Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Notices 64247

1B&P states that at this point it has existing rights

over Conrail’s line of railroad to conduct

interchange between its Buffalo Creek Yard and

‘‘SK’’ Yard of the Delaware and Hudson Railway

(CP Rail system) Buffalo, NY, subject to a separate

agreement it has with Conrail, dated February 1,

1980.

2The trackage rights are granted for the sole

purpose of B&P’s use for bridge traffic only between

B&P/Conrail connections. B&P shall not perform

any local freight service at any point located on the

subject trackage. The trackage rights also provide

that B&P shall not have the right to permit or admit

any third party to the use of all or any portion of

the subject trackage, nor under the guise of doing

its own business, contract or make any agreement

to handle as its own trains, locomotives, cabooses

or cars of any third party which in the normal

course of business would not be considered the

trains, locomotives, cabooses or cars of B&P;

provided however, that the foregoing shall not

prevent B&P, pursuant to a run-through agreement

with any railroad, from using the locomotives and

cabooses of another railroad as its own under the

trackage rights agreement.

3On November 20, 1997, Samuel J. Nasca, on

behalf of United Transportation Union-New York

State Legislative Board, filed a petition to reject the

notice of exemption, or to revoke the exemption,

and/or for stay of the effective date of the

exemption pending disposition of the request for

rejection or revocation. The petition will be

addressed in a separate decision.

region with two major employment

destinations: the Naval Base Norfolk

and Norfolk’s Central Business District.

The emergence of new activity centers

along the corridor within the last fifteen

years has created new commuting

patterns and additional demands on

transportation facilities.

In response to this need, TRT has

completed a Major Investment Study

(MIS) for the Norfolk-Virginia Beach

corridor. The results of the MIS study

resulted in a preferred alternative of a

light rail transit system with limited

stops along the corridor, and includes

stations, park and ride lots, and transit

centers. Transit improvements are

intended to alleviate traffic congestion

in the Norfolk-Virginia Beach corridor

and help achieve regional air quality

goals by providing an alternative to the

single occupant vehicle.

III. Alternatives

The transportation alternatives

proposed for consideration in this

project area include: (1) No-Build,

which involves no change to

transportation services or facilities in

the corridor beyond already committed

projects, (2) a Transportation System

Management (TSM) alternative which

consists of low to medium cost

improvements to the facilities and

operations of the TRT bus system in

addition to the currently planned transit

improvements in the corridor, and (3) a

new light rail alignment (including line,

station locations and support facilities)

generally following the existing Norfolk

Southern rail corridor between Norfolk

and Virginia Beach and on surface

streets in Downtown Norfolk and to the

Virginia Beach Pavilion, and a modified

bus service component.

IV. Probable Effects

The FTA and TRT will evaluate all

significant environmental, social, and

economic impacts of the alternatives

analyzed in the EIS. Primary

environmental issues include: Land use

and neighborhood protection, traffic and

parking, visual, noise and vibration,

safety, aesthetics, stormwater

management, archaeological, historic,

cultural and ecological resources,

wildlife corridors. Impacts on natural

areas, rare and endangered species, air

and water quality, groundwater, and

potentially contaminated sites will also

be studied. Displacements and

relocations, ecosystems, water

resources, hazardous waste, parklands,

and energy impacts will be assessed.

The impacts will be evaluated both for

the construction period and for the longterm period of operation of each

alternative. Measures to mitigate any

significant adverse impacts will be

developed.

V. FTA Procedures

In accordance with the federal

transportation planning regulations (23

CFR Part 450), the Draft EIS will be

prepared to include an evaluation of the

social, economic and environmental

impact of the alternatives. The DEIS will

consider the public and agency

comments received and the TRT in

concert with the Secretary of the

Virginia Department of Rail and Public

Transportation and Hampton Roads

Metropolitan Planning Organization and

other affected agencies, will select the

preferred alternative. Then the TRT, as

lead agency, will continue with the

preparation of the Final EIS.

Opportunity for additional public

comment will be provided throughout

all phases of project development.

Issued: December 1, 1997.

Sheldon A. Kinbar,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–31803 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–57–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33514]

Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc.—

Trackage Rights Exemption—

Consolidated Rail Corporation

Consolidated Rail Corporation

(Conrail) has agreed to grant bridge

trackage rights to Buffalo & Pittsburgh

Railroad, Inc. (B&P), described as

follows: (1) Conrail’s Olean Secondary

between the B&P/Conrail connection at

milepost 408.8± at Carrollton, NY, and

milepost 395.0± at Olean, NY, the

connection with Conrail’s Buffalo Line,

including that portion of Conrail’s track

known as the North West Connection

Track (connection between Conrail’s

Olean Secondary and its Buffalo Line),

a distance of approximately 13.8 miles;

(2) Conrail’s Buffalo Line between

milepost 69.4± at CP North Olean, and

milepost 5.7± CP–GJ, a distance of

approximately 63.7 miles; (3) Conrail’s

Ebenezer Secondary between milepost

5.7± (connection with Conrail’s Buffalo

Line) and milepost 0.4± (connection

with Conrail’s Chicago Line, within CP–

Draw), a distance of approximately 5.3

miles; (4) Conrail’s Chicago Line

between milepost 1.7± (connection with

Conrail’s Ebenezer Secondary) and

milepost 1.77± (connection with B&P), a

distance of approximately 0.07 of a

mile; and (5) Conrail’s Transco Wye in

Buffalo, NY, between milepost 1.9±

(Erie) on Conrail’s Ebenezer Secondary

and the end of Conrail’s Transco Wye

(connection with Conrail’s Bison

Runner), a distance of approximately 0.6

of a mile.1 The total combined distance

of the trackage rights is approximately

83.47 miles.2

B&P was expected to commence

operations on or after the November 24,

1997 effective date.3

The purpose of the proposed trackage

rights is to allow B&P to shift overhead

traffic from a roughly parallel line that

is in need of rehabilitation.

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 the notice 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. 33514, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on: Eric M.

Hocky, Esquire, Gollatz, Griffin &
64248 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4, 1997 / Notices

Ewing, P.C., 213 West Miner Street, P.O.

Box 796, West Chester, PA 19381–0796.

Decided: November 26, 1997.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–31796 Filed 12–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

[TD 97–96]

Reasonable Care Checklist

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service,

Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: General notice.

SUMMARY: This document sets forth, for

guidance, a checklist of measures which

importers and their agents may find

helpful in meeting the ‘‘reasonable care’’

requirements of the Customs laws.

DATES: Effective December 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Pisani, Penalties Branch,

International Trade Compliance

Division, Office of Regulations and

Rulings, (202) 927–1203.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 16, 1997, the Customs

Service published a Second Discussion

Draft in the Customs Bulletin (as well as

the Customs Electronic Bulletin Board

and Customs Internet Website)

concerning the importer’s obligation to

use reasonable care. Based on comments

received in response to the initial

discussion draft on reasonable care,

Customs decided to adopt a ‘‘checklist’’

approach—as a means to provide

guidance regarding an importer’s

obligation to use reasonable care. The

second discussion draft set forth an

expanded and revised checklist, and

requested public comment on the

document by June 30, 1997.

Customs has finalized its review of all

second discussion draft comments

received from interested parties. The

‘‘final’’ checklist follows the discussion

of the public comments, and Customs

notes that the document contains

relatively minor revisions to the

checklist published on May 16, 1997.

Customs also notes that the majority of

the comments received from the public

favored the adoption of the checklist. It

should also be pointed out that although

Customs is publishing the ‘‘final’’

checklist, the agency’s adoption of this

format for providing guidance may

readily be expanded in the future to suit

the changing nature of international

trade—without resort to statutory or

regulatory amendment. Also it should

be reiterated that, as new Customs

regulations are proposed, it is

anticipated that regulatory references to

the reasonable care standard will be

included.

Discussion

The majority of comments received by

Customs applauded the agency’s

decision to adopt the checklist approach

to the issue of reasonable care. There is

a general consensus that a ‘‘black and

white’’ definition of reasonable care is

impossible, inasmuch as the concept of

acting with reasonable care depends

upon individual circumstances.

The most prevalent concern about the

checklist raised by commenters

involved Customs use of the term

‘‘expert’’ in those checklist questions

pertaining to relying on the advice of an

‘‘expert.’’ Some commenters are

concerned that unlicensed and

unregulated individuals are regularly

advising importers in Customs

matters—i.e., holding themselves out as

‘‘Customs experts’’ or Customs

consultants, in violation of section 641

of the Tariff Act of 1930. In addition,

one commenter is of the opinion that

the public should not be misled into

believing that it constitutes reasonable

care to consult with anyone who

chooses to call himself or herself a

Customs expert.

With respect to the above concerns,

Customs notes that publication of the

checklist is not intended to condone the

unlawful conduct of Customs business

by unlicensed individuals or entities.

Rather, the agency’s use of the term

‘‘expert’’ is in conformity with the

Customs Modernization Act’s legislative

history as reflected in the language of

the House of Representatives and Senate

Reports (H.Rep. 103–361, pg. 120; S.

Rep. 103–189, pg. 73) discussion of the

reasonable care standard. A party’s

selection of an expert, and the expert’s

qualifications are part and parcel of the

review of all of the facts and

circumstances in the agency’s

determination whether the party has

exercised reasonable care. In Customs

view, the importer who retains the

services of an ‘‘expert’’ bears some

responsibility in ensuring that the party

is qualified to render advice on the

Customs matter at issue. In Customs

view, it is not unreasonable to expect

that a party selecting an expert will

inquire about the Customs experience

and credentials of an expert. Customs

believes this responsibility to be

particularly important in cases

involving selection of unlicensed

experts such as consultants. The

existence of experienced Customs

lawyers and licensed brokers makes

fulfillment of this responsibility an

easier task—but in Customs view, to

limit the selection of an expert to these

individuals runs contrary to the

language of the congressional reports. In

sum, the importer or party selecting an

expert must use judgment and reason in

making his or her selection.

One commenter expressed a

reservation about the checklist in that

‘‘assiduous compliance with the list for

every entry would require an impossible

expenditure of time and resources.’’ The

commenter believes that the checklist

fails to keep sight of ‘‘commercial

realities and business realities.’’

Customs believes it is important to

underscore that the checklist is not a

law or Customs regulation, and that it

merely serves to provide guidance and

information to the importing

community to assist the members of the

community in meeting reasonable care

obligations. In publishing the checklist,

Customs is not mandating that each and

every question be asked by each and

every importer for all transactions.

Rather, the checklist serves as a flexible

tool to help importers find and/or

understand statutory and regulatory

obligations involved in the importation

process. Customs notes that the agency

rejected the regulatory and policy

statement approaches set forth in the

first discussion draft for the very

reasons set forth by the commenter. In

this regard, Customs believes the

following excerpts from the second

discussion draft warrant reiteration:

* * * [I]t is important to remember that

not every incident of non-compliance

involves a failure to exercise reasonable care.

The circumstances surrounding an incident

of non-compliance determine whether or not

the incident involves culpable conduct.

* * * For example, if Customs were to

enact a regulation, or issue a policy statement

setting forth ‘‘reasonable care’’ parameters

and standards, such regulation or policy

statement could be considered helpful, costeffective and instructive to a large multinational importer, yet harmful, impractical,

intrusive and cost-defective to a smaller

organization.

Rather than attempting to dictate specific

methods of compliance with regard to a

standard that demands flexibility and is

dependent upon circumstance, Customs

believes that by providing guidance and

education the agency is working toward

fulfilling the principle of informed

compliance which underscores the Customs

Modernization Act.

One of the commenters suggested that

the agency abandon General Question