Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices 43027

Small Entity Enforcement Policy

FRA has adopted an enforcement

policy that addresses the unique nature

of small entities in the imposition of

civil penalties and resolution of those

assessments. Pursuant to FRA’s

statutory authority and as described in

49 CFR part 209, Appendix A, it is

FRA’s policy to consider a variety of

factors in determining whether to take

enforcement action against persons,

including small entities, who have

violated the safety laws and regulations.

In addition to the seriousness of the

violation and the person’s history of

compliance, FRA inspectors consider

‘‘such other factors as the immediate

circumstances make relevant.’’ In the

context of violations by small entities,

those factors include whether the

violations were made in good faith (e.g.,

based on an honest misunderstanding of

the law) and whether the small entity

has moved quickly and thoroughly to

remedy the violation(s). In general, the

presence of both good faith and prompt

remedial action militates against taking

a civil penalty action, especially if the

violations are isolated events. On the

other hand, violations involving willful

actions and/or posing serious health,

safety, or environmental threats should

ordinarily result in enforcement actions,

regardless of the entity’s size.

Once FRA has assessed a civil

penalty, it collects at least the statutory

minimum amount ($250 for hazardous

materials violations and $500 for all

others) unless it must terminate the

claim for some reason. However, civil

penalties may be reduced from the

initial assessment based on the

consideration of a variety of criteria

found in the railroad safety statutes and

SBREFA: the severity of the safety,

health or environmental risk presented;

the existence of alternative methods of

eliminating the safety hazard; the

entity’s culpability; the entity’s

compliance history; the entity’s ability

to pay the assessment; the impacts an

assessment might exact on the entity’s

continued business; and evidence that

the entity acted in good faith. FRA staff

attorneys regularly invite small entities

to present any information related to

these factors, and reduce civil penalty

assessments based on the value and

integrity of the information presented.

Staff attorneys conduct conference calls

or meet with small entities to discuss

pending violations, and explain the

merits of any defenses or mitigating

factors presented that may have resulted

or failed to result in penalty reductions.

Among the ‘‘other factors’’ FRA

considers at this stage is the promptness

and thoroughness of the entity’s

remedial action to correct the violations

and prevent a recurrence. Small entities

should be sure to address these factors

in communications with FRA

concerning civil penalty cases. Such

long-term solutions to compliance

problems will be given great weight in

FRA’s determinations of a final

settlement offer.

Finally, under FRA’s Safety

Assurance and Compliance Program

(SACP), FRA identifies systemic safety

hazards that continue to occur in a

carrier or shipper operation, and in

cooperation with the subject business,

develops an improvement plan to

eliminate those safety concerns.

Typically, the plan provides small

entities with a reasonable time frame in

which to make improvements without

the threat of civil penalty. If FRA

determines that the entity has failed to

comply with the improvement plan,

however, enforcement action is

initiated.

FRA’s small entity enforcement policy

is flexible and comprehensive. FRA’s

first priority in its compliance and

enforcement activities is public and

employee safety. However, FRA is

obtaining compliance and enhancing

safety with reasoned, fair methods that

do not inflict undue hardship on small

entities.

Submitted in Washington, DC, on August

6, 1997.

Donald M. Itzkoff,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–21155 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

Environmental Impact Statement on

Southwest Corridor Transit

Improvements in Cleveland, Ohio

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration,

DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS).

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) and the Greater

Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

(GCRTA) are undertaking the

preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), for transit improvements. The

local agency will ensure that the EIS

also satisfies requirements established

by the Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency. The Environmental Impact

Statement will evaluate alternative rail

transit alignments in the corridor

between the GCRTA Red Lines current

terminus at Cleveland Hopkins

International Airport, to the

International Exposition (I–X) Center

and the Central Business District (CBD)

in Berea, Ohio. In addition, the EIS will

evaluate Transportation System

Management (TSM) improvements and

a No-Build alternative and any new

alternatives generated through the

scoping process. Scoping will be

accomplished through correspondence

with interested persons, organizations,

and federal, state, and local agencies

and through three public meetings. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for

details.

DATES: Comment Due Date: Written

comments on the scope of the

alternative alignments and impacts to be

considered should be sent to the GCRTA

by Saturday, September 20, 1997.

Scoping Meetings: The public scoping

meetings will be held on Monday,

September 8, 1997 between 3:00 P.M.

and 6:00 P.M. at the Frank J. Lausche

State Office Building; Tuesday,

September 9, 1997 between 3:00 P.M.

and 9:00 P.M. at Berea City Hall and

Wednesday, September 10, 1997

between 3:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. at

Brook Park City Hall. See ADDRESSES

below. People with special needs

should contact Edward Taylor of the

GCRTA at (216) 566–5020. A TDD

number is available (216) 781–4271. The

buildings are accessible to people with

disabilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Paul Fish, Director, Office of Planning

and Program Development; Federal

Transit Administration, 55 East Monroe

Street, Suite 1415; Chicago, Illinois

60603 (312) 353–2865.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on

project scope should be sent to Mr.

Edward Taylor, Deputy Project Manager,

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit

Authority, 615 Superior Avenue, W,

Cleveland, Ohio 44113. Scoping

Meetings will be held at the following

locations:

1. Frank J. Lausche State Office

Building, 615 Superior Avenue, W,

Cleveland, Ohio 44113

2. City Hall, City of Berea, 11 Berea

Commons, Berea, Ohio 44017

3. City Hall, City of Brook Park, 6161

Engle Road, Brook Park, Ohio 44142

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Scoping

FTA and the GCRTA invite interested

individuals, organizations, and federal,

state and local agencies to participate in

defining the alternatives to be evaluated

in the EIS and identifying any

significant social, economic, or
43028 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices

environmental issues related to the

alternatives. An information packet

describing the purpose of the project,

the proposed alternatives, the impact

areas to be evaluated, the citizen

involvement program and the

preliminary project schedule is being

mailed to affected federal, state and

local agencies and to interested parties

on record. Others may request the

scoping materials by contacting Mr.

Edward Taylor at the address above or

by calling him at (216) 566–5100.

Scoping comments may be made

verbally at any of the public scoping

meetings or in writing. See DATES and

ADDRESSES sections above for location

and times. During scoping, comments

should focus on identifying specific

social, economic, or environmental

impacts to be evaluated and suggesting

alternatives that are less costly or have

less environmental impact while

achieving similar transit objectives.

Scoping is not an appropriate time to

indicate a preference for a particular

alternative. Comments on preferences

should be communicated after the Draft

EIS has been completed. The meeting

will be held in an ‘‘open house’’ format

and project representatives will be

available to discuss the project

throughout the time period given.

Informational displays and written

materials also will be available

throughout the time period given. In

addition to written comments which

may be made at the meeting or as

described below, a stenographer will be

available at the meeting to record

comments. If you wish to be placed on

the mailing list to receive further

information as the project develops,

contact Mr. Edward Taylor as

previously described.

II. Description of Study Area and

Project Needs

The study area is wholly within

Cuyahoga County, Ohio. It is

approximately 2.5-miles long and

connects the central business district of

Berea, Ohio with the existing GCRTA

Red Line rapid transit terminus at

Cleveland Hopkins International

Airport. The corridor also connects the

International Exposition Center with the

airport and Berea. Existing traffic is

primarily carried by the Berea Freeway

(OH 237), Eastland Road, Front Street

and Prospect Street with high traffic

volumes at many of the signalized

intersections. The proposed rail

extension is intended to provide a high

quality connection between the existing

Red Line terminus at the Airport, the I–

X Center and Berea; to support

economic revitalization of the Berea

CBD through greater transit

accessibility; to stimulate economic

development at the I–X Center by

improving transit access between

Downtown Cleveland and the I–X

Center; contribute to higher transit

mode share for work trips between the

southwest suburbs and Downtown

Cleveland; improve opportunities for

reverse commute transportation options;

to help achieve regional clean air goals;

and improve travel efficiencies in the

Southwest Corridor.

III. Alternatives

Transportation alternatives proposed

for evaluation include a No-Build

Alternative which involves no change to

transportation services or facilities in

the corridor beyond those

improvements currently programmed; a

TSM alternative which includes a

package of improvements to one or all

elements of the transportation network

intended to improve travel time, reduce

congestion, and enhance land-use

development or redevelopment; and a

rail transit alternative which consists of

extending the GCRTA Red Line utilizing

varying alternative alignments, segment

lengths and technologies. It is

anticipated that the rail line extension

would involve streetcar style operations

in Berea.

IV. Probable Effects/Potential Impacts

for Analysis

FTA and GCRTA plan to evaluate in

the EIS all significant social, economic,

and environmental impacts of the

alternatives. Among the primary issues

are transportation service changes

including transit cost, service, patronage

and its financial implications; the effect

on traffic movement and railroad

operations; community impacts,

including land use planning and zoning

compatibility, neighborhood

compatibility, local and regional

economic change, aesthetics, and utility

relocation; cultural resource impacts,

including air quality, noise and

vibration, removal of pre-existing

hazardous wastes, and effects on water

resources and quality, natural features,

and ecosystems. The proposed impact

assessment and its evaluation criteria

will take into account both positive and

negative impacts, direct and indirect

impacts, short-term (construction) and

long-term (operation) impacts, and sitespecific and corridor-wide impacts.

Evaluation criteria will be consistent

with applicable federal, State of Ohio

and local standards, criteria,

regulations, and policies. Mitigation

measures will be explored for any

adverse impacts that are identified as

part of the analysis.

V. FTA Procedures

In accordance with the Federal

Transit Act, as amended, and FTA

policy, the Draft EIS will be prepared in

conjunction with a major investment

study and the Final EIS in conjunction

with Preliminary Engineering. After its

publication, the Draft EIS will be

available for public and agency review

and comment, and a public hearing will

be held. On the basis of the Draft EIS

and comments received, the GCRTA, in

concert with the Ohio Department of

Transportation and NOACA, and in

consultation with Cuyahoga County, the

Cities of Berea, Brook Park and

Cleveland and other affected agencies,

will select a locally preferred

alternative. The GCRTA will then seek

to have NOACA, the metropolitan

planning organization for the Cleveland

area, include the preferred alternative in

the regional transportation plan and

seek approval from FTA to continue

with Preliminary Engineering and

preparation of the Final EIS.

Issued on: August 6, 1997.

Joel P. Ettinger,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–21160 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–57–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. PS–142; Notice 7]

Pipeline Safety: Communications Plan

for Effective Public Communication

and Involvement in the Pipeline Safety

Risk Management Demonstration

Program

AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Research and Special

Programs Administration’s (RSPA)

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is

establishing and implementing a

Pipeline Risk Management

Demonstration Program (Demonstration

Program) in which pipeline operators

will propose their pipelines as projects

for the Demonstration Program.

Effective communication among OPS,

States, pipeline operators, community

representatives, and other interested

parties is a key part of this risk

management initiative. Effective means

for communication are vital to OPS

understanding local safety and

environmental conditions that may

affect the demonstration projects. This

document addresses how OPS intends

to inform the community, seek public