The purpose of the National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee (Committee) is to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on policies, program issues, and research needed to conduct the Wildlife Services program. The Committee also serves as a public forum enabling those affected by the Wildlife Services program to have a voice in the program's policies.

The Health Program Analysis and Evaluation Directorate (HPA&E) under the authority of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)/TRICARE Management Activity (OASD(HA)/TMA) will undertake an evaluation of the DoD's TRICARE Standard healthcare option. HPA&E will collect and analyze data that are necessary to meet the requirements outlined in section 702 of the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2008.

Activities include the collection and analyses of data obtained confidentially from civilian physicians (M.D.s & D.O.s) and at least psychologists within U.S. geographic areas. Specifically, mail surveys with telephone follow-up of civilian providers will be conducted in the TRICARE market areas to determine how many healthcare providers are accepting new patients under TRICARE Standard in each market area. The surveys will be conducted in at least 40 TRICARE geographic areas in the United States each fiscal year through and including fiscal year 2011. Representatives of TRICARE beneficiaries and selected provider groups will be consulted to identify potential locations.

In addition, section 702 of the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires the Department to conduct annual surveys of beneficiary access experience and the availability to access civilian providers under TRICARE Standard and Extra program through FY 2011. These issues address the interests of Congress in reconciliation of responses of providers and beneficiaries who use TRICARE.

Surveys of civilian healthcare providers (M.D.s and D.O.s) and beneficiaries eligible for TRICARE Standard/Extra care will be conducted in at least 40 TRICARE Prime service areas each year. The objective of this effort is to determine if TRICARE beneficiaries have difficulty in finding health care providers willing to provide services under Standard or Extra, and the extent to which providers in the area participate in Standard/Extra.

DoD Directive 1000.25 DoD Personnel Identity Protection (PIP) Program , July 2004, establishes policy for the implementation and operation of the PIP Program, to include use of DoD identity credentials and operation of the Defense Biometric Identification System (DBIDS). The DBIDS is a force protection tool of the law enforcement community, utilizing a centralized, rules-based, identity management and access verification system. Consistent with guidance contained in DoD Regulation 5200.08, Physical Security Program , April 2007, DBIDS will produce an identification card that will aid security personnel in identifying, controlling, and accounting for non-DoD personnel entering military installations.

The Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) Customer Satisfaction Survey for Sponsors and Students will be administered to DoDEA students in grades 4-12, and to all parents and/or sponsors of DoDEA students. Participating in the survey is completely voluntary and will be administered through an online, Web-based technology. In order to have comparison between DoDEA parents and parents of students in U.S. public schools, some survey questions from the Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward Schools will be used. Additional survey questions were developed to address specific issues and needs within DoDEA. The surveys will give parents/sponsors and students an opportunity to comment on their overall levels of satisfaction with DoDEA schools, as well as on specific programmatic issues related to Department of Defense schools, including curriculum, communication, and technology. The surveys will be administered biennially.

The information derived from these surveys will be used to improve planning efforts at all levels throughout DoDEA. Schools, districts, and areas will use the survey results to gain insight into the satisfaction levels of sponsors and students, which is one of many measures used for future planning of programs and services offered to DoDEA's students. The survey results will also be used as an outcome measure to monitor progress on the goals of the DoDEA Community Strategic Plan.

Under section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (the Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c), the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each arbitration panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

Frank Malone (Complainant) alleged violations by the Ohio Rehabilitation Services, Bureau of Services for the Blind, the State Licensing Agency (SLA), regarding the Act, the implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395, and State rules and regulations. Specifically, Complainant alleged that these violations led to his resignation as manager of the cafeteria at the Verne Riffe Center for Government and the Arts (Riffe Center) in Columbus, Ohio.

Additionally, Complainant alleged that the SLA improperly administered the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Program with respect to the SLA's rules and regulations concerning rent payments owed by him to the Ohio Building Authority (OBA), and the SLA's alleged failure to maximize Complainant's cafeteria facility, thus limiting his vocational potential.

Complainant filed a grievance against the SLA on this matter. A hearing on the grievance was held on August 20, 21, 22, and 26, 2003. Complainant's grievance was denied. On October 14, 2003, the hearing officer sustained the SLA's decision concerning the revocation of Complainant's vending license and ordered that the SLA collect from Complainant all monies due regarding outstanding rent payments to OBA. On November 19, 2003, the SLA adopted the hearing officer's order as final agency action. Complainant sought review by a Federal arbitration panel of that decision.

After reviewing all of the records and hearing testimony of witnesses, the panel ruled that the SLA failed in its responsibilities toward Complainant in violation of the Act, implementing regulations, and State rules and regulations. Specifically, the panel directed the SLA to restore Complainant's vending operator's license and reinstate him in the Business Enterprise program with full seniority.

Further, the panel concluded that Complainant had been deprived of employment as a licensed vendor for four years, in part as a result of the SLA's omissions. Therefore, the panel also directed the SLA to offer Complainant the first available vending facility consistent with his ability and comparable in size, responsibility, and income potential as that of his previous assignment at the Riffe Center cafeteria facility.

Additionally, the panel awarded Complainant damages in the amount of $93,202.01 for lost profits that he would have earned at the Riffe Center cafeteria facility less the amount of rent payments owed by Complainant to the SLA in the amount of $19,254.30. The total amount of the damage award to be paid by the SLA to Complainant is $73,947.71. The panel also found insufficient evidence to award further damages based upon Complainant's claim that he was entitled to an ATM machine and to have a priority for catering.

The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

The CDOW has filed a petition-application under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq. ) for classification and conveyance. The land is not needed for any Federal purposes and has been identified for disposal in the Northeast Colorado Resource Management Plan (September 1986). Conveyance of the land for recreational or public purposes is consistent with current BLM land use planning and would complement the CDOW's outdoor recreation program and would be in the public interest.

All interested parties will receive a copy of this notice once it is published in the Federal Register . The notice will be published in a newspaper of local circulation for three consecutive weeks. The regulations do not require a public meeting.

Upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register the parcel will be segregated from all other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for conveyance under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and leasing under the mineral leasing laws.

The conveyance of the land, when issued, will be subject to the following terms, conditions and reservations:

1. A reservation to the United States for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).

2. Provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and to all applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior.

3. All mineral deposits in the parcel shall be reserved to the United States together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove the minerals.

4. All valid existing rights documented on the official public land records at the time of patent issuance.

5. Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 3(d) of Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977 (42 FR 26951) and the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926 as amended, 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq. , the patent will be subject to a restriction which constitutes a covenant running with the land, that the land, which is within the floodplain of the South Platte River, may be used only for non-intensive open space recreation.

6. Indemnification Term: The patentee, by accepting the patent, covenants and agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless from any costs, damages, claims, causes of action, penalties, fines, liabilities, and judgments of any kind arising from the past, present, or future acts or omissions of the patentee, its employees, agents, contractor, or lessees, or any third party, arising out of, or in connection with, the patentee's use, occupancy or operations on the patented real property. This indemnification and hold harmless agreement includes, but is not limited to, acts and omissions of the patentee and its employees, agents, contractors or lessees, or any third party, arising out of or in connection with the use and/or occupancy of the patented real property which has already resulted or does hereafter result in: (1) Violations of Federal, State and local laws and regulations that are now, or may in the future, become applicable to the real property; (2) Judgments, claims, or demands of any kind assessed against the United States; (3) Costs, expenses, or damages of any kind incurred by the United States; (4) Releases or threatened releases of solid or hazardous waste(s) and/or hazardous substance(s) as defined by Federal or State environmental laws, off, on, into, or under land, property, and other interests of the United States; (5) Activities by which solids or hazardous substances or wastes, as defined by Federal and State environmental laws are generated, released, stored, used, or otherwise disposed of on the patented real property, and any cleanup response, remedial action, or other actions related in any manner to said solid or hazardous substance(s) or waste(s); or (6) natural resource damages as defined by Federal and State law. This covenant shall be construed as running with the patented real property and may be enforced by the United States in a court of competent jurisdiction.

7. CERCLA Term: “Pursuant to the requirements established by section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)) (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1988, (100 Stat. 1670), notice is hereby given that the above-described parcel has been examined and no evidence was found to indicate that any hazardous substances have been stored for one year or more, nor had any hazardous substances been disposed of or released on the subject property.”

Classification Comments: Interested persons may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for development as a recreational area to include: a graveled parking lot, boundary fencing, informational signs, food plots (.5-1.5 ac), hunter access paths and flushing strips. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.

Application Comments: Interested persons may submit comments, including notification of any encumbrances or other claim relating to the parcel, and regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision, or any other factors not directly related to the suitability of the land for recreational use and development. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the BLM State Director, Colorado. In the absence of any adverse comments, this realty action will become effective 60 days after publication of this Notice of Realty Action in the Federal Register . The land will not be offered for conveyance until after the classification becomes effective. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. If you wish to have your name or address withheld from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state it prominently at the beginning of your comments. Any determination by the BLM to release or withhold the names and/or addresses of those who comment will be made on a case-by-case basis. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. BLM will make available for public review, in their entirety, all comments submitted by businesses or organizations, including comments by individuals in their capacity as an official or representative of an organization or business.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 21-00182-03. This license is held by Pharmacia & Upjohn Company, LLC (the Licensee), a subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc., and governs licensed activities at its 7000 Portage Road, Kalamazoo, Michigan site. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of Building 172 and the adjoining North Tank Farm (the Facilities) for unrestricted use. Licensed activities will continue at other site locations.

The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated August 22, 2007. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register .

The proposed action would approve the Licensee's August 22, 2007, license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facilities for unrestricted use. License No. 21-00182-03 was issued on April 24,1958, pursuant to 10 CFR part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorizes the Licensee to use byproduct materials for activities involving research and development. Amendment 21 issued on July 31, 1984, authorized the incineration of licensed materials in Building 172. The principal types of waste burned in the incinerator in Building 172 included pathologic wastes, trash, returned pharmaceuticals, organic process residues, waste solvents and laboratory chemicals. Some of this incinerated waste was contaminated with low levels of radioactive materials.

The Facilities are situated on a 1728 acre pharmaceutical complex consisting of multiple chemical and compound manufacturing structures including offices and pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. Building 172 is a one story building of about 8500 square feet that is 24 feet in height which contains the incinerator, operating controls, emissions controls, office areas, and waste receipt, transfer and shipping areas. The incinerator is a rotary kiln that is 12 feet long and 5 1/2 feet in diameter with a secondary combustion chamber that is 19 feet long and about 8 feet in diameter. The adjoining North Farm Area consists of three 10,000 gallon steel and carbon tanks used to store liquids prior to incineration. The pharmaceutical complex is located in a mixed residential, agricultural and commercial area.

The licensee ceased using the 10,000 gallon tanks to receive or store radioactive liquids in 1996 and ceased using the incinerator in Building 172 in December 2006. A facility historical site assessment and scoping surveys were performed in January 2007, while demolition and final status surveys of the Facilities were initiated in June 2007. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facilities, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facilities in June and July 2007 and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that they meet the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release.

The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities in the Facilities and seeks their unrestricted use.

The historical review of the relevant licensed activities shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: Hydrogen-3 and carbon-14. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas affected by these radionuclides.

The Licensee completed final status surveys in July 2007 covering all areas of the Facilities. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated August 22, 2007. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable.

Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material in Building 172 and the adjoining North Farm Area. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facilities. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts.

The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facilities for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402, including the impact of residual radioactivity at previously-released site locations of use. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity from the Facilities and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that Building 172 and the adjoining North Farm Area meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative.

NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for review on October 31, 2007. On November 6, 2007, Mr. Bob Skowronek, Chief, Radioactive Materials Unit, with the Michigan DEQ, responded by e-mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments.

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.

Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers.

1. Dee L. Clement, Pfizer, Inc., letter to William Snell, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, dated August 22, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072360479);

2. NRC Inspection Report No. 030-04781/07-01(DNMS) (NRC Form 591M) dated June 29, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071840206);

3. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;”

4. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;”

5. NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities;”

6. NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance.”

If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the amendment of a materials permit held under Master Byproduct Materials License No. 03-23853-01VA. The license is held by the Department of Veterans Affairs (the Licensee). The permit pertains to its VA Medical Center facility located at 1400 Black Horse Hill Road, Coatesville, Pennsylvania (the Facility). Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of the Facility's Building 11 for unrestricted use and termination of the permit. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated June 28, 2007. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register .

The proposed action would approve the Licensee's June 28, 2007, materials permit amendment request, resulting in release of Building 11 for unrestricted use. License No. 03-23853-01VA was issued on March 17, 2003, pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 35, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorizes the Licensee to use byproduct materials at Licensee facilities, as authorized by permits issued by the Licensee's National Radiation Safety Committee for: Medical use defined in 10 CFR part 35; research and development as defined in 10 CFR part 30; portable gauge use; and veterinary use.

Building 11 is a three-story brick building containing 65 rooms, is approximately 40 by 200 feet in size, and was used for research. The site is located in a semi-rural area of mixed residential and commercial land use. Between 1964 and 1996, the VA Medical Center in Coatesville possessed numerous Atomic Energy Commission and NRC licenses. Use of licensed materials at the Medical Center ceased in 1995, and the last of the licenses was terminated in 1996 and the site was released for unrestricted use. Following that action, 28 radioactive-labeled vials were found in Building 11. Accordingly, in February 2006, the Licensee issued a new permit authorizing the Facility to store these vials pending their disposal.

Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of Building 11, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities in accordance with NRC guidance were required to search for any other radioactive materials and conduct radiological surveys of Building 11. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of Building 11 on February 2, April 6, September 28, and October 4, 2006, and on March 9, 2007, and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the proposed action will meet the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release.

The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities in Building 11, and seeks the unrestricted use of Building 11.

The historical review of licensed activities conducted in Building 11 shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: hydrogen-3 (H-3) and carbon-14 (C-14). Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas of Building 11 affected by these radionuclides.

The Licensee completed final status surveys on Building 11 on March 9, 2007. The surveys covered all areas of Building 11. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated June 28, 2007. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the 10 CFR 20.1402 criteria for unrestricted release by using release criteria for building surfaces based on NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86, “Termination of Operating Licenses for Reactors.” The criterion used is 5 × 10 3 disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimeters (dpm/100 cm 2 ) for H-3 and C-14. These values are much more restrictive than the radionuclide-specific dose-based release criteria described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2, which are 1.2 × 10 8 dpm/100 cm 2 for H-3 and 3.7 × 10 6 dpm/100 cm 2 for C-14. These values define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these values and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable.

Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material in Building 11. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding Building 11. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts.

The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of Building 11 for unrestricted use and the termination of the Licensee's permit is in compliance with 10 CFR part 20. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity from Building 11 and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that Building 11 meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered.

The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative.

NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection for review on October 5, 2007. On October 10, 2007, the Bureau of Radiation Protection, responded by e-mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments.

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.

Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers.

1. E. Lynn McGuire, Department of Veterans Affairs, letter to Cassandra Frazier, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, dated June 28, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071860254);

2. Regulatory Guide 1.86, “Termination of Operating Licenses for Reactors;”

3. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;”

4. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;”

5. NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities;”

6. NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance.”

If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.

This notice announces that the FAA has given its overall approval to the noise compatibility program for Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field, effective November 13, 2007.

Under section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has previously submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within the area covered by the noise exposure maps. The Act requires such programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties including local communities, government agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel.

Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part 150 is a local program, not a Federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards expressed in part 150 and the Act and is limited to the following determinations:

a. The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance with the provisions and procedures of FAR part 150;

b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;

c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or intrude into areas preempted by the Federal Government; and

d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator prescribed by law.

Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR part 150, section 150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Where federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must be submitted to the FAA Regional Office in Fort Worth, Texas.

The Greater Baton Rouge Airport District submitted to the FAA on May 14, 2007 the noise exposure maps, descriptions, and other documentation produced during the noise compatibility planning study conducted from May 2005 through May 2007. The Baton Route Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field noise exposure maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with applicable requirements on July 30, 2007. Notice of this determination was published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2007.

The Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field Part 150 study contains a proposed noise compatibility program comprised of actions designed for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from November 2007 to the year 2011. It was requested that the FAA evaluate and approve this material as a noise compatibility program as described in section 47504 of the Act. The FAA began its review of the program on August 7, 2007, and was required by a provision of the Act to approve or disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use of new or modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or disapprove such program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be an approval of such program.

The submitted program contained ten proposed actions for noise mitigation located on and/or off the airport. The FAA completed its review and determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and FAR Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program, therefore, was approved by the FAA effective November 13, 2007.

Outright approval was granted for nine of the specific program elements. Only one program element, Land Use Element 3a, was “Disapproved Pending Submittal of Additional Information to the FAA”. Under this program element, the Airport District asked the FAA to approve the voluntary land acquisition of one hundred eight (108) acres of undeveloped land that was zoned to allow incompatible development within the 2011 65 DNL around Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field. The acreage in question amounted to 13 separate parcels in various locations northwest, northeast, east and southeast of the airport. In disapproving this program element, the FAA found the land in question to be zoned commercial or industrial (a compatible use under Part 150 guidelines), however the involved local zoning districts all permit a variety of noise-sensitive land uses; to include libraries, nursing homes, assisted living residences and hospitals (noncompatible use) within the areas described. In addition, it was determined that undeveloped, residential-zoned land (noncompatible use) northwest, northeast, and east of the Airport is inside the 65 DNL. The FAA therefore determined that supporting documentation would need to be provided showing that (1) the Airport is in compliance with its Grant Assurance 31, (2) appropriate existing and proposed new local land use controls are inadequate to prevent noncompatible development, and (3) noncompatible development of the parcel(s) is highly likely.

The nine program elements approved by the FAA included: Five Land Use Elements that addressed City/Parish compatible use planning around the airport; the development of an airport noise information program; the acquisition of seven (7) homes at various locations around the airport (within the 65 DNL); the offer to sound insulate ninety-two (92) homes located with the 65 DNL contour; and the offer to purchase noise servitudes from those owners who do not wish to participate in the sound insulation program or who's house cannot accommodate the sound insulation process.

Four Program Management Elements were approved that established a system for logging and tracking noise complaints; developing and maintaining a log for recording engine maintenance run-ups on the airport; periodically reviewing the Part 150 Study to determine if changing airport conditions warrant further review; and preparing a plan to deal with the disposal or development of noise lands acquired by the airport under previous noise mitigation actions.

These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of Approval signed by the Airports Division Manager on November 13, 2007. The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA office listed above and at the administrative offices of the Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field. The Record of Approval also will be available on-line at http://www.faa.gov/apr/environmental/14cfr150/index14.cfm.

Title of Collection: Request for Waiver of Service Obligation, Request for Deferment of Service Obligation and Application for Review.

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved information collection.

OMB Control Number: 2133-00510.

Form Numbers: MA-935, MA-936, MA-937.

Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of approval by the Office of Management and Budget.

Summary of Collection of Information: This information collection is essential for determining if a student or graduate of the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) or subsidized student or graduate of a State maritime academy has a waive able situation preventing them from fulfilling the requirements of a service obligation contract signed at the time of their enrollment in a Federal maritime training program. It also permits the Maritime Administration (MARAD) to determine if a graduate, who wishes to defer the service obligation to attend graduate school, is eligible to receive a deferment. Their service obligation is required by law.

Need and Use of the Information: This information collected establishes overall compliance with the service obligation contract in support of the Economic Growth and Trade and National Security goals identified in the DOT Strategic Plan. Because the graduates are required to serve as commissioned officers in the U.S. Merchant Marine Reserve, U.S. Naval Reserve (as an aspect of the service obligation), they become the Navy's single largest source of naval reserve officers except for Naval R.O.T.C. In their civilian capacities, they are required first to sail on their professional merchant marine licenses or work in the maritime industry ashore. This dual role makes the graduates especially valuable because national defense planning initiatives and the Nation's economic needs depend on available personnel who are highly trained.

Description of Respondents: U.S. Merchant Marine Academy students and graduates, and subsidized students and graduates.

Annual Responses: 21.

Annual Burden: 4.2 hours.

Comments: Comments should be referred to the docket number that appears at the top of this document. Written comments may be submitted to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Comments also may be submitted by electronic means via the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov . Specifically address whether this information collection is necessary for proper performance of the functions of the agency and will have practical utility, accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to minimize this burden, and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. All comments received will be available for examination at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. EDT ( or EST ), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.regulations.gov .

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov .

CNR is one of Canada's two major railroads, extending from Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the Atlantic to Vancouver and Prince Rupert, British Columbia, on the Pacific. Through its GTC subsidiary, CNR controls the following rail carriers: GTW, IC, CCP, WCL, Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway Company (DWP), St. Clair Tunnel Company (SCTC), Cedar River Railroad Company (CRRC), Waterloo Railway Company (Waterloo), Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Company (SSMB), Wisconsin Chicago Link Ltd. (WCLL), Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company (DMIR), Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company (B&LE), and The Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Company (P&C Dock). DWP extends the applicants' system from the international border at Duluth Junction/Ranier over DWP's own lines to Nopeming Junction, MN. GTW also extends applicants' system to Chicago from the international border at Port Huron/Sarnia and Detroit/Windsor. In 1999, applicants acquired IC, thus extending applicants' system from Chicago to the Gulf Coast, and becoming part of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rail network offering shippers access to Kansas City Southern de Me xico, S.A. de C.V. (KCSM), Mexico's largest rail system. In 2001, applicants acquired WCL and its affiliates, and in 2004 applicants acquired the Great Lakes Transportation LLC (GLT) carriers including DMIR, thus providing applicants with a connection between Chicago and applicants' lines west of the Great Lakes. In the GLT transaction, applicants also acquired B&LE and P&C Dock, which, together with applicants' ownership of DMIR and Great Lakes Fleet, LLC (a water carrier operating on the Great Lakes), provides applicants a continuous supply chain for iron ore moving from the Missabe Iron Range of Minnesota to the Union Railroad Company, which serves the Edgar Thompson Steel Works of United States Steel Corporation (USS) in Braddock, PA.

EJ&EW is an Illinois corporation formed on August 16, 2007, and is a wholly owned noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E. EJ&E is a Class II railroad that currently operates over 198 miles of track in Northeastern Illinois and Northwestern Indiana, consisting primarily of an arc around Chicago, IL, extending from Waukegan, IL, southwards to Joliet, IL, then eastward to Gary, IN, and then northwest to South Chicago along Lake Michigan. EJ&E provides rail service to approximately 100 customers, including steel mills, coal utilities, plastics, and chemical producers, steel processors, distribution centers, and scrap processors. EJ&E is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of USS, a noncarrier. USS owns all of the issued and outstanding stock of Transtar, Inc. (Transtar), a noncarrier holding company, which owns all of the issued and outstanding stock of seven common carrier railroads, including EJ&E. 2

Before applicants acquire control of EJ&EW, EJ&E plans to transfer all of its land, rail, and related assets located west of the centerline of Buchanan Street in Gary (together with the real property and related fixtures associated with the hump and Dixie leads located east of Buchanan Street) to EJ&EW, which at that time would become a rail common carrier. As noted above, this transaction is the subject of the Sub-No. 1 related filing. EJ&E would retain its land, rail, and related assets east of the centerline (other than the real property and related fixtures associated with the hump and Dixie leads). It is expected that, if the Control Transaction is approved and applicants acquire control of EJ&EW, EJ&E would change its name to Gary Railway Company, and EJ&EW would assume the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company name.

In order to permit trains of its operating subsidiaries—GTW, IC, CCP, and WCL—to operate over EJ&EW's line and provide for maximum operational flexibility, applicants intend to cause EJ&EW to grant trackage rights to those subsidiaries over the entire length of EJ&EW from Waukegan to Gary. Applicants also intend to grant EJ&EW trackage rights over selected portions of its CCP and IC subsidiaries. These proposed trackage rights are the subjects of notices of exemption in the related filings Sub-Nos. 2 through 7, providing for grants of trackage rights by EJ&EW to GTW, IC, CCP, and WCL and by IC and CCP to EJ&EW.

GTC and EJ&E have entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement (Agreement), dated as of September 25, 2007. The Agreement provides that, subject to Board authorization of the Control Transaction, and other conditions, GTC will purchase from EJ&E all of the issued and outstanding common stock of EJ&EW for an overall purchase price of $300 million, subject to adjustments as provided for in the Agreement.

Applicants state three primary purposes for pursuing the Control Transaction. First, they believe the Control Transaction would improve their operations in and beyond the Chicago area by providing CNR with a continuous rail route around Chicago, under applicants' ownership, that would connect the five CNR lines that presently radiate from Chicago. Second, acquiring EJ&E's rail assets would make available to applicants EJ&E's Kirk Yard—an automated classification facility in Gary—as well as smaller facilities in Joliet and Whiting, IN, thus enabling applicants to consolidate car classification work at Kirk and East Joliet Yards and to reduce use of the Belt Railway Company of Chicago's (BRC) Clearing Yard. Lastly, applicants state that their system would benefit from the fact that EJ&E provides an important supply line for North American steel, chemical, and petrochemical industries, as well as for Chicago area utilities and others, which would allow applicants to develop closer and more extensive relationships with companies in and serving those industries.

Financial Arrangements . No new securities have been or would be issued in connection with applicants' acquisition of control of EJ&EW. Under the Agreement, the purchase price would be paid in cash on the closing date. Applicants anticipate that they would finance the Control Transaction with debt and cash on hand.

Passenger Service Impacts. Applicants state that the Control Transaction would not affect passenger rail service operating on CNR rail lines today; rather, applicants anticipate reduced freight train traffic on CNR lines inside the EJ&E arc, which would benefit passenger operations over those lines. Once applicants cease operations on the St. Charles Air Line Route, applicants state that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) would be the only remaining regular user of that route. Before the line can be formally abandoned, Amtrak trains would need to be re-routed to Norfolk Southern Railway Company's line, as has been planned in connection with the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) Project. Applicants state that EJ&E lines are not used for intercity or commuter passenger rail service, though EJ&E does cross, at grade, several corridors of the Commuter Rail Division of the Regional Transportation Authority of Northeast Illinois (Metra). Applicants state that they would work with Metra and the host freight operators to coordinate operations and adjust operating windows so that the needs of all users can be met. Applicants also note that they are aware that Metra is studying the feasibility of using a portion of the EJ&E corridor for future light-rail commuter service. Applicants state that they would explore options to further Metra's goal of extended commuter train service while accommodating applicants' need to move its freight traffic more efficiently through and around Chicago.

Market Analysis. The primary application included market analyses that contend that there would be no reduction in direct rail competition between CNR and EJ&E as a result of this acquisition. Applicants analyzed stations and interchange points served by both CNR and EJ&E and concluded that there are no cases of 2 to 1 or 3 to 2 reductions in shipper rail options. In addition, applicants submitted a detailed geographic market study of origin and destination markets showing that the acquisition would not increase market concentration.

Discontinuances/Abandonments. Applicants state that they do not anticipate any transaction-related line abandonments. Although applicants intend to re-route all their trains currently operating over the St. Charles Air Line, a formal abandonment of that line would require coordination with BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad Company, which own the line jointly with applicants, and with existing users such as Amtrak.

Public Interest Considerations. Applicants state that the Control Transaction would promote the public interest in a more efficient and reliable rail transportation system, and would have no adverse competitive, safety, or other effects. Applicants assert that the Control Transaction would have no anticompetitive effects in that it would connect two transportation systems that do not compete but instead complement each other and would together create a stronger network. Applicants assert that there would be no 2-to-1 shippers, nor 3-to-2 shippers, on the CNR/EJ&EW system. Moreover, applicants state that the Control Transaction would bring about no vertical foreclosure, no reduction in effective geographic competition, and no increase in market power. Applicants state that, as in past transactions, they are committed to keeping gateways open and honoring trackage rights and haulage agreements with all connecting carriers.

Applicants assert that, even if the Control Transaction had any adverse impacts on competition, those effects would be outweighed by its transportation benefits. The Control Transaction, applicants assert, would ensure more efficient and reliable rail transportation at a lower cost and would, over time, reduce rail traffic congestion, increase rail capacity for carriers operating in Chicago, and reduce traffic density in Chicago's urban core. Applicants state that the Control Transaction would provide CNR with a continuous route around Chicago, which would make it possible for CNR traffic to bypass the congested Chicago terminal. Applicants maintain that this rerouting would benefit CNR-served customers in the Chicago area and customers served by other Class I railroads by reducing the demand on the capacity of BRC, Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad (IHB), and other CNR lines through the central Chicago terminal area. Further, applicants note, the availability of a continuous CNR route around Chicago would greatly improve the fluidity of intermodal and other CNR traffic that must move to, from, or through Chicago. Also, the availability of a continuous CNR route around Chicago would advance the congestion-reducing objectives of the CREATE Project and make it possible for applicants to more quickly cease operations over the St. Charles Air Line. The Control Transaction, applicants state, would also eliminate interchanges between EJ&E and CNR, making possible single-line service for approximately 10,000 carloads that the two railroads now carry in interline service each year. Applicants also note that the public would benefit from applicants' plans to spend approximately $100 million to upgrade EJ&E's infrastructure.

Time Schedule for Consummation. Applicants intend to consummate control of EJ&EW as soon as possible after the effective date of the final order, should the Board authorize the proposed Control Transaction. Applicants expect to have fully implemented the Control Transaction within three years after consummation of their acquisition of control over EJ&EW.

Environmental Impacts. Applicants concede that environmental review under NEPA is necessary in this case. As discussed below, the increased traffic that would result from this transaction would substantially exceed the Board's thresholds for environmental review. Due to the potentially significant impact that this transaction may have on the environment and communities in the affected area, the Board will prepare a full EIS. Applicants also have agreed to prepare a Safety Integration Plan (SIP), pursuant to the Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1106, which will be addressed in the EIS. In the SIP, applicants will specify how they would ensure safe operations during the acquisition and implementation process. Applicants state that the transaction would have no adverse impact on historic properties, as there are no line abandonments and no elimination of duplicative rail facilities involved in the proposed transaction, and that, therefore, there is no need for historic review under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470. Based on the available information, it does not appear that historic review is required in this case.

Labor Impacts. Applicants anticipate two principal labor impacts as a result of the Control Transaction: The elimination of redundant positions and the organization/integration of forces to realize the efficiencies of the transaction. Applicants estimate that the Control Transaction would result in the elimination of 114 positions. Applicants anticipate that, to the extent the transaction leads to the elimination of positions, most of these impacts could be accommodated through normal attrition during the implementation period. Applicants' continuing need for experienced, skilled railroaders at its neighboring Chicago operations makes it highly likely that most of the affected employees would have the opportunity to fill other positions opening up elsewhere in applicants' Chicago operation. Applicants state they would work with the respective collective bargaining units to attempt to secure labor implementing agreements that would provide for the flexibility to fully employ any potentially adversely impacted employee. Applicants further acknowledge that the Control Transaction would be subject to employee protective conditions and other procedures adopted in New York Dock Ry.—Control—Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 360 I.C.C. 60, aff'd sub nom. New York Dock Ry. v. United States, 609 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1979) ( New York Dock ).

Related Filings. In connection with this transaction, several notices of exemption were filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3) and 1180.2(d)(7).

Sub-No. 1. In Sub-No. 1, EJ&E filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3) for a transaction within a corporate family. Under this notice of exemption, EJ&E will transfer all its land, rail, and related assets located west of the centerline of Buchanan Street in Gary, IN (together with the real property and related fixtures associated with the hump and Dixie leads located east of Buchanan Street), to EJ&EW, which upon completion of the transfers would become a rail carrier. EJ&E will retain its land, rail, and related assets east of the centerline (other than the real property and related fixtures associated with the hump and Dixie leads). EJ&E intends to consummate the transaction with EJ&EW immediately before CNR and GTC acquire control of EJ&EW, which would not occur until after approval of the Control Transaction by the Board. The purpose of the transaction is that it would allow EJ&E to segregate into a separate corporate entity (EJ&EW) the rail properties to be acquired by GTC, thus facilitating the transaction described in the primary application. According to EJ&E, this is a transaction within a corporate family of the type specifically exempted from prior review and approval under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3). As a condition to use of this exemption, EJ&E states that any employees adversely affected by the transaction will be protected by the conditions set forth in New York Dock.

Sub-No. 2. In Sub-No. 2, CCP submits a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). Pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement, EJ&EW would grant CCP trackage rights over all of EJ&EW's line, which runs between milepost 74.6 at Waukegan, IL, and milepost 45.4 at Gary, IN, including all trackage west of the centerline of Buchanan Street in Gary, IN, plus trackage associated with the hump and Dixie leads located east of Buchanan Street, a distance approximately 120 miles. Parties intend to execute the trackage rights agreement promptly upon applicants' acquisition of control of EJ&EW, should the Board approve the proposed Control Transaction. As a condition to this exemption, CCP states that any employees affected by the acquisition of the temporary trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

Sub-No. 3. In Sub-No. 3, GTW submits a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). Pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement, EJ&EW would grant GTW trackage rights over EJ&EW's lines between milepost 74.6 at Waukegan, IL, and milepost 45.4 at Gary, IN, including all trackage west of the centerline of Buchanan Street in Gary, IN, plus trackage associated with the hump and Dixie leads located east of Buchanan Street. 3 Parties intend to execute the trackage rights agreement promptly upon applicants' acquisition of control of EJ&EW, should the Board approve the proposed Control Transaction. As a condition to this exemption, GTW states that any employees affected by the acquisition of the temporary trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN , 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and Operate , 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

Sub-No. 4. In Sub-No. 4, IC submits a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). Pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement, EJ&EW would grant IC trackage rights over EJ&EW's lines between milepost 74.6 at Waukegan, IL, and milepost 45.4 at Gary, IN, including all trackage west of the centerline of Buchanan Street in Gary, IN, plus trackage associated with the hump and Dixie leads located east of Buchanan Street. Parties intend to execute the trackage rights agreement promptly upon applicants' acquisition of control of EJ&EW, should the Board approve the proposed Control Transaction. As a condition to this exemption, IC states that any employees affected by the acquisition of the temporary trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN , 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and Operate , 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

Sub-No. 5. In Sub-No. 5, WCL submits a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). Pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement, EJ&EW would grant WCL trackage rights over EJ&EW's lines between milepost 74.6 at Waukegan, IL, and milepost 45.4 at Gary, IN, including all trackage west of the centerline of Buchanan Street in Gary, IN, plus trackage associated with the hump and Dixie leads located east of Buchanan Street. Parties intend to execute the trackage rights agreement promptly upon applicants' acquisition of control of EJ&EW, should the Board approve the proposed Control Transaction. As a condition to this exemption, WCL states that any employees affected by the acquisition of the temporary trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and Operate , 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

Sub-No. 6. In Sub-No. 6, CNR submits a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). Pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement, CCP would grant EJ&EW trackage rights over CCP's lines between milepost 35.7 at Munger, IL, and milepost 8.3 at Belt Crossing, IL. Parties intend to execute the trackage rights agreement promptly upon applicants' acquisition of control of EJ&EW, should the Board approve the proposed Control Transaction. As a condition to this exemption, CNR states that any employees affected by the acquisition of the temporary trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN , 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and Operate , 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

Sub-No. 7. In Sub-No. 7, CNR submits a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). Pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement, IC would grant EJ&EW trackage rights over IC's lines between milepost 17.9 at Highlawn, IL, and milepost 31.4 at University Park, IL, and between milepost 36.7 at Joliet, IL, and milepost 7.9 at Lemoyne, IL. Parties intend to execute the trackage rights agreement promptly upon applicants' acquisition of control of EJ&EW, should the Board approve the proposed Control Transaction. As a condition to this exemption, CNR states that any employees affected by the acquisition of the temporary trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN , 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and Operate , 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

Primary Application and Related Filings Accepted. The Board finds that the proposed Control Transaction would be a “minor transaction” under 49 CFR 1180.2(c), and the Board accepts the primary application for consideration because it is in substantial compliance with the applicable regulations governing minor transactions. See 49 U.S.C. 11321-26; 49 CFR part 1180. The Board is also accepting for consideration the seven related filings, which are also in compliance with the applicable regulations. The Board reserves the right to require the filing of supplemental information as necessary to complete the record.

The Board has received comments in support of the Control Transaction, as well as comments both opposing and supporting the “minor transaction” designation. 4 On November 8, 2007, Congressman Peter J. Visclosky submitted a comment with his notice of intent to participate in the proceeding, stating his belief that the Board should treat the Control Transaction as a significant transaction, in order to give those affected in Northwestern Indiana ample opportunity to analyze the impacts of the proposed purchase and comment accordingly. On November 21, 2007, Congresswoman Melissa L. Bean also submitted a comment with her notice of intent to participate urging the Board to treat the Control Transaction as a significant transaction. In addition, Congresswoman Bean requested that an EIS be prepared in connection with the proposed transaction and supported a local field hearing where the concerns of affected citizens and communities could be heard.

On November 19, 2007, Aux Sable Liquid Products, Inc. (Aux Sable) filed a reply in opposition to applicants' request that the Control Transaction be considered a minor transaction. Aux Sable argues that the Control Transaction should be found to be a significant transaction because the proposed transaction would eliminate EJ&E as a neutral switching carrier that provides efficient, economical, and nondiscriminatory access to numerous Class I railroads and short lines.

On November 21, 2007, applicants filed a reply in opposition to the arguments offered by Congressman Visclosky and Aux Sable to the effect that the proposed transaction should be deemed significant. Applicants assert that these parties' arguments present no justification for finding the proposed transaction to be anything other than minor.

The statute and Board regulations treat a transaction that does not involve two or more Class I railroads differently depending upon whether or not the transaction would have “regional or national transportation significance.” 49 U.S.C. 11325. Under our regulations, at 49 CFR 1180.2, a transaction that does not involve two or more Class I railroads is to be classified as “minor”—and thus not having regional or national transportation significance—if a determination can be made either: (1) That the transaction clearly will not have any anticompetitive effects, or (2) that any anticompetitive effects will clearly be outweighed by the anticipated contribution to the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs. A transaction not involving the control or merger of two or more Class I railroads is “significant” if neither of these determinations can clearly be made.

The Board finds the proposed Control Transaction to be a “minor transaction” because it appears on the face of the application that the efficiency and other public interest benefits would clearly outweigh whatever anticompetitive effects may exist. Today much of CNR's traffic moving between its various components must travel through downtown Chicago. With this acquisition, applicants propose to reroute most of their traffic around Chicago, relieving congestion on crowded downtown track. According to applicants' operating plan, the EJ&E is currently lightly used. Applicants indicate that they could increase use of EJ&E's line by adding more CNR traffic while maintaining existing levels of other traffic. Further, the transaction does not appear to pose any significant anticompetitive effects. There is virtually no overlap; EJ&E and the applicants' rail lines do not appear to serve any shippers in common. Applicants also state their commitment to keeping gateways open and honoring trackage rights and haulage agreements with all connecting carriers so that other railroads would be able to continue to use their trackage rights on the EJ&E after completion of the Control Transaction.

The Board reiterates, however, that its findings regarding the anticompetitive impact are preliminary. The Board will give careful consideration to any claims that the transaction will have anticompetitive effects that are not apparent from the application itself. Moreover, the schedule established by the Board gives Aux Sable the opportunity to present its evidence on the issue of nondiscriminatory access and for the Board to consider the issue. In response to Congressman Visclosky's comment, the Board notes that the proposed schedule is contingent upon completion of a full environmental review process. As discussed, the Board has decided to prepare a full EIS in this proceeding that will ensure that the Board takes the hard look at environmental consequences required by NEPA, which is warranted in view of the large projected traffic increases on certain line segments, and the potential impacts of the proposed transaction on a number of communities that would likely result from the increased activity levels on rail line segments and at rail facilities. As part of the NEPA process, the Board will consider whether to impose specific environmental conditions, should it decide to authorize this proposal, to mitigate potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed transaction.

Although the Board finds that the application is in substantial compliance with the applicable regulations, applicants have not submitted the information required under 49 CFR 1180.11. Applicants should submit this information to the Board by December 6, 2007.

Public Inspection. The primary application and related filings are available for inspection in the library (Room 131) at the offices of the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., in Washington, DC. In addition, the primary application and related filings may be obtained from Mr. Cunningham (representing CNR and GTC) at the address indicated above.

Procedural Schedule. The Board has considered applicants' request (filed October 30, 2007) for an expedited procedural schedule, under which the Board would issue its final decision before the statutory deadline of 180 days after the filing of the primary application.

On November 19, 2007, the Village of Barrington, IL (Barrington) filed a reply, urging the Board to develop an EIS and adopt a schedule that allows sufficient time to prepare an EIS, including sufficient time for preparation of a scoping notice, a Draft EIS, and Final EIS. On November 21, 2007, applicants responded, contending that the Board lacks sufficient information to decide now whether an EIS is needed in this case.

On November 20, 2007, BNSF submitted comments on applicants' suggested expedited procedural schedule, requesting that the Board set a procedural schedule that provides for sufficient time for consideration of the potential impacts of the proposed transaction and for negotiations with applicants to ensure that the interests of connecting railroads and their shippers are protected. On November 21, 2007, applicants responded, arguing that BNSF's concerns do not warrant lengthening the procedural schedule proposed by the applicants.

The Board denies applicants' request for an expedited procedural schedule and is adopting a procedural schedule, under which the Board would issue its final decision by April 25, 2008, provided that the environmental review process described below is complete. The Board's schedule also provides that any necessary oral argument or public hearing will be held on a date to be determined by the Board.

Under the procedural schedule adopted by the Board: any person who wishes to participate in this proceeding as a POR must file a notice of intent to participate no later than December 13, 2007; all comments, protests, requests for conditions, and any other evidence and argument in opposition to the primary application or related filings, including filings by DOJ and DOT, must be filed by January 28, 2008; and responses to comments, protests, requests for conditions, and other opposition and rebuttal in support of the primary application or related filings must be filed by March 13, 2008. As in past proceedings, DOJ and DOT will be allowed to file, on the response due date (here, March 13), their comments in response to the comments of other parties, and applicants will be allowed to file (as quickly as possible thereafter) a response to any such comments filed by DOJ and/or DOT. Under this schedule, a public hearing or oral argument may be held on a date to be determined by the Board. The Board plans to issue its final decision by April 25, 2008, and make any such approval effective by May 25, 2008, but those dates may be extended as required to accommodate completion of the environmental review process under NEPA, including preparation of an EIS and a full opportunity for public comment and participation. For further information respecting dates, see Appendix A (Procedural Schedule).

Notice of Intent to Participate. Any person who wishes to participate in this proceeding as a POR must file with the Board, no later than December 13, 2007, a notice of intent to participate, accompanied by a certificate of service indicating that the notice has been properly served on the Secretary of Transportation, the Attorney General of the United States, and Mr. Cunningham (representing CNR and GTC).

If a request is made in the notice of intent to participate to have more than one name added to the service list as a POR representing a particular entity, the extra name will be added to the service list as a “Non-Party.” The list will reflect the Board's policy of allowing only one official representative per party to be placed on the service list, as specified in Press Release No. 97-68 dated August 18, 1997, announcing the implementation of the Board's “One Party-One Representative” policy for service lists. Any person designated as a Non-Party will receive copies of Board decisions, orders, and notices but not copies of official filings. Persons seeking to change their status must accompany that request with a written certification that he or she has complied with the service requirements set forth at 49 CFR 1180.4, and any other requirements set forth in this decision.

Service List Notice. The Board will serve, as soon after December 13, 2007, as practicable, a notice containing the official service list (the service-list notice). Each POR will be required to serve upon all other PORs, within 10 days of the service date of the service-list notice, copies of all filings previously submitted by that party (to the extent such filings have not previously been served upon such other parties). Each POR also will be required to file with the Board, within 10 days of the service date of the service-list notice, a certificate of service indicating that the service required by the preceding sentence has been accomplished. Every filing made by a POR after the service date of the service-list notice must have its own certificate of service indicating that all PORs on the service list have been served with a copy of the filing. Members of the United States Congress (MOCs) and Governors (GOVs) are not parties of record and need not be served with copies of filings, unless any Member or Governor has requested to be, and is designated as, a POR.

Comments, Protests, Requests for Conditions, and Other Opposition Evidence and Argument, Including Filings by DOJ and DOT. All comments, protests, requests for conditions, and any other evidence and argument in opposition to the primary application or related filings, including filings by DOJ and DOT, must be filed by January 28, 2008.

Because the Transaction proposed in the application is a minor transaction, no responsive applications will be permitted. See 49 CFR 1180.4(d)(1).

Protesting parties are advised that, if they seek either the denial of the application or the imposition of conditions upon any approval thereof, on the theory that approval (or approval without conditions) would harm competition and/or their ability to provide essential services, they must present substantial evidence in support of their positions. See Lamoille Valley R.R. Co. v. ICC , 711 F.2d 295 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

Responses to Comments, Protests, Requests for Conditions, and Other Opposition; Rebuttal in Support of the Primary Application or Related Filings. Responses to comments, protests, requests for conditions, and other opposition submissions, and rebuttal in support of the primary application or related filings must be filed by March 13, 2008.

Public Hearing/Oral Argument. The Board may hold a public hearing or an oral argument in this proceeding on a date to be determined by the Board.

Discovery. Discovery may begin immediately. The parties are encouraged to resolve all discovery matters expeditiously and amicably.

Environmental Matters. NEPA requires that the Board take environmental considerations into account in its decisionmaking. Under both the regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality implementing NEPA and the Board's own environmental rules, actions are separated into three classes that prescribe the level of documentation required in the NEPA process. Actions that may significantly affect the environment generally require the Board to prepare an EIS. 5 Actions that may or may not have a significant environmental impact ordinarily require the Board to prepare a more limited Environmental Assessment (EA). 6 Finally, actions whose environmental effects are ordinarily insignificant may be excluded from NEPA review across the board, without a case-by-case review. As pertinent here, an acquisition transaction normally requires the preparation of an EA or EIS where certain thresholds would be exceeded.

The thresholds differ depending on whether a rail line segment is in an area designated as in “attainment” or “nonattainment” with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards established under the Clean Air Act. Because the EJ&E lines that currently move through Chicago, and the lines of the proposed EJ&EW, are located in nonattainment areas, environmental documentation typically is required where the proposed action would result in: (1) An increase of at least 3 trains per day, (2) an increase in rail traffic of at least 50 percent (measured in annual gross ton miles), or (3) an increase in carload activity at rail yards of at least 20 percent. See 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(5)(ii). 7 The application indicates that the thresholds for environmental review would be exceeded here, and applicants agree that the preparation of either an EA or EIS is warranted in this proceeding. 8

Applicants explain that the most notable change that would result from the proposed transaction is the shifting of rail traffic. Although rail traffic on CNR lines inside the EJ&E arc would generally decrease, these decreases in rail traffic would be offset by substantial increases in the number of trains operated on the EJ&EW line outside Chicago. Following the full implementation of the proposed transaction (which would be phased in), the EJ&EW line outside Chicago would gain approximately 9,695 carloads of extended haul traffic within approximately 3 years of consummation. 9 Applicants state that they would also use the EJ&EW line as a cross-connecting corridor. Accordingly, applicants anticipate that 14 of the existing 18 segments of the EJ&EW line would experience increases of between 15.0 and 26.6 trains per day. 10 These increases in trains per day would significantly exceed the 3 or 8 trains per day thresholds in the Board's environmental rules.

Applicants also project large increases in annual gross ton miles per day (gtm/d) on most of the affected line segments, which would exceed the Board's tonnage increase thresholds. For example, applicants' Operating Plan shows that on the Munger to West Chicago line segment gtm/pd would change by as much as 1,185 percent. 11 Applicants state that the proposed transaction would not impair CNR's ability to handle commuter trains, passenger trains, or trackage/haulage trains currently operating on its lines.

Finally, on the integrated CNR/EJ&EW system, four train pairs would be added to EJ&E terminals (three inbound and three outbound switch trains at Kirk Yard, and one inbound and one outbound switch train at East Joliet Yard). The estimated proposed increase of 1,355 car handlings daily at the Kirk Yard (currently 685 car handlings) and the estimated addition of 709 daily car handlings at East Joliet (currently 500 car handlings) would exceed the Board's thresholds for increased car load activity at rail yards.

The NEPA Process. Based on the information provided in the application and on a number of expressions of concern for the possible impact of the proposed transaction on potentially affected communities, and after consultation with the Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA), the Board has decided that it will prepare a full EIS in this proceeding. Although this proposed transaction is deemed to be minor and is thus entitled to an abbreviated review process on the merits, the schedule will not limit the environmental review process. The Board's proposed final decision date of April 25, 2008, and effective date of May 25, 2008, will be extended as needed to complete the full environmental review process, including preparation of the EIS and public comment as discussed below.

Under NEPA, an EIS is prepared for “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). An EIS normally is not required in acquisition cases; a more limited EA generally is sufficient because there are not usually significant environmental impacts from the change in ownership of the operation of existing lines. 49 CFR 1105.6(b)(4). In this case, however, a full EIS is warranted in view of the large projected traffic increases on certain line segments, and the potential impacts of the proposed transaction on a number of communities that would likely result from the increased activity levels on rail lines segments and at rail facilities. 12

The EIS process will ensure that the Board takes the hard look at environmental consequences required by NEPA. After issuing a notice of intent to prepare an EIS, the Board will determine the scope of work for the EIS and will provide opportunities for public participation and consultation with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies and governmental entities. A Draft EIS will be prepared that will analyze in detail the potential environmental impacts of the proposed transaction and will make recommendations for environmental mitigation. 13 The public will have at least 45 days to comment on the Draft EIS. A Final EIS will then be issued that will respond to the public comments, present the results of any further environmental analysis, and incorporate final environmental mitigation recommendations. 14 The Board will consider the entire environmental record in deciding whether to authorize the transaction as proposed, deny the proposal, or grant it with conditions, including environmental mitigation conditions.

The time the EIS will take to prepare cannot be determined ahead of time because there is no way to predict in advance all of the specific issues that may arise. In prior cases, the EIS process has ranged from approximately 18 months to several years. 15

Safety Integration Plan. Applicants state that they will work with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to formulate a SIP  16 to address the safe integration of their rail lines, equipment, personnel, and operating practices. The proposed SIP will be submitted to the Board and made available for public review and comment during the EIS process, consistent with the Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1106 and 1180.1(f)(3).

Historic Review. Finally, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA the Board is required to determine the effects of its licensing actions on cultural resources. 17 The Board's environmental rules establish exceptions to the need for historic review in certain cases, including the sale of a rail line for the purpose of continued rail operations where further Board approval is required to abandon any service and there are no plans to dispose of or alter properties subject to the Board's jurisdiction that are 50 years old or older. 18 Applicants state that the proposed transaction fits within this exception. 19 They assert that they have no plans to alter or dispose of properties 50 or more years old, and that any future line abandonment or construction activities by applicants would be subject to the Board's jurisdiction. Based on this information, it does not appear that historic review under the NHPA is required in this case.

Filing/Service Requirements. Persons participating in this proceeding may file with the Board and serve on other parties: A notice of intent to participate (due by December 13); a certificate of service indicating service of prior pleadings on persons designated as PORs on the service-list notice (due by the 10th day after the service date of the service-list notice); any comments, protests, requests for conditions, and any other evidence and argument in opposition to the primary application or related filings (due by January 28); and any responses to comments, etc., and any rebuttal in support of the primary application or related filings (due by March 13).

Filing Requirements. Any document filed in this proceeding must be filed either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format as provided for in the Board's rules. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions found on the Board's Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov at the “E-FILING” link. Any person filing a document in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 paper copies of the document (and also an electronic version) to: Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

Service Requirements. One copy of each document filed in this proceeding must be sent to each of the following (any copy may be sent by e-mail only if service by e-mail is acceptable to the recipient): (1) Secretary of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; (2) Attorney General of the United States, c/o Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Room 3109, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; (3) Paul A. Cunningham (representing CNR and GTC), Harkins Cunningham LLP, 1700 K Street, NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006-3804; and (4) any other person designated as a POR on the service-list notice.

Service of Decisions, Orders, and Notices. The Board will serve copies of its decisions, orders, and notices only on those persons who are designated on the official service list as either POR, MOC, GOV, or Non-Party. All other interested persons are encouraged either to secure copies of decisions, orders, and notices via the Board's Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov under “E-LIBRARY/Decisions & Notices” or to make advance arrangements with the Board's copy contractor, ASAP Document Solutions (mailing address: Suite 103, 9332 Annapolis Rd., Lanham, MD 20706; e-mail address: asapdc@verizon.net; telephone number: 202-306-4004), to receive copies of decisions, orders, and notices served in this proceeding. ASAP Document Solutions will handle the collection of charges and the mailing and/or faxing of decisions, orders, and notices to persons who request this service.

Access to Filings. An interested person does not need to be on the service list to obtain a copy of the primary application or any other filing made in this proceeding. Under the Board's rules, any document filed with the Board (including applications, pleadings, etc.) shall be promptly furnished to interested persons on request, unless subject to a protective order. 49 CFR 1180.4(a)(3). The primary application and other filings in this proceeding will also be available on the Board's Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov under “E-LIBRARY/Filings.”

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

It is ordered:

1. The primary application in STB Finance Docket No. 35087 and the related filings in STB Finance Docket No. 35087 (Sub-Nos. 1 through 7) are accepted for consideration.

2. The parties to this proceeding must comply with the procedural schedule adopted by the Board in this proceeding as shown in Appendix A.

3. The parties to this proceeding must comply with the procedural requirements described in this decision.

4. This decision is effective on November 29, 2007.

I would have preferred that the Board categorize this transaction as “significant.” In light of the configuration of Class I railroad lines, traffic flows, critical junctures the EJ&E offers in the Chicago area, and the applicants' less than thorough treatment of how their consolidation would impact other carriers, I do not believe applicants have satisfied the standards necessary for the Board to categorize this transaction as “minor.” I recognize that the substantive standard for Board approval of “significant” and “minor” transactions is the same under 49 U.S.C. 11324(d). However, a “significant” categorization would have allowed interested parties and the Board to take advantage of the additional procedural safeguards provided by 49 U.S.C. 11325(c).

I have long been concerned about why the agency's categorization of consolidation transactions includes virtually no “significant” transactions, and only one since the early 1990's. The current standards for determining whether a consolidation transaction is “significant” or “minor” were adopted at a time when many more Class I carriers existed than do today, when the railroad industry was in a different financial posture than it is in today, and when the agency was viewed as an impediment to economic recovery of the industry. That is no longer the environment in which we consider the merits of transactions such as this. As a result, I would have preferred we handle this transaction  20 as a “significant” one. 21

On November 13, 2007, Applicants filed a petition to establish a revised procedural schedule as directed by the Board in Decision No. 2. The Board now seeks public comments on a procedural schedule that is the same as the Applicants' proposed procedural schedule, except that the record would close with the filing of briefs on July 2, 2008, and that the Board's proposed procedural schedule would provide for a possible oral argument or public hearing to be held on a date in June 2008 to be determined by the Board. Applicants had proposed closing the record on June 16, 2008, with the filing of briefs, and to hold open the possibility of scheduling a public hearing or oral argument after that date. The Board's proposed procedural schedule would instead allow the full 180 days for development of the record, with any public hearing or oral argument scheduled before the record closes with the filing of briefs on July 2, 2008.

The proposed procedural schedule is as follows:

We invite all interested persons to submit written comments on the procedural schedule proposed. Comments must be filed by December 10, 2007. In addition, please be advised that these proposed dates are subject to change depending on the Board's environmental review process.

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

In a press release issued on November 27, 2007, and in this Federal Register notice, the Treasury called for Large Position Reports from entities whose reportable positions in the 3 7/8 % Treasury Notes of October 2012, Series R-2012, equaled or exceeded $2 billion as of the close of business Monday, November 26, 2007. This call for Large Position Reports is a test pursuant to the Department's large position reporting rules under the Government Securities Act regulations (17 CFR part 420). Entities whose reportable positions in this note equaled or exceeded the $2 billion threshold must report these positions to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Entities with positions in this note below $2 billion are not required to file reports. Large Position Reports must be received by the Government Securities Dealer Statistical Unit of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York before noon Eastern Time on Monday, December 3, 2007, and must include the required position and administrative information. The Reports may be faxed to (212) 720-5030 or delivered to the Bank at 33 Liberty Street, 4th floor.

The 3 7/8 % Treasury Notes of October 2012, Series R-2012, have a CUSIP number of 912828 HG 8, a STRIPS principal component CUSIP number of 912820 QD 2, and a maturity date of October 31, 2012.

The press release and a copy of a sample Large Position Report, which appears in Appendix B of the rules at 17 CFR part 420, are available at the Bureau of the Public Debt's Internet site at www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/statreg/gsareg/gsareg.htm .

Questions about Treasury's large position reporting rules should be directed to Treasury's Government Securities Regulations Staff at Public Debt on (202) 504-3632. Questions regarding the method of submission of Large Position Reports should be directed to the Government Securities Dealer Statistical Unit of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at (212) 720-7993.

The collection of large position information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act under OMB Control Number 1535-0089.