2716 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices

ACTION: Notice of Intent cancellation.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

notice to advise the public that a Notice

of Intent (NOI) to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for a proposed highway project located

in the City of Lawrence, Douglas

County, Kansas, is cancelled. The NOI

was originally published in the Federal

Register on November 5, 1993. The

cancellation is based on a decision not

to proceed with the project at this time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Johnny R. Dahl, P.E., Operations

Engineer, FHWA, 3300 South Topeka

Boulevard, Suite 1, Topeka, Kansas

66611–2237, Telephone: (785) 267–

7284. Warren L. Sick, P.E., Chief of

Bureau of Design, Kansas Department of

Transportation (KDOT), Docking State

Office Building, Topeka, Kansas 66612,

Telephone: (785) 296–2270. George

Williams, Director of the Department of

Public Works, City of Lawrence, Box

708, Lawrence, Kansas 66044–0708,

Telephone: (785) 832–3124.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Lawrence Eastern Parkway

Environmental Impact Study was

initiated by the City of Lawrence in

1989. In 1997, the City elected to

withdraw its support and sponsorship

of the Lawrence Eastern Parkway EIS.

The City has directed that their staff

bring closure to the study effort. The EIS

documentation compiled to date for the

proposed Lawrence Eastern Parkway

will become a resource document and

will not be considered a completed

study document. There is agreement

that there will be transportation needs

that warrant this improvement in the

future. Comments and questions

concerning this proposed action and the

EIS should be directed to the FHWA,

KDOT, or the City of Lawrence at the

addresses provided.

Issued on: January 9, 1998.

David R. Geiger,

Division Administrator, Kansas Division,

Federal Highway Administration, Topeka,

Kansas.

[FR Doc. 98–1126 Filed 1–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. RSAC–96–1, Notice No. 8]

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee;

Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Railroad Safety

Advisory Committee (‘‘RSAC’’) meeting.

SUMMARY: FRA announces the next

meeting of the RSAC, a Federal

Advisory Committee that develops

railroad safety regulations through a

consensus process. The meeting will

address a wide range of topics,

including possible adoption of specific

recommendations for regulatory action.

DATES: The meeting of the RSAC is

scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. and

conclude at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday,

January 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The meeting of the RSAC

will be held at The Westin Hotel, 1400

M Street, NW, Washington, DC. The

meeting is open to the public on a firstcome, first-served basis and is accessible

to individuals with disabilities. Sign

language interpreters will be available

for individuals with hearing

impediments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vicky McCully, RSAC Coordinator,

FRA, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20590, (202) 632–3330, Grady

Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator

for Safety Standards and Program

Development, FRA, 400 7th Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590, (202) 632–3309,

or Lisa Levine, Office of Chief Counsel,

FRA, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20590, (202) 632–3189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:. Pursuant

to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463), FRA is giving notice of a meeting

of the Railroad Safety Advisory

Committee (‘‘RSAC’’). The meeting is

scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. and

conclude at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday,

January 27, 1998. The meeting will be

held at The Westin Hotel, 1400 M

Street, NW, Washington, DC. All times

noted are Eastern Standard Time.

RSAC was established to provide

advice and recommendations to the

FRA on railroad safety matters. The

Committee consists of 48 individual

representatives, drawn from among 27

organizations representing various rail

industry perspectives, and 2 associate

non-voting representatives from the

agencies with railroad safety regulatory

responsibility in Canada and Mexico.

Staff of the National Transportation

Safety Board and Federal Transit

Administration also participate in an

advisory capacity.

During this meeting, the RSAC will

receive status reports, containing

progress information, from the

Locomotive Crashworthiness Working

Group, the Locomotive Cab Working

Conditions Working Group, and the

Event Recorder Working Group.

In addition, the Committee will

receive a status report from the recently

constituted Positive Train Control (PTC)

Working Group, tasked with: (1)

Facilitating understanding of current

PTC technologies, definitions, and

capabilities; (2) addressing issues

regarding the feasibility of

implementing fully integrated PTC

systems; and (3) facilitating

implementation of software based signal

and operating systems through

consideration of revisions to the Rules,

Standards and Instructions to address

processor-based technology and

communication-based architectures.

Finally, the Committee may be asked

to consider for approval the Tourist and

Historic Railroad working group’s

proposal for the revision of the steam

locomotive inspection and testing

standards contained in 49 CFR part 230.

Please refer to the notice published in

the Federal Register on March 11, 1996

(61 FR 9740) for more information about

the RSAC.

George A. Gavalla,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety.

[FR Doc. 98–784 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. MC–F–20913]

Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.—Pooling—

Greyhound Lines, Inc.

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of proposed pooling

application.

SUMMARY: Applicants, Peter Pan Bus

Lines, Inc., of Springfield, MA, and

Greyhound Lines, Inc., of Dallas, TX,

jointly seek approval under 49 U.S.C.

14302 of a pooling agreement to govern

their motor passenger and express

operations (but not the revenues earned

from those operations) between Albany,

NY, and Boston, MA.

DATES: Comments are due by February

17, 1998, and, if comments are filed,

applicants’ rebuttal statement is due by

March 9, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10

copies of any comments referring to STB

Docket No. MC-F–20913 to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. Also, send one copy of comments

to each of applicants’ representatives:

(1) Jeremy Kahn, Suite 810, 1730 Rhode

Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC

20036; (2) Fritz R. Kahn, Suite 750 West,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices 2717

1Applicants have already received authority to

pool their operations and revenues for their motor

passenger and express transportation service

between Philadelphia, PA, and New York, NY, in

Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.—Pooling—Greyhound

Lines, Inc., STB Docket No. MC-F–20904 (STB

served June 30, 1997). A similar request involving

operations between New York City and

Washington, DC, is pending in Peter Pan Bus Lines,

Inc.—Pooling—Greyhound Lines, Inc., STB Docket

No. MC-F–20908. A third request involving

operations between Boston and New York City, and

between Springfield, MA, and New York City, is

also pending in Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.—

Pooling—Greyhound Lines, Inc., STB Docket No.

MC-F–20912. According to applicants, the instant

application is a logical extension of their other

pooling agreements. Applicants state that they

consider the four agreements to be interrelated and

intend to implement them simultaneously after

approval by the Board. We note that the United

States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, has

filed comments in STB Docket No. MC-F–20908,

recommending that the Board find that there is a

substantial likelihood that the proposed pooling of

operations between New York City and Washington

would unduly restrain competition.

2Applicants state that each bus line will set its

own passenger fares and express rates, and each

will retain its individual revenues from operations

on the pooled routes.

1 IC will continue to serve the Sewerage and

Water Board track near Oak Street.

1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20005–3934.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565–1600.

[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)

565–1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicants are competitors on certain

intercity routes between Albany, NY,

and Boston, MA. They seek to pool

portions of their passenger and express

services over routes which they both

operate.1 They will not, however, share

the revenues derived from their

operations over these routes.2

Applicants state that their services

between these points overlap and that

excess schedules are operated because

of the need to protect their respective

market shares. According to applicants,

this has resulted in unacceptably low

load factors, an over-served market, and

inefficient operations.

Applicants submit that the pooling

agreement will allow them to reduce

excess bus capacity, cement their

business relationship, and allow them to

share in the financial vicissitudes of the

pooled-route operations. They claim

public benefits that will include: (1)

rationalization of schedules, eliminating

some duplicative departures while

adding some departures at other times

of the day, resulting in more frequent

bus service over a broader time period;

(2) consolidation of terminals and

coordination of ticketing at Boston, MA,

Newton, MA, Worcester, MA,

Springfield, MA, and Albany, NY,

resulting in greater flexibility for

passengers to use buses, tickets, and

terminals; (3) capital improvements; and

(4) continued bus service by more sound

and financially stable carriers. In

addition, they assert that approval of the

pooling agreement will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources. Rather, they claim that

the reduction in the number of

schedules each carrier operates will

result in a salutary effect on the

environment.

Applicants state that competition will

not be unreasonably restrained. They

argue that: (1) the pooled service is

subject to substantial intermodal

competitive pressure from Amtrak, the

airlines, and private automobiles; and

(2) other motor passenger carriers may

easily enter and compete in the market.

Copies of the application may be

obtained free of charge by contacting

applicants’ representatives. A copy of

this notice will be served on the

Department of Justice, Antitrust

Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530.

Decided: January 7, 1998.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice

Chairman Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–1117 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33533]

Illinois Central Railroad Company and

New Orleans Public Belt Railroad—

Joint Relocation Project Exemption—

in New Orleans, LA

On December 23, 1997, Illinois

Central Railroad Company (IC) and New

Orleans Public Belt Railroad (NOPB)

jointly filed a notice of exemption under

49 CFR 1180.2(d)(5) to reconfigure IC

and NOPB operations over their

adjacent track. The proposed transaction

was scheduled to be consummated on or

after the December 30, 1997 effective

date of the exemption.

IC is a Class I railroad operating

approximately 2,600 miles of rail line in

six states, and NOPB is a Class III

terminal switching railroad owned by

the City of New Orleans, LA. NOPB

operates approximately 25 miles of rail

line in and around New Orleans.

Within the City of New Orleans, IC

and NOPB own and operate adjacent

mainlines. Under the joint project, IC

and NOPB propose the following

transactions: (1) NOPB will grant IC

non-exclusive bridge trackage rights

over 3.4 miles of NOPB’s Main Line and

Siding Track between milepost JO.3, at

Lampert Junction, and milepost 3.4, at

Nashville Avenue; 1 (2) IC will relocate

its operation to NOPB trackage and will

abandon its adjacent Main Line trackage

between milepost 917.77, at Nashville

Avenue, and milepost 921.13, at

Lampert Junction, a distance of

approximately 3.36 miles; (3) IC will

grant NOPB non-exclusive bridge

trackage rights over approximately 5,568

feet of IC’s Main Line from Station

120+00.00, at Nashville Avenue, to

Station 175+68.09, at Valence Street;

and (4) IC and NOPB will perform such

incidental relocation of signals and

power switches as necessary to

complete the proposed reconfiguration

of operations contemplated by the

exemption.

The transaction will simplify rail

operations in the area and will reduce

the number of unnecessary tracks on

street right-of-way and reduce the

number of tracks in grade crossings in

the area. The joint project will not

change service to shippers, expand the

operations of IC or NOPB into new

territory, or alter the existing

competitive situation.

The Board will exercise jurisdiction

over the abandonment or construction

components of a relocation project, and

require separate approval or exemption,

only where the removal of track affects

service to shippers or the construction

of new track involves expansion into

new territory. See City of Detroit v.

Canadian National Ry. Co., et al., 9

I.C.C.2d 1208 (1993), aff’d sub nom.,

Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority v.

ICC, 59 F.3d 1314 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Line

relocation projects may embrace

trackage rights transactions such as the

one involved here. See D.T.&I.R.—

Trackage Rights, 363 I.C.C. 878 (1981).

Under these standards, the incidental

abandonment, construction, and

trackage rights components require no

separate approval or exemption when

the relocation project, as here, will not

disrupt service to shippers and thus

qualifies for the class exemption at 49

CFR 1180.2(d)(5).

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).

If the notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the