[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 129 (Monday, July 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36332-36336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33388]


CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern 
Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company--Control and Operating 
Leases/Agreements--Conrail, Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) and request for comments on proposed EIS scope.

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

SUMMARY: On June 23, 1997, CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc. 
(CSX), Norfolk Southern Corporation, and Norfolk Southern Railway 
Company (NS), and Conrail Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation 
(Conrail) filed an application (primary application) with the Surface 
Transportation Board (Board) under 49 U.S.C. 11323-25. NS, CSX, and 
Conrail are jointly seeking authority for NS and CSX to acquire control 
of Conrail and for the subsequent division of Conrail's assets. The 
proposed transaction involves over 44,000 miles of rail lines and 
related facilities covering a large portion of the eastern United 
States. To evaluate and consider the potential environmental impacts 
that may result from the proposed transaction, the Board's Section of 
Environmental Analysis (SEA) will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS). The Board has determined that an EIS is warranted due 
to the nature and scope of environmental issues (e.g., intercity 
passenger service and commuter rail service) that may arise. As part of 
their primary application to the Board, CSX, NS, and Conrail 
(collectively, Applicants), have filed a detailed operating plan and 
prepared an Environmental Report (ER). The ER describes the physical 
and operational changes that would be associated with the proposed 
transaction and discusses the potential environmental impacts of those 
changes.

DATES: Written comments on the draft scope are due August 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, STB Finance 
Docket No. 33388, Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. Attention: Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section 
of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Filing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Dalton, SEA Project 
Manager, Conrail Control Transaction, (202) 565-1530; or Ms. Dana 
White, SEA Environmental Specialist, at (202) 565-1552. (TDD for the 
hearing impaired: (202) 565-1695).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The proposed transaction would result in certain existing Conrail 
facilities and operations being assigned individually to either CSX or 
NS through operating agreements or other mechanisms, and certain other 
existing Conrail facilities and operations being shared by, and 
operated for the benefit of, both CSX and NS. The result would be an 
expanded CSX rail system, an expanded NS rail system, and certain areas 
of joint ownership and operations. CSX and NS would continue to compete 
with each other in the provision of rail freight services and would 
expand their competition to areas in which Conrail is currently the 
only major rail carrier. Each of the two railroads would utilize its 
existing lines, would operate certain Conrail lines independent of the 
other, and would jointly operate certain Conrail lines.
    Applicants anticipate that the proposed transaction would provide 
for benefits that include: reduced energy usage, enhanced safety, 
reduced highway congestion, reduced system-wide air pollutant 
emissions, expanded competition, and a more efficient rail 
transportation system. The proposed transaction, also referred to as 
the proposed action, is detailed in the primary application and in the 
operating plan and ER that accompanied it. The proposed transaction 
includes changes in railroad operations such as increases and decreases 
in train traffic, changes in activity at rail yards and intermodal 
facilities, and rail line abandonment and construction projects.
    Applicants served the ER concurrently on appropriate federal, 
state, and local agencies. Federal agencies included: U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service and 
Natural Resources Conservation Service), U.S. Department of Interior 
(Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park 
Service, Office of Environmental Project Review, Fish and Wildlife 
Service), U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Railroad 
Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit 
Administration, U.S. Coast Guard), and U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). State agencies included clearinghouses, state departments 
of transportation, public service commissions, and historic 
preservation offices, in the States of AL, CT, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, 
LA, MA, MD, MI, MS, MO, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, WV, and the 
District of Columbia. Applicants also served the ER on cities with 
populations of over 50,000, as well as counties and regional planning 
organizations that could be affected.

Environmental Review Process and Alternatives

    The Board's environmental staff, SEA, is soliciting information and 
comments on the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the 
EIS for the proposed transaction. The National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) process is intended to assist the Board and the public in 
identifying and assessing the potential environmental consequences of a 
proposed action before a decision on that proposed action is made. The 
first stage of the EIS process is scoping. Scoping is an open process 
for determining the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in 
the EIS and their potential for significance.
    Existing rail operations are the baseline from which the potential 
environmental impacts of the proposed transaction will be evaluated. 
Under the NEPA process, SEA will evaluate only

[[Page 36333]]

the potential environmental impacts of operational and physical changes 
that are directly related to the proposed transaction. SEA will not 
consider environmental impacts relating to existing rail operations and 
existing railroad facilities.1 In making its decision in 
this proceeding, the Board will consider the EIS, the public comments, 
and the environmental analysis and recommendations, including any 
environmental mitigation proposed by SEA. Alternatives to be considered 
in the EIS are (1) approval of the transaction as proposed; (2) 
disapproval of the proposed transaction in whole (No-Action 
alternative); or (3) approval of the proposed transaction with 
conditions, including environmental mitigation conditions.2 
Other parties may file ``inconsistent or responsive'' applications 
requesting modifications to the proposed transaction, such as requests 
for trackage rights or the acquisition of particular rail lines. 
Potential environmental impacts and rail system changes proposed in the 
inconsistent and responsive applications will be evaluated in the EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\  In merger and control cases, the Board's practice 
consistently has been to mitigate only those environmental impacts 
that result directly from the transaction. The Board, like its 
predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission, has not imposed 
mitigation to remedy preexisting conditions such as those that might 
make the quality of life in a particular community better, but are 
not a direct result of the merger (i.e., congestion associated with 
the existing rail line traffic, or the traffic of other railroads).
    \2\  The Board has broad authority to impose conditions in 
railroad control transactions under 49 U.S.C. 11324 (c). However, 
the Board's power to impose conditions is not limitless. To survive 
judicial review, the record must support the imposition of the 
condition at issue. Moreover, there must be a sufficient nexus 
between the condition imposed and the transaction before the agency, 
and the condition imposed must be reasonable. See United States v. 
Chesapeake & O. Ry., 426 U.S. 500, 514-15 (1976); Consolidated Rail 
Corp. v. ICC, 29 F.3d 706, 714 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Activities

    NS and CSX requested, and the Board allowed, the proposed 
construction of seven small rail line connections (Seven Connections) 
totaling approximately 4 miles, to be filed and reviewed separately 
from the primary application. This separate environmental review 
process will address only the potential environmental impacts of the 
physical construction of these Seven Connections and Applicants' 
proposed operations over these lines. The operational implications of 
the transaction as a whole, including proposed operations over these 
Seven Connections, if authorized, will be examined in the context of 
the EIS that is being prepared for the proposed 
transaction.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\  Board Decision No. 9 in this proceeding, issued June 12, 
1997, granted Applicants' petition for waiver related to the Seven 
Connections and explained what the environmental review process for 
those projects would be. Specifically, SEA intends to prepare a 
separate Environmental Assessment for each of these small 
construction projects. However, if SEA determines that any one of 
the construction proposals could potentially cause, or contribute 
to, significant environmental impacts then the project will be 
incorporated into the EIS for the overall proposed transaction, and 
will not be separately considered. Also, no rail operations can 
begin over these Seven Connections until completion of the EIS 
process, and issuance of a further decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing Environmental Comments

    SEA encourages broad participation in the EIS process during 
scoping and review of the Draft EIS (DEIS). Interested agencies and 
persons are invited to participate in the scoping phase by reviewing 
the draft scope of the EIS. Due to the broad geographic scope of the 
proposed transaction, SEA does not plan to conduct public scoping 
meetings. Written comments on the draft scope of the EIS may be 
submitted to the Board within the 30-day comment period, as described 
below, no later than August 6, 1997. It is not necessary to be a Party 
of Record (as detailed below) to file comments on the draft scope of 
the EIS and participate in the environmental review process. You need 
only submit a signed original and 10 copies of your comments to: Office 
of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, STB Finance Docket No. 33388, 
Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423-
0001.
    To ensure proper handling of your comments, you must mark your 
submission: Attention: Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of 
Environmental Analysis, Environmental Filing.
    By following this procedure, your comments will be placed in the 
formal Public Record for this case. In addition, SEA will add your name 
to its mailing list for distribution of the final scope of the EIS, the 
DEIS, and Final EIS (FEIS). However, as stated in Board Decision No. 6 
4 in this case, copies of Board decisions, orders, and 
notices will be served only on persons designated as Parties of Record, 
Members of Congress, and Governors on the official service list. All 
other interested persons who wish to receive copies of Board decisions, 
orders, and notices served in this proceeding are encouraged to make 
advance arrangements with the Board's copy contractor, DC News & Data, 
Inc., at (202) 289-4357.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\  Board Decision No. 6 was issued May 30, 1997, and published 
at 62 FR 29387-29391.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parties of Record

    If you wish to become a Party of Record (POR) in this case, you 
must comply with the more rigorous filing and service requirements 
explained in Decision No. 6. Specifically, you must notify the Board by 
August 7, 1997, or 45 days after the primary application was filed, of 
your intent to participate actively in this proceeding by submitting to 
the Office of the Secretary, at the above address, an original plus 25 
copies of a Notice of Intent to Participate accompanied by a 
certificate of service. The Notice must demonstrate compliance with the 
service requirements set forth in the section of Decision No. 6 
entitled ADDRESSES. Thereafter, each POR will receive a copy of the 
official service list that contains the names and addresses of all 
PORs, upon whom all subsequent filings must be served.

For Additional Information

    Contact Mr. Michael Dalton, SEA Project Manager, Conrail Control 
Transaction, (202) 565-1530; or Ms. Dana White, SEA Environmental 
Specialist, at (202) 565-1552 (TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 565-
1695). Summary information about the proposed transaction and draft 
scope of the EIS can be found at the following Internet web site: 
http://www.conrailmerger.com. Requests for summary information on the 
control transaction and EIS scope can be made through SEA's toll-free 
Environmental Hotline at (888) 869-1997.

Environmental Review Schedule

    The Board has adopted a 350-day procedural schedule for the 
proposed transaction proceeding,5 and has determined that 
preparation of an EIS is warranted in this case. The 350-day schedule 
will permit SEA to undertake an EIS that fully considers the 
environmental consequences of this proposed action. Below is a 
discussion of how SEA plans to conduct the environmental review process 
in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\  See Decision No. 6. This schedule is based on the filing 
date (F) of the primary application, which was June 23, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 1997, Applicants filed an ER containing the information 
specified in the Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105.7(e), as 
part of the primary application. The ER was concurrently served on the 
agencies listed in the Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105.7(b), 
and other appropriate entities. The ER describes the physical and 
operational changes in the rail systems and facilities anticipated as a

[[Page 36334]]

result of the proposed transaction. In the ER, Applicants also discuss 
the potential environmental impacts that would be associated with the 
anticipated changes.
    The next step in the environmental review process is scoping. Based 
on the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations, the 
Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105, the ER, and all other 
information available to date, SEA has prepared this draft scope of the 
EIS. Written public comments on the draft scope of the EIS are invited, 
and are due August 6, 1997. After SEA considers all comments submitted 
by the comment deadline, SEA will prepare a final scope of the EIS. SEA 
intends to issue the final scope of the EIS in September 1997. This 
final scope of the EIS will be distributed to all PORs, commenters, and 
appropriate agencies.
    Based on SEA's independent environmental analysis, review of all 
information available to date, and consultations with appropriate 
agencies, SEA then will prepare a DEIS. The DEIS will address relevant 
environmental concerns, as described in the final scope of the EIS, and 
recommend appropriate environmental mitigation. In addition, the DEIS 
will address environmental impacts associated with any inconsistent or 
responsive applications or settlement agreements. 6 SEA 
intends to serve the DEIS in November 1997, approximately 5 months 
after the primary application was filed in this proceeding. SEA will 
serve the DEIS on all Parties of Record to this proceeding, commenters 
who comply with the above-mentioned filing procedures, and appropriate 
federal, state, and local government agencies. Also, EPA will publish a 
notice of the availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register. The 
DEIS will have a comment period of 45 days, as required by CEQ 
regulations at 40 CFR 1506.10(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\  Under the procedural schedule previously established for 
this proceeding (Decision No. 6), inconsistent and responsive 
applicants must provide a description of the proposed inconsistent 
or responsive application by day F + 60. Inconsistent and responsive 
applicants must file Responsive Environmental Reports or verified 
statements by day F + 100, indicating that there are no potentially 
significant environmental impacts. They must file inconsistent and 
responsive applications by day F + 120. SEA anticipates that the 
issues addressed in the final scope of the EIS will be similar to 
issues that may be raised in any subsequent filing of inconsistent 
or responsive applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering comments on the DEIS, SEA will issue a FEIS. The 
FEIS will address comments to the DEIS and will include SEA's final 
recommendations, including appropriate environmental mitigation. SEA 
will serve the FEIS in late March or early April, prior to the Board's 
voting conference, which currently is scheduled to be held April 14, 
1998. At the voting conference, the Board will announce whether it will 
grant the application, deny the application, or grant it with 
appropriate conditions, including environmental mitigation conditions. 
The Board intends to serve a written decision in this case by June 8, 
1998. In that decision, the Board will address both environmental and 
transportation issues and impose any conditions found to be 
appropriate.
    Parties that wish to file an administrative appeal of the Board's 
written decision (including any environmental conditions that might be 
imposed) may do so within 20 days from the service date of the Board's 
decision, as provided in the Board's rules. Any interested party will 
have approximately 2 months to consider the FEIS prior to commencement 
of the aforementioned period for filing administrative appeals. The 
schedule will provide adequate time to pursue administrative review of 
the Board's June 1998 decision after it is issued. Any administrative 
appeals will be addressed in a subsequent decision. This process is 
consistent with CEQ rules (40 CFR 1506.10 (b)).

                                              Projected Schedule 7                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Preliminary Environmental Report \8\ submitted  May 16, 1997.                                          
 to SEA. (F-30) \9\.                                                                                            
 Primary Application and Environmental Report    June 23, 1997.                                         
 filed. (F).                                                                                                    
 Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental    July 7, 1997.                                          
 Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Statement                                                            
 Scoping Notice issued. (Federal Register Notice)..                                                             
 Comments on the Draft Scope of the              Aug. 6, 1997.                                          
 Environmental Impact Statement due (end of 30-day                                                              
 comment period)..                                                                                              
 Descriptions of Inconsistent and Responsive     Aug. 22, 1997.                                         
 Applications filed. (F + 60)..                                                                                 
 Last day to file Preliminary Draft              Sept. 5, 1997.                                         
 Environmental Assessments for the Seven Separate                                                               
 Construction Projects referenced in Decision No. 9..                                                           
 Final Scope of the Environmental Impact         Sept. 1997.                                            
 Statement issued..                                                                                             
 Responsive Environmental Reports and Verified   Oct. 1, 1997.                                          
 Environmental Statements due. (F + 100)..                                                                      
 Inconsistent and Responsive Applications due.   Oct. 21, 1997.                                         
 (F + 120)..                                                                                                    
 Draft Environmental Impact Statement served...  Nov. 1997.                                             
 Draft Environmental Impact Statement comments   Jan. 1998.                                             
 due (end of 45-day comment period)..                                                                           
 Final Environmental Impact Statement served...  Late Mar. or Early Apr., 1998.                         
 Oral Argument.................................  Apr. 9, 1998.                                          
 Voting Conference.............................  Apr. 14, 1998.                                         
 Final Decision served.........................  June 8, 1998.                                          
 Administrative Appeals Filing Deadline........  June 29, 1998.                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Actual dates may vary slightly. These are the dates that will apply if the Board accepts the primary        
  application as filed on June 23, 1997.                                                                        
\8\ The Preliminary Environmental Report contained preliminary, descriptive information on the proposed         
  transaction.                                                                                                  
\9\ ``F'' is the filing date of the primary application. The Board established the time periods related to the  
  filing date in the procedural schedule set out in Decision No. 6 in this proceeding.                          

Draft Scope of the EIS

Proposed Action and Definition of Alternatives

    The proposed action is Applicants' proposed acquisition and 
control, jointly or individually, of Conrail's rail lines and 
facilities, as explained in the primary application's operating plan 
and ER. The proposed transaction includes changes in railroad 
operations such as increases and decreases in train traffic on rail 
lines, changes in activity at rail yards and intermodal facilities, and 
rail line abandonment and construction projects.
    Reasonable or feasible alternatives that will be evaluated in the 
EIS are (1) the proposed action, (2) the no-action alternative, and (3) 
the proposed action with conditions, including

[[Page 36335]]

environmental mitigation conditions. Proposed modifications to the 
proposed transaction as requested by other parties in their 
inconsistent or responsive applications will also be addressed in the 
EIS.

Environmental Impact Analysis

    Analysis in the EIS will address proposed activities and their 
potential environmental impacts, as appropriate. The scope of the 
analysis will include the following types of activities:
    1. Anticipated changes in level of operations on rail lines (e.g., 
an increase in average trains per day) for those rail line segments 
which meet or exceed the Board's thresholds for environmental review in 
49 CFR 1105.7. In cases where the Board's environmental rules do not 
provide a threshold, the EIS generally will use increases of eight (8) 
trains per day or more as the threshold for addressing environmental 
impacts. Where appropriate, available system-wide data will be used.
    2. Proposed rail line abandonments.
    3. Proposed changes in activity at rail yards and intermodal 
facilities to the extent such changes may exceed the Board's thresholds 
for environmental analysis in 49 CFR 1105.7.
    4. Proposed requests for trackage rights or rail line acquisitions 
that may be included in inconsistent and responsive applications.
    5. Proposed physical construction of rail line segments other than 
the Seven Connections discussed above and in Decision No. 
9.10 Subsequent references to construction projects in this 
scoping document do not include these Seven Connections. Alternatives 
to construction could include feasible alternate alignments that may be 
environmentally preferable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As noted in Decision No. 9, in reviewing the Seven 
Connections separately, the Board will consider the regulatory and 
environmental aspects of these proposed constructions and 
Applicants' proposed operations over these lines together in the 
context of whether to authorize each individual physical 
construction project. The operational implications of the proposed 
transaction as a whole, including operations over the 4 or so miles 
embraced in the Seven Connections will be examined in the context of 
the EIS for the overall control transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact Categories

    The EIS will address potential impacts on the environment that will 
include the areas of safety, transportation systems, land use, energy, 
air quality, noise, biological resources, water resources, 
socioeconomic effects directly related to physical changes in the 
environment, environmental justice, and cultural and historic 
resources, as described below.
1. Safety
    The EIS will:
    A. Address rail highway grade crossing safety factors, as 
appropriate.
    B. Consider increased probability of train accidents, derailments, 
and other incidents, as appropriate.
    C. Address potential effects of increased freight traffic on 
commuter and intercity passenger service operations.
    D. Discuss the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 
transaction on public health and safety with respect to the 
transportation of hazardous materials, including:
    (1) Changes in the types of hazardous materials and quantities 
transported or re-routed;
    (2) Nature of the hazardous materials being transported;
    (3) Applicants' safety practices and protocols;
    (4) Applicants' safety record (to the extent available) on 
derailments, accidents and hazardous materials spills;
    (5) Any existing contingency plans to address accidental spills;
    (6) Probability of increased spills given railroad safety 
statistics and applicable Federal Railroad Administration requirements; 
and
    (7) Location and types of hazardous substances at hazardous waste 
sites or hazardous materials spills on the right-of-way of any proposed 
construction or rail line abandonment site.
2. Transportation System
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe system-wide effects of the proposed operational 
changes, constructions, and rail line abandonments and evaluate 
potential environmental impacts on commuter rail service and interstate 
passenger service.
    B. Discuss potential diversions of freight traffic from trucks to 
rail and from rail to trucks, as appropriate.
    C. Address, as appropriate, vehicular delays at rail crossings and 
intermodal facilities due to increases in rail related operations. A 
range of typical rail operations and traffic conditions will be defined 
for purposes of evaluating the impacts of potential vehicular delays. 
Transportation impacts at grade crossings will be evaluated for those 
crossings having average daily vehicle trips of 5,000 or 
more.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Crossings with average daily vehicle trips of fewer than 
5,000 vehicles per day typically do not experience serious delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Land Use
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe whether the proposed rail line construction and 
abandonment activities are consistent with existing land use plans.
    B. Describe environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
construction of new rail lines or expansion of facilities as to acres 
of prime farmland potentially removed from production.
    C. Discuss consistency of proposed rail line construction and 
abandonment activities with applicable coastal zone requirements.
4. Energy
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe the potential environmental impact of the proposed 
transaction on transportation of energy resources and recyclable 
commodities to the extent such information is available.
    B. Discuss the overall increase or decrease in energy efficiency 
(fuel use) from truck-to-rail diversions, based on estimates of such 
diversions subject to the Board's thresholds in 49 CFR 1105.7 
(e)(4)(iv), for diversions of 1,000 rail carloads per year, or fifty 
(50) rail carloads per mile per year for any line segment.
    C. Discuss estimated changes in energy efficiency of rail-to-truck 
diversions that exceed the Board's environmental thresholds in 49 CFR 
1105.7(e)(4)(iv).
5. Air Quality
    The EIS will:
    A. Evaluate air emissions increases that exceed the Board's 
environmental thresholds in 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(5)(i), in an air quality 
attainment or maintenance area as designated under the Clean Air Act as 
it existed on the date the primary application was filed.12 
The thresholds are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Air quality attainment areas are areas which comply with 
national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter, 
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead. 
Non-attainment areas are areas which do not comply with one or more 
ambient air quality standards. Maintenance areas are areas which 
were non-attainment in the past but have air quality which complies 
with standards at present. These areas are designated by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) A 100 percent increase in rail traffic or an increase of eight 
(8) trains a day on any segment of rail line affected by the proposal; 
or
    (2) An increase in rail yard activity of at least 100 percent or 
more; or
    (3) An increase in truck traffic of more than ten (10) percent of 
the average daily traffic or fifty (50) vehicles a day.
    B. Evaluate emissions increases, if the proposed transaction 
affects a Class I or non-attainment area as designated under the Clean 
Air Act as of the date the

[[Page 36336]]

application was filed. Thresholds for Class I and non-attainment areas 
are as follows:
    (1) An increase in rail traffic of at least fifty (50) percent or 
an increase of three (3) trains a day or more; or
    (2) An increase in rail yard activity of at least twenty (20) 
percent; or
    (3) An increase in truck traffic of more than ten (10) percent of 
the average daily traffic or fifty (50) vehicles a day.
    C. Discuss the net increase in emissions from increased railroad 
operations associated with the proposed transaction.
    D. Evaluate potential air quality benefits of system-wide emission 
reductions that would result from projected truck-to-rail diversions. 
Net increases, less any estimated reductions due to truck-to-rail 
diversions, will be compared to the entire emission inventory for 
affected non-attainment areas. This discussion will be based on 
emission inventory data provided by the appropriate state agency.
    E. Identify the following information for the anticipated 
transportation of ozone depleting materials (such as nitrogen oxide and 
freon):
    (1) Materials and quantity;
    (2) Applicants' safety practices;
    (3) Applicants' safety record (to the extent available) on 
derailments, accidents, and spills;
    (4) Contingency plans to address accidental spills; and
    (5) Likelihood of an accidental release of ozone depleting 
materials in the event of a collision or derailment.
    F. Discuss potential air emissions increases from vehicle delays at 
rail crossings where the rail crossing is projected to experience an 
increase in rail traffic over the thresholds described above in Section 
5A for attainment and maintenance areas and in Section 5B for Class I 
and non-attainment areas, and which have an average daily vehicle 
traffic level above 5,000. Such increases will be factored into the net 
emissions estimates for the affected area.
    The EIS will not:
    Address ambient impacts of net increases or decreases of emissions 
related to rail operations changes, traffic delay analysis, and truck 
to rail diversions, due to the infeasibility of incorporating such 
analysis into local and regional air quality impacts analyses, 
emissions databases, and air quality modeling protocols for a project 
that involves over 44,000 miles of rail lines and related facilities 
covering a large portion of the eastern half of the United States. 
Given the broad geographical scope of the proposed transaction, it is 
not feasible to do in any reasonable amount of time the thousands of 
modeling analyses that would be required to assess such impacts.
6. Noise
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe potential noise impacts of the proposed transaction for 
those areas that exceed the Board's environmental thresholds identified 
in Section 5A of the Air Quality discussion.
    B. Identify whether the proposed transaction will cause:
    (1) An incremental increase in noise levels of three decibels Ldn 
or more; or
    (2) An increase to a noise level of 65 decibels Ldn or greater. If 
so, an estimate of the number of sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, 
libraries, hospitals, residences) within such areas will be made based 
on census data or other available information. Such receptors will be 
estimated for the area that may increase to 65 decibels Ldn due to 
proposed transaction-related activities.
7. Biological Resources
    The EIS will:
    A. Discuss potential environmental impacts from proposed rail line 
construction and abandonment projects on federal endangered or 
threatened species or designated critical habitats.
    B. Discuss the effects of proposed rail line construction and 
abandonment projects on wildlife sanctuaries or refuges, and national 
or state parks or forests.
8. Water Resources
    The EIS will:
    A. Discuss whether potential impacts from proposed rail line 
construction and abandonment projects may be inconsistent with 
applicable federal or state water quality standards.
    B. Discuss whether permits may be required under Sections 404 or 
402 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) for any proposed rail line 
construction and abandonment projects and whether any such projects 
have the potential to encroach upon any designated wetlands or 100-year 
floodplains.
9. Socioeconomic Issues
    The EIS will address socioeconomic issues shown to be directly 
related to changes in the physical environment as a result of the 
proposed transaction.
10. Environmental Justice
    The EIS will:
    (1) Report on the demographics in the immediate vicinity of any 
area where major activity such as an abandonment or construction is 
proposed;
    (2) Evaluate whether such activities potentially have a 
disproportionately high and adverse health effect or environmental 
impact on any minority or low-income group.
11. Cultural and Historic Resources
    The EIS will address potential impacts from proposed rail line 
construction and abandonment projects on cultural and historic 
resources that are on, or immediately adjacent to, a railroad right-of-
way.

    Issued: July 1, 1997.

    By the Board, Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of Environmental 
Analysis.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-17631 Filed 7-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P