50050 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Notices

As a condition to this exemption, any

employees affected by the 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).

This notice is filed under 49 CFR

1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

may be filed at any time. The filing of

a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33462, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on Joseph D.

Anthofer, Esq., 1416 Dodge Street, #830,

Omaha, NE 68179.

Decided: September 15, 1997.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–25350 Filed 9–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Finding of No Significant Impact for

Implementation of White House

Security Review Vehicular Traffic

Restriction Recommendations

AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Department of the Treasury

(Treasury) has made a finding of no

significant impact (FONSI) with respect

to the environmental assessment (EA)

for implementation of White House

Security Review Vehicular Traffic

Restriction Recommendations. This EA

was prepared by the Department of the

Treasury following the security action to

restrict vehicular access to certain

streets in the vicinity of the White

House Complex pursuant to the

emergency provision (40 CFR 1506.11)

of the Council on Environmental

Quality’s (CEQ) National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) implementing

regulations. The Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) was a

cooperating agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

a copy of the FONSI contact Mr. Bill

McGovern, Environment and Energy

Programs Officer, 1500 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Treasury Annex Room

6140, Washington, DC, 20220; telephone

(202) 622–0043; fax (202) 622–1468.

Copies of the EA are also available at the

above address. The EA is still available

on the Department of the Treasury’s

home page at http://www.treas.gov.

Additionally, copies of the EA were

mailed to Federal, State, and local

agencies; public interest groups;

interested individuals; and District of

Columbia public libraries.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 2,

1997, the Treasury made the EA

available to the public for a thirty day

comment period. A total of 650 copies

of the EA were distributed to Federal,

state, and local agencies, Members of

Congress, the Government of the District

of Columbia, private organizations and

interested members of the public.

Additionally, the EA was available via

the Internet. Twelve comment letters

were received. Three of the comment

letters were from private individuals.

Two were from individuals or agencies

representing the District of Columbia:

Eleanor Holmes Norton, and the District

of Columbia Department of Public

Works (DCDPW). Three were from

historic preservation organizations and

sites: the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (ACHP); the National Trust

for Historic Preservation; and Saint

John’s Church. Four were from other

governmental entities: Region III of the

Environmental Protection Agency; the

National Capital Planning Commission;

the National Park Service (NPS); and the

Washington Area Metropolitan Transit

Authority (Metro).

A brief description of the security

action and the findings of the EA are

presented below followed by a summary

of the issues raised in the comment

letters along with Treasury’s response

for each issue.

On May 19, 1995 the Secretary of the

Treasury ordered the Director of the

United States Secret Service to restrict

vehicular traffic on certain streets

surrounding the White House Complex.

The Director implemented the action on

May 20, 1995. The security action was

taken to provide necessary and

appropriate protection for the President

of the United States, the first family, and

those working in or visiting the White

House Complex.

This security action was one of

several recommendations resulting from

the ‘‘White House Security Review’’ (the

Review). The final report of the Review

is classified; however a ‘‘Public Report

of the White House Security Review’’

was issued in May 1995. The Review’s

recommendation states that it was ‘‘not

able to identify any alternative to

prohibiting vehicular traffic on

Pennsylvania Avenue that would ensure

the protection of the President and

others in the White House Complex

from explosive devices carried in

vehicles near the perimeter.’’

The EA examined the impacts of the

security action on transportation, air

quality, noise, vibration, visual/

aesthetic resources, cultural resources,

pedestrian access, socioeconomic

resources, natural resources and

cumulative environmental effects.

Available pre-action data was

collected from local and Federal

agencies and supplemented by traffic

counts and travel time analysis

conducted for the EA. With the

exception of traffic counts for certain

intersections, the available pre-action

data was not directly comparable to the

post action measurements and did not

allow for accurate comparison of before

and after action conditions. The analysis

in the EA described the conditions after

the action and several traffic

modifications which the DCDPW

implemented to alleviate congestion.

The EA did identify certain streets

which received large increases in traffic

after the security action. It also

identified other streets which had large

decreases in traffic. It was impossible to

determine exactly how much of the

increase or decrease was due to the

security action because of the above

mentioned lack of pre-action data. The

majority of the streets in the study area

continue to operate at an acceptable

level, and traffic levels are typical of a

downtown area in a major city.

The changes in traffic patterns did not

result in any violations of National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for carbon monoxide, the

pollutant of highest concern in

intersection modeling. While the area

remains in non-attainment status for

ozone, ozone levels should not be

significantly changed as a result of the

security action. Ozone changes are more

apt to result when there is a significant

increase in vehicle miles traveled. The

security action merely shifted traffic

within the local area.

Noise levels in the study area were

not significantly increased by the

security action. Levels in the area on the

north side of the White House dropped

noticeably. Vibration levels on H street

were examined and found to be similar

to pre-existing levels. The frequency of

vibration probably did increase;

however, because the vibration levels

remain below the threshold for damage

to fragile historic buildings, no

problems are anticipated.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Notices 50051

The placement of the temporary

security barriers has had an adverse

visual impact on a number of historic

buildings in the study area. This will be

remedied by the NPS when they

complete their plan for replacement of

the temporary barriers with an

acceptably designed permanent barrier.

The removal of traffic from

Pennsylvania Avenue presents

pedestrian tourists and residents alike

with an improved view of the north side

of the White House.

Pedestrian access as measured by

accident data appears to be relatively

unchanged. Access to the north side of

the White House is improved at

Pennsylvania Avenue.

Socioeconomic analysis was limited

to emergency services (fire and police)

and Metro bus cost increases and

parking meter revenue losses. No police

or fire stations were moved as a result

of the security action. Some minor

adjustments in emergency response

routes were made. Metrobus changed

several routes and bus stops as a result

of the security action. Some

intersections had to be reconfigured to

accommodate the turning radius of the

buses. Metrobus provided a cost

estimate of $115,000 in capital costs and

$314,000 in annual operating costs.

Parking meter revenue losses were

estimated to be $98,000 annually.

No endangered or threatened species

are known to frequent the study area.

Little or no impact occurred to the

native wildlife since there was no

ground disturbing activity.

The cumulative impacts analysis did

not identify any violation of NAAQSs

even when the projected full operation

of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building

was added into the air quality analysis.

A number of recommendations are

discussed which could further improve

traffic conditions in the area around the

White House. These recommendations

are presented in the EA; however, they

are meant for consideration by the

relevant NPS and District of Columbia

offices which have the legal authority to

implement them.

None of the impacts analyzed in the

EA were found to be significant under

NEPA. None of the comment letters

raised new issues that were not

addressed in the EA. The comments

along with responses to each comment

are included below. Based on the

FONSI, an Environmental Impact

Statement will not be prepared for the

security action (40 CFR 1501.4(c), (e)).

Summary of issues raised in the

comment letters:

Issue 1: Two commenters questioned

the lack of alternatives in the

environmental assessment (EA). Both

suggested alternatives that should have

been considered.

Response: The White House Security

Review, which was an eight month

comprehensive study, considered

numerous other alternatives; however, it

ultimately concluded that none of the

other alternatives would provide the

necessary level of protection to the

White House Complex. The Security

Review is classified top secret and could

not be included in a public review

document such as the EA.

Issue 2: Two commenters stated that

Treasury should prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

because the EA does not adequately

address the socioeconomic impacts of

the action. Both stated that there are

significant impacts to the commercial

sector of the city from the restriction.

Response: Neither comment provided

any data to support the assertion as to

commercial impact. Treasury’s analysis

of the economic impact of the action

was limited to identifiable costs

incurred by the District in terms of

increased Metro costs and lost parking

revenue. Treasury was able to gather

reliable data in each of these areas. Over

150 copies of the EA were mailed to

commercial entities and associations

representing the private sector. No

comments were received from any of

these entities.

Issue 3: Three commenters questioned

how Metro and the District would be

reimbursed for the Metrobus costs

incurred and parking meter revenue lost

as a result of the security action.

Response: Treasury continues to work

with the Office of Management and

Budget to explore ways in which the

Federal Government can provide

economic support to Metro and the

District.

Issue 4: Two commenters stated that

Treasury should prepare an EIS because

the EA does not adequately address the

traffic conditions resulting from the

security action. One commenter alleged

that Treasury did not consider all the

traffic data that might be available.

Response: The EA characterizes the

traffic operating conditions within the

study area in terms of level of service

and travel speed and identifies the

streets which received the increases and

decreases in traffic. It does not quantify

the increase or decrease in commuting

time resulting from the security action,

because of the lack of a comparable preaction data. The emergency nature of

the action precluded a systematic,

advance collection of traffic data.

Existing data was used to the extent

possible, but no complete set of

information ever existed which could be

used for a direct comparison of before

and after conditions. After an extensive

search, every available source of data

was used for the traffic analysis in the

EA, including the DCDPW, the FHWA,

and the NPS.

Issue 5: One commenter stated that

the EA had thoroughly evaluated the

potential impacts of the action. It

concluded that the impacts were minor,

should be further reduced by the

recommendations in Chapter 3 and

recommended that we prepare a finding

of no significant impact.

Response: Treasury agrees the impacts

are minor. It should be noted that

several of the recommendations in

Chapter 3 have been implemented by

the cognizant agencies such as the

DCDPW and Metro. The

recommendations are items which

could provide additional relief to traffic

problems.

Issue 6: Three commenters questioned

the adequacy of the air quality analysis

provide in the EA. They believe that

since the District was in non-attainment

status for ozone, even before the

security action, and attainment for

carbon monoxide (CO), ozone should

have been modeled to measure any

increases. One commenter stated that

slow moving vehicles would emit more

emissions than were emitted before the

action.

Response: Ozone is a regional

problem. An action that creates traffic

delay within a corridor of the study area

does not translate into increased ozone

in that same corridor because of the

time lag between the emission of

substances that are the precursors to

ozone and ozone creation. Such an

action theoretically could pose a threat

to the region by representing an increase

in the inventory of emissions leading to

ozone formulation. The effects of

individual projects are not known; the

state of the art is to take care of ozone

in planning, accounting for the

interaction of numerous actions and

multiple interrelated factors. The

security action is not considered to be

regionally significant. Many things

contribute to ozone production. Hence

the analysis at the region wide level. It

is not common practice to conduct an

assessment of the effects of an

individual project, primarily because

the individual project normally is not

significant enough to perform an entire

regional analysis to see how it fits into

the picture. Whatever the effects the

individual action would have on

emissions would be within the terms of

error of the model and thus would be

statistically insignificant.

Additionally, the security action did

not result in a large increase in vehicle

miles traveled (VMT); the traffic that
50052 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Notices

otherwise would have been using

Pennsylvania Avenue has shifted to

adjoining streets. Idling or slow moving

vehicles have low volatile organic

compound (VOC) and nitrous oxide

(Nox) emission rates. Instead, the

amount of VMT and the speed of the

travel are the main influences on VOC

and Nox production. For Nox, which is

the more vexing of the main ozone

producing pollutants, any decrease in

average speed below 28 miles per hour

actually reduces emissions. Most of the

traffic in the study area moves at speeds

below this level during the three peak

periods.

Issue 7: One commenter stated the

belief that Treasury was trying to

conceal the extent of the increase in

carbon monoxide (CO) emissions,

positing that the model results should

be compared to ambient concentrations

prior to the closing of Pennsylvania

Avenue to vehicular traffic in 1995.

Response: While a comparison of the

CO levels prior to and after the action

could potentially find some increases in

emissions, such a comparison would be

impossible to perform, because traffic

levels and CO concentrations were not

measured before the action took place.

In addition, an increase in emissions, by

itself, is not an indication that a

problem exists, provided that the

NAAQS are met, and the State

Implementation Plan is not violated.

The EA shows that both these

conditions are met. The analysis

performed in the EA satisfies the

requirements of the NEPA.

Issue 8: One commenter questioned

the treatment of indirect emissions in

the EA and the assertion that Treasury

doesn’t have control over these

emissions.

Response: The direct and indirect

emissions resulting from the security

action were analyzed under NEPA. The

same analysis techniques were used that

would have been used for the analysis

under the Clean Air Act Amendments’

(CAAA) conformity requirements had

they been applicable. The indirect

emissions were not included in reaching

a CAAA conformity decision because

Treasury does not have a continuing

program of control over traffic in the

downtown area.

Issue 9: Two commenters stated that

the results of the noise and vibration

analysis along H Street are not

representative of what they experience

at their locations. One stated that

parking tour buses along H Street were

a noisy visual ‘‘wall of steel’’ on the

historic structures. The same

commenter requested that a vibration

barrier be installed along H Street to

eliminate the potential for damage to the

historic structures. One questioned the

use of the 95 dB vibration threshold for

damage to extremely fragile historic

buildings from the Federal Transit

Administration (FTA).

Response: The noise and vibration

data in the EA are actual data taken in

a representative manner at various

locations in the H Street area. This data

is consistent with the limited amount of

pre-existing data that was available.

Treasury believes that repairing of the

street could further reduce the noise and

vibration levels along H Street. Treasury

agrees that the illegally parked tour

buses create additional sources of noise

and vibration and should be removed by

the appropriate authorities.

According to the FTA, the 95 dB

vibration threshold is applicable to both

short term impacts from construction

and long-term vibration effects of

operational traffic. It was used in the EA

because it is one of only a few guidance

publications on the effects of vibration.

Further research has identified the

California Department of Transportation

(Caltrans) criteria for historic buildings

and ancient ruins. The Caltrans

guidance applies to continuous

vibration sources, such as those

resulting from traffic and trains. The

Caltrans guidance uses a vibration

criteria of 0.08 inch/second Peak

Particle Velocity (PPV) as the threshold

for damage. PPVs below this level

should not result in damage. This is a

more conservative level than the FTA’s

95 dB (rms) or 0.12 inch/second PPV

criteria. The post-action measured levels

along H Street were 0.016 inch/second

or below. Pre-action data showed levels

as high as 0.035 inch/second PPV at

Decatur House. Both the pre- and postaction levels are well below the Caltrans

level of 0.08 inch/second PPV. It is clear

that the security action did not result in

any significant increase in these levels,

and the vibration data does not show

any need for installation of a vibration

barrier along H Street.

Issue 10: Two commenters stated that

the cumulative impacts analysis in the

EA was deficient because it did not

include a discussion of the General

Service Administration’s (GSA)

proposal to limit on street parking at

Federal Office Buildings here in the

District.

Response: The purpose of the EA was

to analyze the security action, which

occurred two years before the GSA

proposal. The GSA proposal is currently

at the scoping stage and was not

developed enough to include in the EA

at the time the EA was being written. A

draft of the Treasury EA was reviewed

by GSA. GSA did provide detailed

information about the parking at the

Ronald Reagan Federal Building for use

in the cumulative impact analysis. The

GSA action will be fully described in a

draft EIS they plan to release in

December 1997. The security action

should be part of the base condition for

their EIS.

Issue 11: Three commenters asked

questions related to the Metrobus

impacts. Two requested detailed data on

increases or decreases in ridership

resulting from the actions. One provided

corrections related to schedules and

stops.

Response: Information obtained from

Metro after the security action indicated

there were some ridership changes in

the period before and after the security

action, but the changes could not be

attributed to the security action. The

corrections related to stops and

schedules are acknowledged.

Issue 12: The Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation stated that

additional information about the

historic character of the affected

buildings would be needed to complete

the Section 106 review under the

National Historic Preservation Act. The

commenter also clarified the extent of

the original Section 106 review coverage

undertaken at the time of the security

action by Treasury.

Response: Additional information on

the significance of the buildings on the

register will be included in any followon Section 106 compliance activity.

Treasury agrees that the temporary

barriers were addressed as an

emergency action at the time of the

action and that only newly identified

issues would be part of a follow-on

Section 106 activity. It was important to

recognize the adverse effect of the

temporary barriers and to clarify that the

National Park Service will be replacing

the temporary barriers with a system of

permanent barriers as part of its Longterm Design Plan for Pennsylvania

Avenue.

Issue 13: One commenter noted that

the description of the Section 106

compliance activity was confusing as to

which agencies were doing what.

Response: Section 106 compliance for

the placement of the temporary security

barriers was completed by the Treasury

in 1995. The NPS has a project to

develop an acceptable permanent design

and replace the temporary barriers,

which will be subject to the Section 106

compliance process. Treasury is

conducting a separate Section 106

process to examine effects other than

the placement of the temporary security

barriers, including traffic increases and

the resulting visual, noise, and vibration

impacts.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 24, 1997 / Notices 50053

Issue 14: One commenter noted that

the E Street traffic recommendation

could affect the Zero Milestone and the

Butt-Millet memorial, raising historic

preservation issues that were not

included in the EA.

Response: The recommendation for

providing for resumption of westbound

traffic on E Street assumed that the

existing street configuration would be

maintained and not require widening in

the area of the Zero Milestone and the

Butt-Millet memorial. The

recommendations provided in Chapter 3

are just that, recommendations for

consideration by the agencies with the

authority to implement them.

Issue 15: One commenter stated that

the EA was misleading because it did

not describe the process for reaching a

decision on whether to issue a FONSI or

a notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

Response: The CEQ’s NEPA

regulations have been in place since

1978. Treasury did not feel it was

necessary to explain the purpose of an

environmental assessment in its

document. The comment period was

announced in the Federal Register and

the EA itself.

Issue 16: One commenter stated that

traffic was worse and that Pennsylvania

Avenue and E Street should be

reopened to vehicular traffic.

Response: The security need for the

restriction has not been eliminated;

however, Treasury is working with

other agencies to examine potential new

designs for traffic on E Street. The EA

does show that some streets have had

increases in traffic. The exact amount

which is due to the action cannot be

determined due to the lack of pre-action

data.

Issue 17: One commenter criticized

the EA for not having a section on the

beneficial impacts of the action such as

the better access to Lafayette Park and

providing a more appropriate setting for

one of our preeminent national symbols.

Response: Treasury agrees that there

are many beneficial impacts resulting

from the vehicular traffic restriction and

attempted to describe them in

qualitative terms in the EA. Most of

these impacts are very difficult to assign

dollar figures to and such an effort is not

warranted at the EA level.

Issue 18: One commenter noted that

the action is not consistent with the

District’s transportation plan, as

outlined in the Transportation Vision,

Strategy and Action Plan for the

Nation’s Capital.

Response: The action was taken to

protect the White House Complex from

explosive devices carried by vehicles

near the perimeter. This action, while

inharmonious with the transportation

plan, is a necessary security precaution.

Issue 19: One commenter believes that

there is sufficient pre-existing traffic

data available from the District and the

FHWA to allow for estimation of the

action’s effects.

Response: The EA used the above

mentioned data and data from other

sources and still could not identify a

method for making the suggested

estimation. FHWA was a cooperating

agency for the EA.

Issue 20: One commenter citing

anecdotal evidence from her

constituents suggests that noise levels

now are noticeably higher. This

commenter also suggested that the

methodology used for noise in the EA

contains flaws and therefore failed to

fully quantify the actual increase.

Response: The EA noise data was

acquired using standard industry

practices and equipment. It presents the

actual dB readings taken at the time of

the measurement in a scientifically

accurate manner.

Issue 21: One commenter noted that

the boundaries for the extended study

area are appropriate for evaluating the

project’s effects.

Response: Treasury agrees.

Lawrence H. Summers,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–25354 Filed 9–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–25–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

Expansion of National Customs

Automation Program Test Regarding

Electronic Protest Filing

AGENCY: Customs Service, Treasury.

ACTION: General notice; expansion of

program.

SUMMARY: This notice announces

Customs plan to expand its program

regarding the electronic filing of protests

to encourage new participants. Also,

public comments concerning any aspect

of the test are solicited.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The testing period,

which was scheduled to end on April

30, 1997, is now extended through

December of 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments

regarding this notice or any aspect of

this test should be addressed to the

Chief, Commercial Compliance Branch,

U.S. Customs Service, 1301 Constitution

Avenue, NW, Room 1313, Washington,

DC 20229–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

operational or policy issues: Neil

Shannon, Chief, Commercial

Compliance Branch, (202) 927–0300.

For protest system or automation

issues: Steve Linnemann, Office of

Information and Technology, (202) 927-

0436.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 30, 1996, Customs

published in the Federal Register (61

FR 3086) a general notice announcing,

as part of the National Customs

Automation Program (NCAP), a test

regarding the electronic filing of

protests. The test began on May 1, 1996,

was to last six months, but was

extended through April of 1997, when

a second general notice was published

on December 31, 1996, in the Federal

Register (61 FR 69133). The test allows

the following actions to be filed and

tracked electronically:

(1) Protests against Customs decisions

under 19 U.S.C. 1514

(2) Claims for refunds of duties

deposited or for corrections of errors

requiring reliquidation pursuant to 19

U.S.C. 1520 (c) and (d); and

(3) Interventions in an importer’s

protest by an exporter or producer of

merchandise from a country that is a

party to the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA) under § 181.115 of

the Customs Regulations (19 CFR

181.115).

Participation in this NCAP

component is available to all interested

parties. If you already are an ABI

participant, you can take advantage of

electronic protest immediately by

contacting your local Customs Client

Representative. If you are not an ABI

participant, write a letter on your

company’s letterhead indicating your

interest in electronic protest filing. The

information provided should include

your company’s name, address,

telephone number, and the name of a

contact person. Send the letter to: U.S.

Customs Service, Office of Information

and Technology, User Support Services

Division, Trade Support, Room 2419,

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20229.

Expansion of Test

This notice informs the public that

Customs is expanding the program for

the electronic filing of protests to

encourage new participants. Also,

public comments concerning any aspect

of the test are solicited.

Customs anticipates that this NCAP

component will be available to all

interested parties by January of 1998.