusing the conceptual design
studies. Based on the technical analysis,
design refinements and feedback
received from the community and key
stakeholders, the Atlantic Boulevard
below-grade option was recommended
for Board approval as part of the new
Washington Boulevard Alternative
In May 2017, the Metro Board
received the findings of the Post Draft
EIS/EIR Technical Study Report and
decided to advance the No Build
Alternative and the following build
alternatives for environmental review:
• SR 60 Alternative (previously
referred to as the SR 60 NSDV
Alternative);
• Washington Boulevard Alternative
with the Atlantic Boulevard belowgrade option (referred to as the
Washington Boulevard Alternative); and
• Combined Alternative, defined as
full build out of the SR 60 and
Washington Boulevard Alternatives.
The Post Draft EIS/EIR Technical Study
Report may be found on the Eastside
Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project
webpage at: https://www.Metro.net/
projects/eastside_phase2/).
Each build alternative proposes to
develop an LRT facility with four to 10
stations, depending on the alternative,
and identify transit-oriented community
land use concepts and first/last mile
pedestrian/bicycle connectivity
opportunities associated with the
proposed stations. The Project will also
consider the development of minimal
operable segments and ancillary
facilities. A minimal operable segment
is construction of a segment of the LRT
route under a build alternative, which
would be able to operate both as a
stand-alone system and also include a
maintenance and storage facility.
Stakeholder coordination, design
refinement, and impact assessment of
the Project are ongoing. As a result,
there will continue to be Project design
iteration. As such, it is anticipated that
the Supplemental Draft EIS document
may include, but is not limited to,
variations to station number and
locations; options for vertical
alignments; options for parking
facilities; specific alignment
refinements; ancillary improvements;
and leveraged improvements in
collaboration with Metro’s local
partners and betterments to address
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
24859
these issues. Therefore, interested
parties are advised to stay informed and
engaged with the numerous Project
engagement and communication
channels via the project website below.
No-Build Alternative: The No-Build
Alternative would maintain existing
transit service through the year 2042. No
new transportation infrastructure would
be built within the project area aside
from projects currently under
construction or funded for construction
and operation by 2042 by Measure R or
the recently approved Measure M sales
tax. This alternative will include the
highway and transit projects in the
current Metro Long Range
Transportation Plan and the 2035 SCAG
Regional Transportation Plan. Potential
modifications to the Metro bus network
resulting from the Metro NextGen Bus
Study and other transit planning efforts
would be included.
SR 60 Alternative (previously known
as the SR 60 NSDV Alternative): This
build alternative, as evaluated in the
Draft EIS/EIR, would extend the existing
Metro Gold Line from the Atlantic
Station to the city of South El Monte.
Primarily, it is an aerial alignment that
includes four aerial stations as
described in the 2014 Draft EIS/EIR.
Refinements to station locations or new
stations may be considered. The SR 60
Alternative alignment would be located
primarily along the southern side of SR
60 Freeway right-of-way (ROW), with
the exception of a segment that passes
near the OII Superfund Site in Monterey
Park. To avoid potential impacts to the
OII Site, the SR 60 Alternative
alignment would transition to the north
side of the SR 60 Freeway,
approximately west of Greenwood
Avenue, continue east within the
Caltrans ROW, and then return to the
south side of SR 60 Freeway, near
Paramount Boulevard, where it would
continue for the remainder of the
alignment until its terminus in the City
of South El Monte.
Washington Boulevard Alternative:
This build alternative would extend the
Metro Gold Line from the existing
Atlantic Station in East Los Angeles to
the City of Whittier. This Alternative
includes six stations. Refinements to
station locations or new stations may be
considered. The configuration of the
Alternative would vary, as it is
proposed to transition from
underground to aerial to at-grade along
various portions of the alignment.
From the existing Atlantic Station, the
alignment would transition from atgrade west of Woods Avenue to belowgrade. A design option may include
changing the existing Atlantic Station to
a below-grade station. The alignment
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
24860
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2019 / Notices
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
would continue below-grade roughly
following Atlantic Boulevard to
Washington Boulevard. The alignment
would remain at-grade along
Washington Boulevard until just west of
Lambert Road. Design options for
potential aerial configurations along
Washington Boulevard are also under
consideration.
Combined Alternative: The Combined
Alternative involves construction and
operation of both the SR 60 and
Washington Boulevard Alternatives and
would require infrastructure and
operational elements that would
otherwise not be required if only one of
the alternatives was operated as a
‘‘stand alone’’ line.
Stations, parking, minimal operating
segments, ancillary facilities such as a
maintenance and storage facility/job
training center, traction power
substations, and grade separation
structures, tail tracks and storage tracks,
track sidings and crossovers, track
signalization, communication facilities,
along the Project alignment would be
part of each LRT alternative.
Probable Effects
The purpose of this EIS/EIR process is
to study, in a public setting, the effects
of the proposed project and its
alternatives on the physical, human,
and natural environment. The FTA and
Metro will evaluate all significant
environmental, social, and economic
impacts of the construction and
operation of the proposed project. The
probable impacts will be determined as
a part of project scoping. Unless further
screening illuminates areas of possible
impact, resource areas will be limited to
those uncovered during scoping.
Measures to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate adverse impacts will also be
identified and evaluated. Key
environmental factors to be addressed
include:
• Air Quality;
• Climate Change and Greenhouse
Gases;
• Community & Neighborhood
Impacts;
• Construction Impacts;
• Cumulative Impacts;
• Economic & Fiscal Impacts;
• Ecosystems/Biological Resources;
• Energy;
• Environmental Justice;
• Geotechnical/Subsurface/Seismic/
Hazardous Materials;
• Growth Inducing Impacts;
• Historic, Archeological, Tribal
Cultural Resources, and Paleontological
Impacts;
• Land Use & Planning;
• Noise & Vibration;
• Parklands and Community
Facilities;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 May 28, 2019
Jkt 247001
•
•
•
•
•
Real Estate & Acquisitions;
Safety & Security;
Transportation;
Water Resources & Hydrology; and
Visual & Aesthetics.
FTA Procedures
The regulations implementing NEPA
require that FTA and Metro do the
following: (1) Extend an invitation to
other Federal and non-Federal agencies
and Native American tribes that may
have an interest in the proposed project
to become ‘‘participating agencies;’’ (2)
provide an opportunity for involvement
by participating agencies and the public
to help define the purpose and need for
a proposed project, as well as the range
of alternatives for consideration in the
EIS; and (3) establish a plan for
coordinating public and agency
participation in, and comment on, the
environmental review process. In 2010,
three agencies were asked and have
accepted to be cooperating agencies:
EPA, USACE, and Caltrans, as assigned
by FHWA. A total of 24 agencies
accepted the invitation to become a
participating agency. An update to
participating and cooperating agencies,
with scoping materials appended, was
sent to Federal and non-Federal
agencies and Native American tribes
that may have an interest in the
proposed project. Any Federal or nonFederal agency or Native American tribe
interested in the proposed project that
did not receive an invitation to become
a participating agency should notify at
the earliest opportunity the Project
Manager, Ms. Jenny Cristales-Cevallos,
Senior Manager, Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99–22–6,
Los Angeles, CA 90012 by mail, or via
email at cristalescevallosj@Metro.net.
A comprehensive public involvement
program and a Coordination Plan for
public and interagency involvement
will be developed for the project and
posted on the Eastside Transit Corridor
Phase 2 Project web page: https://
www.Metro.net/projects/eastside_
phase2/). The public involvement
program includes a full range of
activities including the project web
page, development and distribution of
project newsletters, and outreach to
local officials, community and civic
groups, and the public. Specific
activities or events for involvement will
be detailed in the public involvement
program.
The Supplemental EIS will be
prepared in accordance with NEPA and
its implementing regulations issued by
the Council on Environmental Quality
(40 CFR parts 1500–1508) and with the
FTA/FHWA/Federal Railroad
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Administration regulations
‘‘Environmental Impact and Related
Procedures’’ (23 CFR part 771). FTA
will comply with all Federal
environmental laws, regulations, and
executive orders applicable to the
proposed project during the
environmental review process to the
maximum extent practicable. These
requirements include, but are not
limited to, cooperation and consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior and
Administrator of EPA and compliance
with NEPA provisions of Federal transit
laws (49 U.S.C. 5323(c)); the projectlevel air quality conformity regulations
of EPA (40 CFR part 93); the Section
404(b)(1) guidelines of EPA (40 CFR part
230); the regulations implementing
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (36 CFR part 800); the
regulations implementing Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR
part 402); Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act (23 CFR 774 and
49 U.S.C. 303); and Executive Orders
12898 on environmental justice, 11988
on floodplain management, and 11990
on wetlands. FTA is considering
combining the Final EIS and the Record
of Decision pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
139(n)(2).
The Paperwork Reduction Act seeks,
in part, to minimize the cost to the
taxpayer of the creation, collection,
maintenance, use, dissemination, and
disposition of information. Consistent
with this goal and with principles of
economy and efficiency in government,
it is FTA policy to limit insofar as
possible distribution of complete
printed sets of environmental
documents. Accordingly, unless a
specific request for a complete printed
set of the environmental document is
received before the document is printed,
FTA and its project sponsors will
distribute only electronic copies of the
environmental document. At a
minimum, a complete printed set of the
environmental document will be
available for review at the project
sponsor’s offices; an electronic copy of
the complete environmental document
and scoping materials will be available
on the project website at https://
www.Metro.net/projects/eastside_
phase2/.
Edward Carranza, Jr.,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX,
Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019–11089 Filed 5–28–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
E:\FR\FM\29MYN1.SGM
29MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24857-24860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11089]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Preparation of a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Proposed Transit Improvements in the Eastside Transit
Corridor Phase 2, Eastern Portion of Los Angeles County, California
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) issue this Notice
of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project
(Project) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The purpose of this notice is to alert interested parties regarding
the intent to prepare the Supplemental Draft EIS, to provide
information on the nature of the proposed Project, potential minimal
operable segments, and possible alternatives, and to invite public
participation in the EIS process. With this notice, FTA and Metro
invite public comments on the scope of the Supplemental Draft EIS and
announce public scoping meetings that will be conducted. Consistent
with Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management and Executive Order
11990: Protection of Wetlands, this NOI also serves as a notice to the
public that one or more of the alternatives under consideration may
affect floodplains and/or wetlands.
DATES: Written comments on the scope of the Supplemental Draft EIS,
including the project's purpose and need, the alternatives to be
considered, the impacts to be evaluated, and the methodologies to be
used in the evaluations should be sent to Metro on or before July 15,
2019. An interagency scoping meeting will be held on June 10, 2019 at
3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. at Metro Headquarters One Gateway Plaza, Los
Angeles, CA 90012, Gateway Plaza Conference Room, 3rd floor. See
ADDRESSES below for the address to which written public comments may be
sent. Public scoping meetings to accept comments on the scope of the
Supplemental Draft EIS will be held on the following dates:
Thursday, June 13, 2019 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., Whittier
Community Center, 7630 Washington Avenue, Whittier, CA 90602
Monday, June 17, 2019 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., Commerce Senior
Citizens Center, 2555 Commerce Way, Commerce, CA 90040
Wednesday, June 19, 2019 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., 4th Street New
Primary Center, 469 Amalia Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90022
Saturday, June 22, 2019, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., South El Monte
Community Center, 1530 Central Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733
Monday, June 24, 2019, 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., Quiet Cannon
Banquet Center, 901 Via San Clemente, Montebello, CA 90640.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019, 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., Pio Pico
Women's Club, 9214 Mines Avenue, Pico Rivera, CA 90660
The meeting facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities.
Individuals who require special assistance, such as a sign language
interpreter, to participate in the scoping meeting or scoping materials
in alternate formats may contact Ms. Lillian De Loza Gutierrez,
Community Relations Manager, Metro, at (213) 922-7479, or
[email protected] at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Scoping materials will be available at the scoping meetings and on the
Project website (https://www.Metro.net/projects/eastside_phase2/).
ADDRESSES: Comments will be accepted at the public scoping meetings or
they may be sent via mail to Ms. Jenny Cristales-Cevallos, Senior
Manager, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, One
Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-6, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or via email
at [email protected]. The locations of the scoping meetings
are given above under DATES.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Nguyen, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Federal Transit Administration, 888 South
Figueroa Street, Suite 440, Los Angeles, CA 90017, phone (213) 202-
3960, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Draft EIS was circulated for public review
on August 22, 2014. Since that time, changes to the alternatives have
occurred and additional studies have been conducted. Therefore, a
[[Page 24858]]
Supplemental Draft EIS will be prepared in accordance the requirements
of NEPA and its implementing regulations and 23 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 771.130. Metro will also be preparing a Recirculated
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document jointly with the EIS to
comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed Project would extend the Metro Gold Line, a light rail
transit line (LRT), from its current terminus at Atlantic Station in
the unincorporated area of East Los Angeles to eastern Los Angeles
County. The extension would serve the cities and communities of
Commerce, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, Santa Fe
Springs, South El Monte, and Whittier, and unincorporated areas of Los
Angeles County, which include East Los Angeles and West Whittier-Los
Nietos.
The Supplemental Draft EIS will be prepared in accordance with the
requirements of NEPA and its implementing regulations. Metro will also
use the environmental document, in conjunction with the Recirculated
Draft EIR to comply with CEQA.
Scoping
Scoping is the process of determining the scope, focus, and content
of an EIS. FTA and Metro invite all interested individuals and
organizations, public agencies, and Native American Tribes to comment
on the scope of the Supplemental Draft EIS, including the project's
purpose and need, the alternatives to be studied, the impacts to be
evaluated, and the evaluation methods to be used. Comments should focus
on: Alternatives that may be less costly or have less environmental or
community impacts while achieving similar transportation objectives and
the identification of any significant social, economic, or
environmental issues relating to the alternatives.
NEPA ``scoping'' has specific and limited objectives, one of which
is to identify the significant issues associated with alternatives that
will be examined in detail in the document, while simultaneously
limiting consideration and development of issues that are not truly
significant. It is in the NEPA scoping process that potentially
significant environmental impacts--those that give rise to the need to
prepare an environmental impact statement--should be identified;
impacts that are deemed not to be significant need not be developed
extensively in the context of the impact statement, thereby keeping the
statement focused on impacts of consequence. Transit projects may also
generate environmental benefits; these should be highlighted as well--
the impact statement process should draw attention to positive impacts,
not just negative impacts.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The Draft EIS/EIR indicated that the purpose of the Eastside
Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project is to improve transit access and
mobility by connecting communities of eastern Los Angeles County to
Metro's regional transit system. The Draft EIS/EIR indicated that
Project would serve the large number of transit-dependent and low-
income populations in the project area and increase access to major
employment centers, activity centers, and destinations in the project
area and Los Angeles County. The Draft EIS/EIR included that the
Project also aims to reduce travel times on local and regional
transportation networks and offer a convenient and reliable
transportation alternative to address increased travel demand and
projected employment and population growth in eastern Los Angeles
County. This information, in addition to the project Purpose and Need,
will be updated as part of the Supplemental Draft EIS.
Mobility problems and potential improvements for this corridor have
been well documented in many studies that are available from Metro's
Records Management Department, including numerous Metro Red Line
planning studies, Eastside Transit Corridor Studies: Re-Evaluation
Major Investment Study (2000), the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Final Alternatives Analysis Report (2009), the Eastside Transit
Corridor Phase 2 Alternatives Analysis Addendum (2009), Eastside
Transit Corridor Phase 2, Draft EIS/EIR (2014), Eastside Transit
Corridor Phase 2, Technical Study (2015), Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) planning studies, the Metro Rapid
Demonstration Project (2000), and in SCAG's Regional Transportation
Plan (2004).
Project Location and Environmental Setting
The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project is located in eastern
Los Angeles County and is generally bounded by Pomona Boulevard and
State Route 60 (SR 60) Freeway to the north, Peck Road and Painter
Avenue to the east, Olympic and Washington Boulevards to the south, and
Atlantic Boulevard to the west. The project area consists of portions
of eight jurisdictions, including the cities of Commerce, Montebello,
Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, Santa Fe Springs, South El Monte,
Whittier and portions of unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County
which include East Los Angeles and West Whittier-Los Nietos. A diverse
mix of land uses are located within the project area, including single-
and multi-family residences, commercial and retail uses, industrial
development, parks and recreational uses including the Whittier Narrows
Recreation Center, health and medical uses, educational institutions,
flood control facilities, and vacant land.
The Project would extend the existing Metro Gold Line from 6.9 to
approximately 16 miles, depending on the alternative, from its current
terminus at Atlantic Station in the unincorporated area of East Los
Angeles to eastern Los Angeles County. It would traverse densely
populated, low-income, and heavily transit-dependent communities with
major activity centers within the Gateway Cities and San Gabriel Valley
subregions of Los Angeles County.
Alternatives
The project Alternatives Analysis (AA) was initiated in 2007
wherein 47 alternatives were evaluated. In January 2009, the Metro
Board approved the AA and identified two build alternatives to be
carried forward for environmental review. The project is identified in
Metro's 2009 Long-Range Transportation Plan, as amended, and is a
transit project funded by local tax measures, Measure R (approved by
voters in November 2008) and Measure M (approved by voters in November
2016).
A Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft EIS/EIR was issued in 2010.
The Draft EIS/EIR analyzed the two build alternatives--State Route 60
(SR 60) and Washington Boulevard--in addition to the No Build and
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternatives. To address
technical issues regarding proximity to the Operating Industries, Inc.
(OII) Superfund site and in close coordination with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the SR 60 North Side Design
Variation (SR 60 NSDV) was added as a design variation. A total of 24
agencies accepted the invitation to become a Participating Agency and
EPA, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Caltrans (as
assigned by the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA]) requested to be
Cooperating Agencies. Outreach efforts to agencies affiliated with the
project included agency scoping meetings, participation in the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and 37 individual agency
coordination meetings with EPA, USACE, Caltrans, Southern California
[[Page 24859]]
Edison (SCE), and Union Pacific Railroad. As part of the outreach
program during the AA and Draft EIS/EIR phases, Metro also held over
300 meetings with a wide array of stakeholder groups.
The Draft EIS/EIR was released on August 22, 2014 for a public
comment period of 60 days. In November 2014, the Metro Board approved
carrying forward two build alternatives for further study: The SR 60
NSDV, referred to herein as the SR 60 Alternative, and the Washington
Boulevard Alternative. Based on the volume and scope of comments
received on the Draft EIS/EIR, the Board deferred the selection of a
Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and determined that additional
technical investigation, a Post Draft EIS/EIR Technical Study, would be
needed to address major areas of concern raised by Cooperating
Agencies, corridor cities and stakeholders for both build alternatives.
The Metro Board also eliminated the Garfield Avenue aerial segment of
the Washington Boulevard Alternative and directed staff to carry out
additional technical work, including identifying a new north-south
alignment to connect to the Washington Boulevard Alternative, and
explore the feasibility of operating both the SR 60 and Washington
Boulevard Alternatives.
Extensive coordination with Caltrans, EPA, USACE, CDFW and SCE
occurred on the design of the SR 60 Alternative to address these
agencies' respective comments on the Draft EIS/EIR throughout the
technical investigation process. Some of the issues discussed with
resource agencies throughout the technical study included: Addressing
concerns related to the former OII Superfund site; minimizing impacts
to adjacent developments such as the MarketPlace in Monterey Park;
minimizing potential impacts to the ability to add high-occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes to the SR 60 Freeway; avoiding impacts to the on
and off-ramps at Paramount Boulevard; mitigating conflicts with
transmission lines; and preserving the ability to develop a station and
park and ride structure on Santa Anita Avenue.
The route planning process for the Washington Boulevard Alternative
started with 27 potential connection options to Washington Boulevard.
These route options were evaluated based on several factors including
physical constraints, ridership, cost, travel time, access to major
activity centers, economic development opportunities, transit-oriented
communities potential, and consistency with community goals. Three
north-south connection options were shared at community meetings held
in March 2016, June 2016, and February 2017. The community provided
extensive feedback on the Washington Boulevard Alternative north-south
connection options. The feedback was instrumental in confirming Metro's
understanding of key issues for each routing concept and in focusing
the conceptual design studies. Based on the technical analysis, design
refinements and feedback received from the community and key
stakeholders, the Atlantic Boulevard below-grade option was recommended
for Board approval as part of the new Washington Boulevard Alternative
In May 2017, the Metro Board received the findings of the Post
Draft EIS/EIR Technical Study Report and decided to advance the No
Build Alternative and the following build alternatives for
environmental review:
SR 60 Alternative (previously referred to as the SR 60
NSDV Alternative);
Washington Boulevard Alternative with the Atlantic
Boulevard below-grade option (referred to as the Washington Boulevard
Alternative); and
Combined Alternative, defined as full build out of the SR
60 and Washington Boulevard Alternatives.
The Post Draft EIS/EIR Technical Study Report may be found on the
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project webpage at: https://www.Metro.net/projects/eastside_phase2/).
Each build alternative proposes to develop an LRT facility with
four to 10 stations, depending on the alternative, and identify
transit-oriented community land use concepts and first/last mile
pedestrian/bicycle connectivity opportunities associated with the
proposed stations. The Project will also consider the development of
minimal operable segments and ancillary facilities. A minimal operable
segment is construction of a segment of the LRT route under a build
alternative, which would be able to operate both as a stand-alone
system and also include a maintenance and storage facility. Stakeholder
coordination, design refinement, and impact assessment of the Project
are ongoing. As a result, there will continue to be Project design
iteration. As such, it is anticipated that the Supplemental Draft EIS
document may include, but is not limited to, variations to station
number and locations; options for vertical alignments; options for
parking facilities; specific alignment refinements; ancillary
improvements; and leveraged improvements in collaboration with Metro's
local partners and betterments to address these issues. Therefore,
interested parties are advised to stay informed and engaged with the
numerous Project engagement and communication channels via the project
website below.
No-Build Alternative: The No-Build Alternative would maintain
existing transit service through the year 2042. No new transportation
infrastructure would be built within the project area aside from
projects currently under construction or funded for construction and
operation by 2042 by Measure R or the recently approved Measure M sales
tax. This alternative will include the highway and transit projects in
the current Metro Long Range Transportation Plan and the 2035 SCAG
Regional Transportation Plan. Potential modifications to the Metro bus
network resulting from the Metro NextGen Bus Study and other transit
planning efforts would be included.
SR 60 Alternative (previously known as the SR 60 NSDV Alternative):
This build alternative, as evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR, would extend
the existing Metro Gold Line from the Atlantic Station to the city of
South El Monte. Primarily, it is an aerial alignment that includes four
aerial stations as described in the 2014 Draft EIS/EIR. Refinements to
station locations or new stations may be considered. The SR 60
Alternative alignment would be located primarily along the southern
side of SR 60 Freeway right-of-way (ROW), with the exception of a
segment that passes near the OII Superfund Site in Monterey Park. To
avoid potential impacts to the OII Site, the SR 60 Alternative
alignment would transition to the north side of the SR 60 Freeway,
approximately west of Greenwood Avenue, continue east within the
Caltrans ROW, and then return to the south side of SR 60 Freeway, near
Paramount Boulevard, where it would continue for the remainder of the
alignment until its terminus in the City of South El Monte.
Washington Boulevard Alternative: This build alternative would
extend the Metro Gold Line from the existing Atlantic Station in East
Los Angeles to the City of Whittier. This Alternative includes six
stations. Refinements to station locations or new stations may be
considered. The configuration of the Alternative would vary, as it is
proposed to transition from underground to aerial to at-grade along
various portions of the alignment.
From the existing Atlantic Station, the alignment would transition
from at-grade west of Woods Avenue to below-grade. A design option may
include changing the existing Atlantic Station to a below-grade
station. The alignment
[[Page 24860]]
would continue below-grade roughly following Atlantic Boulevard to
Washington Boulevard. The alignment would remain at-grade along
Washington Boulevard until just west of Lambert Road. Design options
for potential aerial configurations along Washington Boulevard are also
under consideration.
Combined Alternative: The Combined Alternative involves
construction and operation of both the SR 60 and Washington Boulevard
Alternatives and would require infrastructure and operational elements
that would otherwise not be required if only one of the alternatives
was operated as a ``stand alone'' line.
Stations, parking, minimal operating segments, ancillary facilities
such as a maintenance and storage facility/job training center,
traction power substations, and grade separation structures, tail
tracks and storage tracks, track sidings and crossovers, track
signalization, communication facilities, along the Project alignment
would be part of each LRT alternative.
Probable Effects
The purpose of this EIS/EIR process is to study, in a public
setting, the effects of the proposed project and its alternatives on
the physical, human, and natural environment. The FTA and Metro will
evaluate all significant environmental, social, and economic impacts of
the construction and operation of the proposed project. The probable
impacts will be determined as a part of project scoping. Unless further
screening illuminates areas of possible impact, resource areas will be
limited to those uncovered during scoping. Measures to avoid, minimize,
and mitigate adverse impacts will also be identified and evaluated. Key
environmental factors to be addressed include:
Air Quality;
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases;
Community & Neighborhood Impacts;
Construction Impacts;
Cumulative Impacts;
Economic & Fiscal Impacts;
Ecosystems/Biological Resources;
Energy;
Environmental Justice;
Geotechnical/Subsurface/Seismic/Hazardous Materials;
Growth Inducing Impacts;
Historic, Archeological, Tribal Cultural Resources, and
Paleontological Impacts;
Land Use & Planning;
Noise & Vibration;
Parklands and Community Facilities;
Real Estate & Acquisitions;
Safety & Security;
Transportation;
Water Resources & Hydrology; and
Visual & Aesthetics.
FTA Procedures
The regulations implementing NEPA require that FTA and Metro do the
following: (1) Extend an invitation to other Federal and non-Federal
agencies and Native American tribes that may have an interest in the
proposed project to become ``participating agencies;'' (2) provide an
opportunity for involvement by participating agencies and the public to
help define the purpose and need for a proposed project, as well as the
range of alternatives for consideration in the EIS; and (3) establish a
plan for coordinating public and agency participation in, and comment
on, the environmental review process. In 2010, three agencies were
asked and have accepted to be cooperating agencies: EPA, USACE, and
Caltrans, as assigned by FHWA. A total of 24 agencies accepted the
invitation to become a participating agency. An update to participating
and cooperating agencies, with scoping materials appended, was sent to
Federal and non-Federal agencies and Native American tribes that may
have an interest in the proposed project. Any Federal or non-Federal
agency or Native American tribe interested in the proposed project that
did not receive an invitation to become a participating agency should
notify at the earliest opportunity the Project Manager, Ms. Jenny
Cristales-Cevallos, Senior Manager, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-6, Los
Angeles, CA 90012 by mail, or via email at
[email protected].
A comprehensive public involvement program and a Coordination Plan
for public and interagency involvement will be developed for the
project and posted on the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project web
page: https://www.Metro.net/projects/eastside_phase2/). The public
involvement program includes a full range of activities including the
project web page, development and distribution of project newsletters,
and outreach to local officials, community and civic groups, and the
public. Specific activities or events for involvement will be detailed
in the public involvement program.
The Supplemental EIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA and
its implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental
Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and with the FTA/FHWA/Federal Railroad
Administration regulations ``Environmental Impact and Related
Procedures'' (23 CFR part 771). FTA will comply with all Federal
environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders applicable to the
proposed project during the environmental review process to the maximum
extent practicable. These requirements include, but are not limited to,
cooperation and consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and
Administrator of EPA and compliance with NEPA provisions of Federal
transit laws (49 U.S.C. 5323(c)); the project-level air quality
conformity regulations of EPA (40 CFR part 93); the Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines of EPA (40 CFR part 230); the regulations implementing
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR part
800); the regulations implementing Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (50 CFR part 402); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act (23 CFR 774 and 49 U.S.C. 303); and Executive Orders 12898 on
environmental justice, 11988 on floodplain management, and 11990 on
wetlands. FTA is considering combining the Final EIS and the Record of
Decision pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2).
The Paperwork Reduction Act seeks, in part, to minimize the cost to
the taxpayer of the creation, collection, maintenance, use,
dissemination, and disposition of information. Consistent with this
goal and with principles of economy and efficiency in government, it is
FTA policy to limit insofar as possible distribution of complete
printed sets of environmental documents. Accordingly, unless a specific
request for a complete printed set of the environmental document is
received before the document is printed, FTA and its project sponsors
will distribute only electronic copies of the environmental document.
At a minimum, a complete printed set of the environmental document will
be available for review at the project sponsor's offices; an electronic
copy of the complete environmental document and scoping materials will
be available on the project website at https://www.Metro.net/projects/eastside_phase2/.
Edward Carranza, Jr.,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX, Federal Transit
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-11089 Filed 5-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
