[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51500-51506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26039]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33388]


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

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of final scope of environmental impact statement (EIS).

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

SUMMARY: On June 23, 1997, CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc. 
(CSX), Norfolk Southern Corporation, and Norfolk Southern

[[Page 51501]]

Railway Company (NS), and Conrail Inc. and Consolidated Rail 
Corporation (Conrail) filed an application (primary application) with 
the Surface Transportation Board (Board) under 49 U.S.C. 11323-25. NS, 
CSX, and Conrail are jointly seeking authority for NS and CSX to 
acquire control of Conrail and for the subsequent division of some of 
Conrail's assets and for the joint operation of other Conrail assets. 
The proposed transaction involves more than 44,000 miles of rail lines 
and related facilities covering a large portion of the eastern United 
States. To evaluate and consider the potential environmental impacts 
that might result from the proposed transaction, the Board's Section of 
Environmental Analysis (SEA) is preparing an environmental impact 
statement (EIS). The Board has determined that an EIS is warranted due 
to the nature and scope of environmental issues that may arise. SEA 
published the draft scope of the EIS in the Federal Register on July 7, 
1997, a 30-day public comment period on the draft scope ended August 6, 
1997, and the final scope of the EIS is included as part of this 
notice. Changes made to the draft scope are detailed in the Response to 
Comments section of this notice.

DATES: SEA expects to distribute the Draft EIS for public review and 
comment in November 1997.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The proposed transaction, also referred to as the proposed action, 
would result in the individual assignment of certain existing Conrail 
facilities and operations to either CSX or NS through operating 
agreements or other mechanisms, and the sharing and operation of other 
existing Conrail facilities and operations for the benefit of both CSX 
and NS. This would result in an expanded CSX rail system, an expanded 
NS rail system, and certain areas of joint ownership and operation. 
According to CSX, NS, and Conrail (collectively, Applicants), CSX and 
NS would continue to compete with each other in providing rail freight 
services and would expand their competition to areas in which Conrail 
is currently the only major rail carrier. Each of the two railroads 
would utilize its existing lines, would operate certain Conrail lines 
independently of the other, and would jointly operate certain Conrail 
lines.
    Applicants anticipate that the proposed transaction would provide 
benefits that include: reduced energy usage, enhanced safety, reduced 
highway congestion, reduced system-wide air pollutant emissions, 
expanded competition, and a more efficient rail transportation system. 
The proposed transaction includes changes in railroad operations such 
as increases and decreases in train traffic, changes in activity at 
rail yards and intermodal facilities, rail line abandonments and rail 
line connection construction projects. The proposed transaction is 
detailed in the primary application, and is discussed in specific terms 
in the operating plans and the environmental report (ER) that are part 
of the application. The ER describes the physical and operational 
changes that would be associated with the proposed transaction and 
discusses the potential environmental impacts of those changes. 
Applicants also filed corrected and supplemental information in the 
Errata and Supplemental ER on August 28, 1997.
    Applicants served the ER, the Errata and the Supplemental ER on 
appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies. Applicants also served 
these documents on affected cities with populations of more than 
50,000, as well as on counties and regional planning organizations that 
could be affected.

Environmental Review Process and Alternatives

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is intended to 
assist the Board and the public in identifying and assessing the 
potential environmental consequences of a proposed action before the 
Board may make a decision on a proposed action. During scoping, the 
first phase of the NEPA process, the Board's environmental staff, SEA, 
published a draft scope in July 1997, soliciting information and 
comments on the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the 
EIS for the proposed transaction. Under the NEPA process, SEA will 
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of operational and 
physical changes that are related to the proposed transaction. Existing 
rail operations are the baseline against which the potential 
environmental impacts of the proposed transaction will be evaluated. 
SEA will not propose mitigation of environmental impacts relating to 
existing rail operations and existing railroad facilities.<SUP>1</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In merger and control cases, the Board's practice 
consistently has been to mitigate only those environmental impacts 
that result from the transaction. The Board, like its predecessor, 
the Interstate Commerce Commission, has not imposed mitigation to 
remedy preexisting conditions such as those that might make the 
quality of life in a particular community better, but are not a 
direct result of the merger (i.e., congestion associated with the 
existing rail line traffic, or the traffic of other railroads).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making its decision in this proceeding, the Board will consider 
public comments and SEA's environmental analysis contained in the EIS, 
including any proposed environmental mitigation. The alternatives SEA 
will consider in the EIS are: (1) Approval of the transaction as 
proposed; (2) disapproval of the proposed transaction in whole (No-
Action alternative); and, (3) approval of the proposed transaction with 
conditions, including environmental mitigation conditions.<SUP>2</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Board has broad authority to impose conditions in 
railroad control transactions under 49 U.S.C. 11324 (c). However, 
the Board's power to impose conditions is not limitless; the record 
must support the imposition of the condition at issue. Moreover, 
there must be a sufficient relationship between the condition 
imposed and the transaction before the agency, and the condition 
imposed must be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other parties may file inconsistent or responsive applications 
requesting modifications to the proposed transaction, such as requests 
for trackage rights or the acquisition of particular rail lines. The 
EIS will address potential environmental impacts and rail system 
changes proposed in the inconsistent and responsive applications.

Relationship With Other Agencies

    The authority of the Board is broad and extends to all matters 
affecting change in rail operations resulting directly from the 
proposed transaction. Conditions may be imposed to mitigate adverse 
environmental impacts that are the result of the proposed transaction, 
or any alternative considered and approved by the Board. In determining 
appropriate conditions for the transaction, the Board will exercise its 
authority with due regard for the jurisdiction and expertise of other 
Federal agencies (e.g., the Federal Railroad Administration, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

[[Page 51502]]

Related Activities

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

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

Public Participation

    SEA encourages broad participation in the EIS process during 
scoping and review of the Draft EIS. Interested agencies and persons 
were invited to participate in the scoping phase by reviewing the draft 
scope of the EIS. Due to the broad geographic scope of the proposed 
transaction, SEA did not conduct public scoping meetings. However, in 
addition to publication of the draft scope of the EIS in the Federal 
Register on July 7, 1997, SEA implemented an extensive public outreach 
program to notify the public that SEA was soliciting comments on the 
draft scope of the EIS and to encourage public participation in the 
environmental review process.
    SEA distributed information about the proposed transaction and 
SEA's intent to prepare an EIS through the following outreach 
activities:
    <bullet> On July 3, 1997, a scoping package that included the draft 
scope of the EIS was distributed to approximately 1,900 Federal, state 
and local elected and agency officials. In this package, the Board also 
announced its intent to prepare an EIS and requested comments on the 
draft scope.
    <bullet> On July 7, 1997, SEA published a notice in the Federal 
Register to announce the Board's intent to prepare an EIS, to publish 
the draft scope of the EIS, and to request comments on the proposed 
scope.
    <bullet> In July 1997, a press release detailing this same 
information was distributed to the media in the 24 affected states, and 
a legal notice was placed in the newspapers with the highest 
circulation for each of the potentially affected counties.
    <bullet> During July and August 1997, SEA also prepared and widely 
distributed a Fact Sheet describing the proposed transaction to 7,000 
elected officials, agencies and organizations for cities and counties 
potentially affected by the proposed transaction.
    <bullet> To further assist SEA in receiving input from the public, 
SEA established a toll-free environmental hotline (1-888-869-1997), 
established a website (www.conrailmerger.com), and initiated media 
monitoring services that involved a weekly review of newspaper 
articles.
    The SEA study team established a comprehensive database to record 
and maintain all comments received in writing and via telephone and the 
website. Written comments on the draft scope of the EIS were due to the 
Board within the 30-day comment period, which ended on August 6, 1997. 
All comments have been placed in the Public Record for this proceeding. 
In preparing the final scope of the EIS, SEA has considered all the 
environmental comments.
    Response to Comments: SEA received more than 170 comments 
concerning the draft scope of the EIS. Twenty-one comments were 
received from Federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of 
Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and 
Transportation; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Coast Guard; 
and the Environmental Protection Agency. Forty-eight comments were 
received from state agencies in AL, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MA, 
MI, MS, MO, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, VT, VA, and WV. Seventy-
eight comments were received from local, county, and regional agencies 
from the states of AL, DE, DC, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, NC, 
NJ, NY, OH, PA, TN, and VA. Nine comments were received from citizens 
in DE, GA, and OH. Five businesses--including Interstate Commodities, 
Inc., Johnson Environmental Consulting Group, Inc., Newark (DE) Center 
for Creative Learning, Newark (DE) Day Nursery, and Port Richmond 
Community Council, Inc., provided comment, as did a rail carrier, 
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). Seven comments were 
received from other interested parties, including the League of Women 
Voters of New Castle County, DE; the American Public Transit 
Association; The Waterfront Historic Area League, New Bedford, MA; 
Indianapolis Power & Light Company, IN; Downtown Newark, DE; University 
of Delaware, DE; and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey School 
of Law. The comments covered a broad range of topics, including air 
quality, water resources, noise, at-grade highway safety, rail 
accidents, emergency vehicle response times, hazardous materials 
transportation and spills, environmental justice, and current and 
future commuter rail service.
    SEA reviewed and considered all comments received in its 
preparation of the final scope of the EIS. The final scope reflects 
changes made because of comments on the draft scope of the EIS. Other 
changes in the final scope of the EIS were made for clarification.
    Specifically, the Safety Section of the final scope of the EIS 
provides that grade crossing safety generally will be considered for 
at-grade highway crossings with average daily traffic levels of 5,000 
or more vehicles. In applying this threshold for the review of at-grade 
crossings in past environmental documents, SEA found it to be a 
conservative baseline.
    SEA received several comments concerning hazardous waste. In 
response, section 1(D)(7) of the final scope of the EIS was added to 
indicate that the Draft EIS will assess the locations and types of 
hazardous waste sites and spills on the rights-of-way of proposed 
construction projects and rail line abandonments. SEA notes, however, 
that other Federal and state agencies have primary jurisdiction for 
investigation, clean-up, and remediation of hazardous waste sites.
    SEA received approximately 20 comments related to potential impacts 
on commuter rail service. In response, Section 2 of the final scope has 
been expanded to include an analysis of potential passenger diversions, 
and reasonably foreseeable commuter rail inception or expansion plans 
(i.e., where capital improvements are planned, approved, and funded). 
Section 2 also addresses comments requesting that SEA discuss the 
potential impacts of increased train traffic on movable (draw) bridges 
over navigable channels.
    Section 4, Energy, has been clarified in the final scope to address 
estimated system-wide changes in energy efficiency (fuel use), 
including the impact of truck-to-rail diversions. Section 4(C) 
addresses the overall

[[Page 51503]]

estimated changes in energy efficiency resulting from rail-to-truck 
diversions subject to the Board's regulatory thresholds in 49 
CFR.1105.7(e)(4)(iv).
    Section 5, Air Quality, has been expanded to include the 
calculation of net increases of emissions from the proposed transaction 
for counties where increases in locomotive emissions are projected to 
be 100 tons or more per year. Section 6, Noise, has been modified to 
reflect the actual data that are available to analyze noise impacts. 
Estimates of receptors will be developed where noise levels are 
predicted to rise to 65 decibels L<INF>dn</INF> or greater as a result 
of rail traffic increases related to the proposed transaction.
    Section 9, Environmental Justice, has been expanded in the final 
scope to include a report on the demographics in the vicinity of rail 
line segments with projected rail traffic increases of eight (8) trains 
or more per day. The portion of Section 3 of the final scope of the 
EIS, involving Socioeconomic Issues, includes a consideration of 
socioeconomic impacts to the extent that they result directly from 
changes to the physical environment due to the proposed transaction. 
That approach is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766 
(1982). Those most directly and immediately affected by the proposed 
transaction, the employees of the consolidating carriers, will be 
covered by the labor protection afforded by the Board in considering 
the merits of the proposed transaction. Therefore, these impacts need 
not be addressed in the EIS. Section 3 also has been expanded to 
specifically state that the EIS will address the potential 
environmental impacts of proposed rail line construction and 
abandonment activities on Native American reservations and sacred 
sites.
    Several comments on the draft scope of the EIS suggested there be 
an analysis of the cumulative impacts of certain environmental effects 
related to the proposed transaction. The final scope of the EIS 
indicates the Draft EIS will undertake cumulative effects analyses 
related to the proposed transaction where such effects could have 
regional or system-wide impacts. The effects to be analyzed will 
include air quality and energy. Cumulative effects also may be analyzed 
for other projects or activities related to the proposed transaction 
where information is provided in a timely fashion to the Board 
describing those projects, their interrelationship to the proposed 
transaction, and the type and severity of the potential environmental 
impacts, and SEA determines that there is the likelihood of significant 
environmental impacts.

Parties of Record

    The Board received 228 notices of designation as a Party of Record 
(POR). As stated in Board Decision No. 6 in this case,<SUP>4</SUP> 
copies of Board decisions, orders, and notices will be served only on 
persons designated as PORs, members of Congress, and governors on the 
Board's official service list. All other interested persons who wish to 
receive copies of Board decisions, orders, and notices served in this 
proceeding are encouraged to make advance arrangements with the Board's 
copy contractor, DC News & Data, Inc., at (202) 289-4357.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

For Additional Information

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

Environmental Review Schedule

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

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

    On June 23, 1997, Applicants filed an ER containing the information 
specified in the Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105.7(e), as 
part of the primary application. The ER was served concurrently on the 
agencies listed in the Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105.7(b), 
and other appropriate entities. The ER describes the physical and 
operational changes in the rail systems and facilities anticipated as a 
result of the proposed transaction. In the ER, Applicants also discuss 
the potential environmental impacts that would be associated with the 
anticipated changes. The Applicants have provided, and continue to 
provide, SEA with supplemental information to the ER. Also, as 
previously discussed, on August 28, 1997, the Applicants filed an 
Errata and Supplemental ER.
    Based on the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations, 
the Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105, the ER, the draft 
scope, the comments received on the draft scope, and all other 
information available to date, SEA has prepared this final scope of the 
EIS. This final scope of the EIS will be distributed to all PORs, 
interested parties, and appropriate agencies.
    Based on SEA's independent environmental analysis, review of all 
information available to date, and consultations with appropriate 
agencies, SEA will prepare a Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will address 
relevant environmental concerns, as described in the final scope of the 
EIS, and will recommend appropriate environmental mitigation. In 
addition, the Draft EIS will include environmental impacts associated 
with any inconsistent or responsive applications or settlement 
agreements.<SUP>6</SUP> SEA intends to serve the Draft EIS in November 
1997. SEA will serve the Draft EIS on all PORs to this proceeding, all 
interested parties, appropriate Federal, state, and local government 
agencies, and any other parties specifically requesting a copy of the 
Draft EIS. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency will 
publish a notice of the availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal 
Register. There will be a 45-day comment period on the Draft EIS, as 
required by CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1506.10(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under the procedural schedule previously established for 
this proceeding in Decision No. 6, inconsistent and responsive 
applicants must provide a description of the proposed inconsistent 
or responsive application by August 22, 1997. Inconsistent and 
responsive applicants must file Responsive Environmental Reports or 
verified statements indicating that there are no potentially 
significant environmental impacts by October 1, 1997. They must file 
inconsistent and responsive applications by October 21, 1997. SEA 
anticipates that the issues addressed in the final scope of the EIS 
will be similar to issues that may be raised in any subsequent 
filing of inconsistent or responsive applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering comments on the Draft EIS, SEA will issue a Final 
EIS. The Final EIS will address comments on the Draft EIS and will 
include SEA's final recommendations, including appropriate 
environmental mitigation. Environmental comments not received in 
accordance with the 45-day comment period for the Draft EIS will not be 
incorporated into the Final EIS. The Final EIS and SEA's final 
environmental

[[Page 51504]]

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

Projected Schedule <SUP>7</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Actual dates for environmental documents may vary slightly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Preliminary Environmental Report <SUP>8</SUP> submitted to 
SEA. (F-30). <SUP>9</SUP>--May 16, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Preliminary Environmental Report contained preliminary, 
descriptive information on the proposed transaction.
    \9\ ``F'' is the filing date of the primary application. The 
Board established the time periods related to the filing date in the 
procedural schedule set out in Decision No. 6 in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Primary Application and Environmental Report filed.--(F). 
June 23, 1997.
    <bullet> Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement and Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Notice issued. 
(Federal Register Notice).--July 7, 1997.
    <bullet> Comments on the Draft Scope of the Environmental Impact 
Statement due (end of 30-day comment period).--August 6, 1997.
    <bullet> Descriptions of Inconsistent and Responsive Applications 
filed. (F + 60).--August 22, 1997.
    <bullet> Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessments for the Seven 
Separate Construction Projects referenced in Decision No. 9.--September 
5, 1997.
    <bullet> Final Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement 
issued.--September 1997.
    <bullet> Responsive Environmental Reports and Verified 
Environmental Statements due. (F + 100).--October 1, 1997.
    <bullet> Inconsistent and Responsive Applications due. (F + 120).--
October 21, 1997.
    <bullet> Draft Environmental Impact Statement served.--November 
1997.
    <bullet> Draft Environmental Impact Statement comments due (end of 
45-day comment period).--January 1998.
    <bullet> Final Environmental Impact Statement served.--Late March 
or Early April 1998.
    <bullet> Oral Argument.--April 9, 1998.
    <bullet> Voting Conference.--April 14, 1998.
    <bullet> Final Decision served.--June 8, 1998.
    <bullet> Administrative Appeals filing deadline.--June 29, 1998.

Final Scope of the EIS

Proposed Action and Definition of Alternatives

    The proposed action is Applicants' proposed acquisition and 
control, jointly or individually, of Conrail's rail lines and 
facilities, as explained in the primary application's operating plan 
and ER. The proposed transaction includes changes in railroad 
operations such as increases and decreases in train traffic on rail 
lines, changes in activity at rail yards and intermodal facilities, and 
rail line abandonment and construction projects.
    Reasonable or feasible alternatives that will be evaluated in the 
EIS are: (1) Approval of the proposed transaction; (2) the No-Action 
alternative; and (3) approval of the proposed transaction with 
conditions, including environmental mitigation conditions. Proposed 
modifications to the proposed transaction as requested by other parties 
in their inconsistent or responsive applications also will be addressed 
in the EIS.

Environmental Impact Analysis

    Analysis in the EIS will address proposed activities and their 
potential environmental impacts, as appropriate. The scope of the 
analysis will include the following types of activities:
    1. Anticipated changes in level of operations on rail lines (e.g., 
an increase in average trains per day) for those rail line segments 
that meet or exceed the Board's thresholds for environmental review in 
49 CFR 1105.7. In circumstances where the Board's environmental rules 
do not provide a threshold, the EIS generally will use increases of 
eight trains per day or more as the threshold for addressing 
environmental impacts.
    2. Proposed rail line abandonments.
    3. Proposed changes in activity at rail yards and intermodal 
facilities to the extent such changes may exceed the Board's thresholds 
for environmental analysis in 49 CFR 1105.7.
    4. Proposed requests for trackage rights or rail line acquisitions 
that meet or exceed the Board's thresholds that may be included in 
inconsistent and responsive applications.
    5. Proposed physical construction of rail line segments other than 
the Seven Connections discussed above and in Decision No. 
9.<SUP>10</SUP> Subsequent references to construction projects in this 
scoping document do not include these Seven Connections. Alternatives 
to construction may include feasible alternate alignments that may be 
environmentally preferable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Environmental Impact Categories

    The EIS will address potential impacts on the environment that will 
include the areas of safety, transportation systems, land use, energy, 
air quality, noise, biological resources, water resources, 
socioeconomic effects related to physical changes in the environment, 
environmental justice, and cultural and historic resources, as 
described below.
1. Safety
    The EIS will:
    A. Consider at-grade rail crossing accident probability and safety 
factors. This will generally include grade crossings with average daily 
traffic levels of 5,000 or more trips.<SUP>11</SUP> Accident 
probability analysis will address the potential for rail and vehicle 
accidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\  Previous SEA environmental analyses have used the 5,000 
average daily traffic level threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Consider increased probability of train accidents and 
derailments due to increased traffic on a system-wide basis.
    C. Address potential effects of increased freight traffic on 
commuter and intercity passenger service operations.
    D. Discuss the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 
transaction on public health and safety with respect to the 
transportation of hazardous materials, including:

[[Page 51505]]

    (1) Changes in the types of hazardous materials and quantities 
transported or re-routed;
    (2) Nature of the hazardous materials being transported;
    (3) Applicants' safety practices and protocols;
    (4) Applicants' relevant safety data on derailments, accidents and 
hazardous materials spills;
    (5) Contingency plans to address accidental spills;
    (6) Probability of increased spills given railroad safety 
statistics and applicable Federal Railroad Administration requirements; 
and
    (7) Location and types of hazardous substances at hazardous waste 
sites or hazardous materials spills on the right-of-way of any proposed 
connection or rail line abandonment site.
    E. Address local truck traffic increases attributable to increased 
intermodal activities.
    F. Address safety issues associated with the integration of 
differing rail operating systems and procedures.
2. Transportation Systems
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe system-wide effects of the proposed operational 
changes, constructions, and rail line abandonments, and evaluate 
potential impacts on commuter rail service and intercity passenger 
(Amtrak) service. Estimates will be made of the number of passengers 
who may be diverted from commuter rail to other modes of transportation 
due to constraints resulting from the proposed transaction that limit 
the number of passenger trains.
    B. Evaluate those commuter rail line segments that would experience 
increased freight traffic as a result of the proposed transaction for 
the capability of the rail line segments to accommodate the reasonably 
foreseeable addition of commuter trains.
    C. Discuss potential effects on proposed passenger rail service 
where such future rail operation inception or expansion is reasonably 
foreseeable (i.e., where capital improvements are planned, approved, 
and funded).
    D. Discuss potential diversions of freight traffic from trucks to 
rail and from rail to trucks, as appropriate.
    E. Address vehicular delays at rail crossings and intermodal 
facilities due to increases in rail-related operations as a result of 
the proposed transaction. Estimates of typical delays at grade 
crossings will be made for crossings that have vehicle traffic levels 
of 5,000 ADT or more and that exceed train traffic increases of three 
trains per day for non-attainment areas or eight trains per day for 
attainment areas.
    F. Discuss potential effects of increased train traffic on railroad 
bridges that cross navigation channels to the extent that such bridges 
allow only one mode of transportation to pass at a time.
3. Land Use and Socioeconomics
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe whether the proposed rail line construction and 
abandonment activities are consistent with existing land use plans.
    B. Describe environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
construction of new rail lines or expansion of facilities as to acres 
of prime farmland potentially removed from production.
    C. Discuss consistency of proposed rail line construction and 
abandonment activities with applicable coastal zone requirements.
    D. Address potential environmental impacts of proposed rail line 
construction and abandonment activities on Native American reservations 
and sacred sites.
    E. Address socioeconomic issues shown to be related to changes in 
the physical environment as a result of the proposed transaction.
4. Energy
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe the potential environmental impact of the proposed 
transaction on transportation of energy resources and recyclable 
commodities to the extent that such information is available.
    B. Discuss estimated changes in energy efficiency from truck-to-
rail diversions.
    C. Discuss the effect on energy efficiency (fuel use) from rail-to-
truck diversions based on estimates of diversions which are subject to 
the Board's thresholds in 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(4)(iv).
5. Air Quality
    The EIS will:
    A. Evaluate air emissions increases where the proposed post-
acquisition activity would exceed the Board's environmental thresholds 
in 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(5)(i), in an air quality attainment or maintenance 
area as designated under the Clean Air Act as it existed on the date 
the primary application was filed.<SUP>12</SUP> Thresholds are as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (1) A 100 percent increase in rail traffic (measured in gross-ton 
miles annually) or an increase of eight trains a day on any segment of 
rail line affected by the proposal; or
    (2) An increase in rail yard activity of at least 100 percent or 
more; or
    (3) An increase in truck traffic at an intermodal facility of more 
than 10 percent of the average daily traffic or 50 vehicles a day.
    B. Evaluate air emissions increases where the proposed post-
acquisition activity would exceed the Board's environmental thresholds 
for a non-attainment area as designated under the Clean Air Act as of 
the date the application was filed. Thresholds for non-attainment areas 
are as follows:
    (1) An increase in rail traffic of at least 50 percent (measured in 
gross-ton miles annually) or an increase of three trains a day or more; 
or
    (2) An increase in rail yard activity of at least 20 percent; or
    (3) An increase in truck traffic at intermodal facilities of more 
than 10 percent of the average daily traffic or 50 vehicles a day.
    C. Discuss the net increase in emissions from increased railroad 
operations associated with the proposed transaction. Net emissions 
changes will be calculated for counties with projected transaction-
related emissions increases of:
    (1) 100 tons per year or more of any pollutant in attainment areas;
    (2) 50 tons per year or more of nitrogen oxides or volatile organic 
compounds in serious <SUP>13</SUP> ozone non-attainment areas; or
    (3) 25 tons per year or more of nitrogen oxides or volatile organic 
compounds in severe <SUP>14</SUP> ozone non-attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13-14\ Ozone non-attainment areas are further classified as 
Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme Areas. These 
classifications are based on the level, in parts per million (ppm), 
of ozone measured for each area. Serious Areas are defined as 
containing 0.160 to 0.180 ppm, and Severe Areas are defined as 
containing 0.180 to 0.280 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Evaluate potential air quality benefits of system-wide emission 
reductions that would result from projected truck-to-rail diversions. 
Net increases, less any estimated reductions due to truck-to-rail 
diversions, will be compared to the entire emission inventory for 
affected non-attainment areas. This evaluation will be based on 
emission inventory data provided by the appropriate state agency.

[[Page 51506]]

    E. Discuss the following information regarding the anticipated 
transportation of ozone depleting materials (such as nitrogen oxide and 
freon):
    (1) Materials and quantity;
    (2) Applicants' safety practices;
    (3) Applicants' safety record (to the extent available) on 
derailments, accidents, and spills;
    (4) Contingency plans to address accidental spills; and
    (5) Likelihood of an accidental release of ozone depleting 
materials in the event of a collision or derailment.
    F. Discuss potential air emissions increases from vehicle delays at 
rail crossings where the rail crossing is projected to experience an 
increase in rail traffic over the thresholds described above in Section 
5(A) for attainment and maintenance areas, and in Section 5(B) for non-
attainment areas, and which have an average daily vehicle traffic level 
above 5,000. Such increases will be factored into the net emissions 
estimates for the affected area.
6. Noise
    The EIS will:
    A. Describe potential noise impacts of the proposed transaction for 
those areas that exceed the Board's environmental thresholds identified 
in Section 5A of the Air Quality discussion.
    B. Identify whether the proposed transaction-related increases in 
rail traffic will cause an increase to a noise level of 65 decibels 
L<INF>DN</INF> or greater. If so, an estimate of the number of 
sensitive receptors (e.g., schools and residences) within such areas 
will be made.
    C. Identify transaction-related activities that have the potential 
to result in an increase in noise level of 3 decibels L<INF>DN</INF> or 
more.
7. Biological Resources
    The EIS will:
    A. Discuss the potential environmental impacts of proposed rail 
line construction and abandonment projects on federal endangered or 
threatened species or designated critical habitats.
    B. Discuss the effects of proposed rail line construction and 
abandonment projects on wildlife sanctuaries or refuges, and national 
or state parks or forests.
8. Water Resources
    The EIS will:
    A. Discuss whether potential impacts from proposed rail line 
construction and abandonment projects may be inconsistent with 
applicable federal or state water quality standards.
    B. Discuss whether permits may be required under Sections 404 or 
402 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) for any proposed rail line 
construction and abandonment projects, and whether any such projects 
have the potential to encroach upon any designated wetlands or 100-year 
floodplains.
9. Environmental Justice
    The EIS will:
    A. Report on the demographics in the immediate vicinity of any area 
where major activity such as an abandonment or construction is 
proposed.
    B. Report on the demographics in the vicinity of rail lines with 
projected rail traffic increases above eight trains per day.
    C. Evaluate whether such activities potentially have a 
disproportionately high and adverse health effect or environmental 
impact on any minority or low-income group.
10. Cultural and Historic Resources
    The EIS will address potential impacts from proposed rail line 
construction and abandonment projects on cultural and historic 
resources that are on, or immediately adjacent to, a railroad right-of-
way.
11. Cumulative Effects
    The EIS will:
    A. Address cumulative effects of environmental impacts that have 
regional or system-wide ramifications. This analysis will be done for 
environmental impacts that warrant such analysis given the context and 
scope of the proposed transaction. The environmental effects to be 
analyzed include air quality and energy.
    B. Evaluate cumulative effects, as appropriate, for other projects 
or activities that relate to the proposed transaction, where 
information is provided to the Board that describes (1) those other 
projects or activities, (2) their interrelationship with the proposed 
transaction, (3) the type and severity of the potential environmental 
impacts; and SEA determines that there is the likelihood of significant 
environmental impacts. This information must be provided to the Board 
within sufficient time to allow for review and analysis within the 
schedule for the preparation of the EIS.
    C. Discuss the potential environmental impacts of construction or 
facility modification activities within railroad-owned property 
affected by the proposed merger, and additional environmental impacts 
related to the proposed transaction but not subject to Board approval, 
in order to identify cumulative impacts.

    By the Board, Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of Environmental 
Analysis.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26039 Filed 9-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P