37442 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

1Petitions for review of the November 8, 1996

decision were filed in the Ninth Circuit in Northern

Plains Resource Council, Inc. Et. Al. v. STB, No. 97–

70037 (filed Jan. 7, 1997) (NPRC). The court

proceedings are being held in abeyance pending the

conclusion of this proceeding.

2TRRC’s preferred route would have extended

south from Ashland generally paralleling the

Tongue River and passed just to the west of the

Tongue River Reservoir before connecting with a

line owned by the Spring Creek Coal Company,

which provides access to the Burlington Northern

and Santa Fe Railway Company rail lines. TRRC’s

preferred route would have included 5 bridges and

a tunnel in the approximately 6-mile section of the

Tongue River Canyon located between the Tongue

River Dam and the confluence of Four Mile Creek

and the Tongue River.

3The Four Mile Creek Alternative departs from

TRRC’s preferred route at the confluence of the

Four Mile Creek and the Tongue River and heads

in a westerly direction, climbing at a 2.31 percent

grade away from the Tongue River valley floor. The

route winds south connecting with the Spring Creek

spur at the same point as TRRC’s preferred route.

The Four Mile Creek Alternative thus avoids the

Tongue River Canyon and Reservoir.

4The Western Alignment would generally follow

a route between TRRC’s preferred alignment and

the Four Mile Creek Alternative and would be

located on uplands out of the Tongue River Canyon.

Moving south along the approved route from

Ashland, the Western Alignment would begin at a

point approximately 9 miles downstream from the

confluence of the Four Mile Creek and the Tongue

River. It would then cross the Tongue River

approximately 3,000 feet downstream of the

existing county road river crossing. After crossing

the river, the Western Alignment would parallel the

existing Tongue River Road for 4 miles, then

separate from the county road and climb away from

the valley floor. At Four Mile Creek, the Western

Alignment would cross the county road with a fiftyfoot long bridge, and run approximately 0.07 miles

west of the Hosford residence and ranch

headquarters. From Four Mile Creek, the Western

Alignment would continue to climb away from the

Tongue River Valley, then proceed to connect with

the existing Spring Creek rail spur. The Western

Alignment would avoid the environmentally

sensitive Tongue River Canyon and would

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Finance Docket No. 30186 (Sub–No. 3)]

Tongue River Railroad Company,

Construction and Operation of the

Western Alignment in Rosebud and

Big Horn Counties, Montana

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare a

Supplement to the Final Environmental

Impact Statement and Request for

Comments.

SUMMARY: On April 27, 1998, the

Tongue River Railroad Company (TRRC)

filed an application with the Surface

Transportation Board (Board) under 49

U.S.C. 10901 and 49 CFR 1150.1–10

seeking authority to construct and

operate a 17.3-mile line of railroad in

Rosebud and Big Horn Counties,

Montana, known as the ‘‘Western

Alignment.’’ The line that is the subject

of this application is an alternative

routing for the portion of the 41-mile

Ashland to Decker, Montana rail line

that was approved by the Board on

November 8, 1996 in Finance Docket

No. 30186 (Sub-No. 2), referred to as the

‘‘Four Mile Creek Alternative.’’ 1

To evaluate and consider the potential

environmental impacts that might result

from the construction and operation of

this new alignment, the Board’s Section

of Environmental Analysis (SEA) will

prepare a Supplement to the Final

Environmental Impact Statement in

Finance Docket No. 30186 (Sub-No. 2)

(Supplement). Comments are requested

from interested parties regarding the

scope of the environmental issues

associated with the proposed

construction and operation of the

Western Alignment that should be

addressed in the Supplement.

DATES: Written comments on the scope

of potential environmental issues are

due August 24, 1998 (45 days). TRRC

may reply within 15 days thereafter.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10

copies of comments referring to STB

Finance Docket No. 30186(Sub-No. 3)

to: Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423–

0001, Attention: Dana G. White, Section

of Environmental Analysis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dana White, (202) 565–1552 (TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 565–1695).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In its original application filed on

June 2, 1983 in Finance Docket No.

30186 and Finance Docket No. 30186

(Sub-No. 1), TRRC sought approval from

the Interstate Commerce Commission

(ICC, now the Surface Transportation

Board or Board) for the construction and

operation of 89 miles of railroad

between Miles City, MT and two termini

located near Ashland, MT (Tongue River

I). TRRC explained that the proposed

rail line would serve future coal mines

in the Ashland area, and connect with

what is now the Burlington Northern

and Santa Fe Railroad Company’s main

line at Miles City for shipment of the

coal to eastern and western destinations.

In a decision served May 9, 1986, the

ICC approved the application subject to

several conditions, including

environmental mitigation conditions

that were recommended in the

environmental impact statement (EIS)

prepared by the ICC’s environmental

staff, now the Section of Environmental

Analysis (SEA).

On June 28, 1991, TRRC filed an

application in Finance Docket No.

30186 (Sub-No. 2), seeking approval to

construct and operate 41 miles of

railroad running south from the

approved Miles City to Ashland rail line

to connect with existing rail lines

serving the Decker, MT coal mines

(Tongue River II). SEA also prepared an

EIS for this proceeding and considered

the potential environmental impacts

associated with (1) TRRC’s preferred

route,2 (2) the Four Mile Creek

Alternative,3 and (3) the no-build

alternative. SEA’s Draft EIS (DEIS) was

served on July 17, 1992, and comments

were requested. The DEIS preliminarily

recommended the Four Mile Creek

Alternative because it would avoid the

environmentally sensitive Tongue River

Canyon. Because of concerns raised

during the commenting process, SEA

issued a Supplement to the DEIS

(SDEIS) on March 17, 1994. In the

SDEIS, SEA preliminarily concluded

that the Four Mile Creek Alternative

would have more adverse

environmental consequences than

TRRC’s preferred route, because it

would involve more land disturbance

from cut and fill, erosion, deforestation,

loss of habitat, and require more fuel

consumption and cause more air

pollution during operations. After the

commenting process for the SDEIS, and

further analysis and evaluation, SEA

issued a Final EIS (FEIS), on April 11,

1996. In it, SEA explained that it had

concluded that the Four Mile Creek

Alternative would be the

environmentally preferable construction

option. SEA developed appropriate

mitigation conditions to address

potential environmental impacts if

either of the two construction

alternatives were approved.

In its decision served November 8,

1996, the Board approved the

construction and operation of the Four

Mile Creek Alternative, and imposed the

mitigation measures recommended in

the FEIS for that route. Additionally, the

Board reopened Tongue River I for the

limited purpose of requiring TRRC to

complete construction of the entire line

between Miles City and Decker within

3 years.

By petition filed July 15, 1997, TRRC

sought to reopen the Board’s November

1996 decision approving the

construction and operation of the Four

Mile Creek Alternative and proposed

that the Board consider a new route, the

Western Alignment, for a 17-mile

portion of the approved line instead of

the Four Mile Creek Alternative. The

Western Alignment would roughly

parallel TRRC’s preferred route, but

would lie slightly to the west of that

route and the Tongue River.4 TRRC
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37443

incorporate at its steepest a grade of 0.93 percent

for a length of 2.4 miles.

5 We note that TRRC’s preferred route is not

really a construction alternative at this point, since

the Board approved the Four Mile Creek

Alternative, and not TRRC’s preferred route, in its

November 1996 decision in Tongue River II.

6See Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc.’s

Reply in Opposition to Petition to Establish

Procedural Schedule, filed March 23, 1998.

7This point also has been brought to SEA’s

attention informally by various Montana state

agencies.

8See Great Northern Properties Limited

Partnership’s Replies filed February 17, 1998, and

May 20, 1998, and Motion to Compel filed April 6,

1998.

9 The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1502.9(c) state

that Agencies:

(1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft or

final environmental impact statements if:

(i) The agency makes substantial changes in the

proposed action that are relevant to environmental

concerns; or

(ii) There are significant new circumstances or

information relevant to environmental concerns and

bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.

(2) May also prepare supplements when the

agency determines that the purposes of the Act will

be furthered by doing so.

Continued

asserted that the Western Alignment,

while still avoiding the environmentally

sensitive Tongue River Canyon, would

also eliminate the potential economic

and operational problems TRRC claimed

would make the approved Four Mile

Creek Alternative economically

infeasible. Further, TRRC stated that,

compared to the Four Mile Creek

Alternative, the Western Alignment

would involve less land acquisition,

affect fewer land owners, and, because

of the more even grade, require less fuel

consumption. However, based on

additional information later filed by

TRRC (see the discussion of TRRC’s

Environmental Report below), it appears

that the Western Alignment could

involve more earth-moving because of

the rugged terrain, could cross more

streams, could need more water during

construction, and could potentially

adversely affect big game movement,

particularly pronghorn movement,

during operations. In a decision served

December 1, 1997, the Board denied

TRRC’s petition to reopen Tongue River

II but stated that TRRC could file a new

application for the Western Alignment.

Current Application

TRRC has now filed an application in

Finance Docket 30186 (Sub-No. 3) that

requests authority under 49 U.S.C.

10901 to construct and operate the

Western Alignment as the final 17 miles

of the Ashland to Decker line (in lieu of

the Four Mile Creek Alternative), to

connect with existing rail lines serving

the Decker area coal mines (Tongue

River III). The remainder of the

approved line from Ashland to Decker

would remain unchanged. In its

Environmental Report that TRRC

submitted with its new application,

TRRC focused on the immediate vicinity

of the Western Alignment and that

alignment’s two construction

alternatives, the Four Mile Creek

Alternative and TRRC’s preferred

route. 5 In the Environmental Report,

TRRC compares what it believes to be

the environmental impacts and costs of

constructing and operating the Western

Alignment with the impacts and costs

associated with the relevant portions of

the Four Mile Creek Alternative and

TRRC’s preferred route. TRRC did not

readdress the entire corridor between

Miles City and Decker because that

corridor has already received extensive

environmental review in the

environmental impact statements

prepared in Tongue River I and Tongue

River II, both for the Miles City to

Ashland portion and the Ashland to

Decker portion of this corridor.

In preparing its Environmental

Report, TRRC sought comments from a

number of Federal and state agencies

and included their responses in the

report. Briefly, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (Corps) states that, since all

Corps’ permits have expired, it will be

reviewing TRRC’s proposal in its

entirety. The Corps indicates that it

believes that the project, though

analyzed in segments over a number of

years, is one continuous alignment. The

Corps also suggests that environmental

conditions along the 130-mile rail route

may have changed since the earlier

analyses were performed.

The Montana Department of Natural

Resources and Conservation expresses

concern about the direction and flow of

possible flood waters and floodplain

obstruction, water rights for dust

control, blasting in the vicinity of the

Tongue River Dam, encroachments on

county roads, interference with dam

rehabilitation, protection of historic

resources, and disturbance of survey

monuments. The Montana Department

of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MT FWP)

acknowledges that the Western

Alignment would avoid operating costs

and operational concerns associated

with the Four Mile Creek Alternative,

but expresses concerns about the

possible impacts from the cut and fill

requirements associated with the

construction of the Western Alignment

and impacts to the nearby Tongue River

Reservoir state park. MT FWP also

describes two issues that it believes are

unresolved from SEA’s earlier

environmental analysis: (1) the

preservation of the integrity of the fish

hatchery at Miles City; and (2) the status

of the Multi-agency/Railroad Task Force

set up in Tongue River II. The Montana

Department of Transportation (MT

DOT), in addition to expressing

concerns about highway safety, requests

re-negotiation of a Memorandum of

Understanding designed to protect state

highways. MT DOT also requests

additional information about design

plans for the I–94 grade crossing at

Miles City. The Montana Natural

Heritage Program has provided

information about 5 species of concern

that may be present in the Western

Alignment area.

No responses were included in

TRRC’s Environmental Report from

other agencies that TRRC contacted,

including the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, the National Geodetic

Survey, the National Park Service, the

Montana Department of Environmental

Quality, and the Montana Department of

Commerce.

The Northern Plains Resource Council

(NPRC), in a separate filing before the

Board,6 has suggested that the Board

should now require another

environmental analysis of the entire

Miles City to Decker corridor. NPRC

disagrees with TRRC’s view that the

Board should rely on its previous

environmental analysis and focus its

environmental review on only the

Western Alignment. Instead, NPRC

suggests that there are significant new

changed environmental circumstances

along the entire route. For example, it

points to the invalidation of the Montco

mine permit and the designation of the

Tongue River as an impaired waterbody

under the Clean Water Act. In addition,

NPRC alleges that TRRC has

significantly altered the alignments that

were analyzed in Tongue River I and

Tongue River II as it begins to exercise

the authority previously granted in

those proceedings.7 If that were shown

to be the case, it could be that the

environmental analysis of some of the

previously approved line would no

longer be adequate.

Also, in separate filings,8 Great

Northern Properties Limited Partnership

suggests that the increased coal traffic

projected for the Western Alignment

could affect the entire 130-mile route.

Environmental Review Process

The Council on Environmental

Quality’s (CEQ) rules implementing the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) advise Federal agencies to

prepare supplements to an EIS where, as

here, new information that is relevant to

environmental concerns is presented

after a Final EIS has been prepared. 9
37444 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices

(3) Shall adopt procedures for introducing a

supplement into its formal administrative record, if

such a record exists.

(4) Shall prepare, circulate, and file a supplement

to a statement in the same fashion (exclusive of

scoping) as a draft and final statement unless

alternative procedures are approved by the Council.

10As noted, this Notice provides a 45-day

comment period. TRRC may reply within 15 days

thereafter.

11The Western Alignment plainly is directly

related to Tongue River II because it is an

alternative route for a part of that line. In addition,

while no stay of Tongue River II was sought from

the Board or in any court, petitions for judicial

review are pending in the Ninth Circuit in NPRC.

It is more difficult to justify revisiting Tongue River

I, which has long been administratively final and

is not pending judicial review in any court. On the

other hand, as some agencies have contended, it can

be argued that Tongue River I, II and III cannot be

considered separately and are all part of the same

line.

See Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources

Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989)(Marsh).

Therefore, based on the CEQ rules, the

Board’s environmental regulations at 49

CFR 1105.10(a)(5), and SEA’s analysis of

all the information on the Western

Alignment SEA has received to date,

SEA has determined that a Supplement

to the EIS in Finance Docket 30186

(Sub-No. 2) (Supplement) is the

appropriate means of reviewing TRRC’s

application for the Western Alignment

in Tongue River III. Specifically, SEA

will prepare a draft Supplement

including preliminary mitigation

recommendations that will be available

for a 45-day comment period. Based on

comments to the draft Supplement, and

any further analysis, SEA will prepare a

final Supplement, which will include

appropriate environmental mitigation

recommendations. The Board will

consider the draft and final

Supplements, any comments, and other

available environmental information in

rendering its decision on whether to

grant TRRC’s new application. In its

decision, the Board will consider both

economic and competitive

transportation issues and will impose

any environmental conditions it deems

appropriate.

Request for Comments About the Scope

of the Supplement

Although CEQ’s rules implementing

NEPA do not require public scoping for

the preparation of Supplements, SEA

believes that it is appropriate in this

case to request comments regarding the

environmental scope of, and potential

environmental concerns and issues to be

addressed in, the Supplement. 10

Typically, SEA’s environmental analysis

includes potential impacts to safety,

land use, water quality, endangered

species, wildlife habitat, cultural

resources, air, and noise that would

result from the proposed transaction.

See 49 CFR 1105(7)(e). At a minimum,

SEA intends in its Supplement to

analyze these potential environmental

impacts associated with the

construction and operation of the

Western Alignment and to recommend

appropriate mitigation to reduce or

eliminate potentially adverse impacts in

these areas. We invite interested parties

to address any other potential impacts

or areas of concern that are directly

related to the proposed construction and

operation in Tongue River III, and,

therefore, should also be considered in

the Supplement.

In addition, we invite comments

about TRRC’s suggestion that SEA’s

environmental analysis should be

limited to the Western Alignment,

TRRC’s proposed construction

alternatives for the Western Alignment,

and the no-build alternative, and that

there is no reason to revisit any of the

earlier environmental analysis in

Tongue River I and Tongue River II. As

discussed earlier, some agencies and

other interested parties have suggested

that our approach should be broader.

Moreover, the question of when

circumstances have changed so much as

to make some or all of a prior analysis

stale is a difficult one. Therefore, we

request comments on whether the

Supplement should focus only on the

environmental impacts associated with

the Western Alignment and its

alternatives, or whether the Supplement

should encompass environmental

concerns beyond the immediate

geographic area of the Western

Alignment (i.e, take at least a limited

look at the rest of the line recently

approved in Tongue River II, or perhaps

even revise or update the environmental

analysis in Tongue River I if we are

shown that the environmental analysis

has become outdated and is no longer

adequate).11

The CEQ rules direct agencies to

consider in any Supplement ‘‘significant

new circumstances or information

relevant to environmental concerns and

bearing on the action or its impacts.’’ 40

CFR 1502.9(c). At the same time, it is

well settled that an agency need not

supplement an environmental impact

statement every time new information

comes to light after the environmental

impact statement is finalized. Marsh,

490 U.S. at 373. Thus, the passage of

time, in and of itself, is not necessarily

a reason to repeat or redo environmental

analysis. Id. Moreover, the

environmental analysis in Tongue River

I and Tongue River II was thorough and

comprehensive. Therefore, we intend to

use and rely on the data and analysis

contained in our previous

environmental documents for the Miles

City to Ashland line and the Ashland to

Decker line unless it is shown that, as

a result of significant new

circumstances, what was done before is

no longer adequate. For example, it may

be that certain portions, if not all, of the

previous environmental documentation

should be updated or revised to reflect

significant new information (i.e,

substantial alignment changes) that has

made our former analysis incomplete,

out-of-date or inapplicable.

Therefore, SEA has decided to seek

comments on whether, to what extent,

and in what environmental areas, our

prior environmental documents may

have become out-of-date. Specifically,

we invite all interested parties to

provide us with information, including

specific examples, on whether any

environmental conditions have changed

substantially since we completed our

environmental analysis in Tongue River

I and Tongue River II. For example, have

any substantial changes occurred in

land use, topography, wetlands or water

resources, endangered species, or

cultural resources? If significant changes

have occurred that could affect the

adequacy of the conclusions in our

previous environmental documents,

such as NPRC’s claim that TRRC may

now have altered significantly the

proposed alignment from what was

analyzed in the prior environmental

impact statements, we should be

informed of these changes now so that

we can consider such evidence in

determining what the scope of the

Supplement should be.

All comments should provide specific

evidence to support the claims that are

made. We want to know with specificity

why commenters believe that

environmental circumstances have

changed significantly, possibly affecting

our previous analysis and conclusions

and, therefore, warranting further

review in the Supplement.

SEA will also consult with affected

Federal, state and local agencies

regarding the appropriate scope of the

Supplement. Based on its consideration

of any comments to this Notice, and its

evaluation and review of all available

information, SEA will then announce

what the scope of the Supplement will

be.

As directed above, please submit

comments by August 24, 1998 (45 days).

TRRC may reply within 15 days

thereafter.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 1998 / Notices 37445

1SCRR is a noncarrier corporation formed for the

purpose of leasing the rail lines acquired by ODOT

from BNSF and operating the 124.78 miles of rail

line.

2On May 15, 1998, Applicants filed a petition for

exemption seeking Board approval to indirectly

control the Blue Mountain Railroad, Inc., and the

Southeast Kansas Railroad Company in STB

Finance Docket No. 33603, Richard B. Webb and

Susan K. Lundy—Control Exemption—Blue

Mountain Railroad, Inc. and Southeast Kansas

Railroad Company. This proceeding is currently

pending.

1The Board will grant a stay if an informed

decision on environmental issues (whether raised

by a party or by the Board’s Section of

Environmental Analysis in its independent

investigation) cannot be made before the

exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Outof-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any

request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible

so that the Board may take appropriate action before

the exemption’s effective date.

2Each offer of financial assistance must be

accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is

set at $1000. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).

By the Board, Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief,

Section of Environmental Analysis.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–18455 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33619]

Richard B. Webb and Susan K.

Lundy—Continuance in Control

Exemption—Stillwater Central

Railroad, Inc.

Richard B. Webb and Susan K. Lundy

(Applicants), have filed a verified notice

of exemption to continue in control of

Stillwater Central Railroad, Inc. (SCRR),

upon SCRR becoming a Class III

railroad.

The transaction was scheduled to be

consummated on or shortly after June

19, 1998.

This transaction is related to two

simultaneously filed verified notices of

exemption: (1) STB Finance Docket No.

33620, State of Oklahoma by and

through the Oklahoma Department of

Transportation—Acquisition

Exemption—The Burlington Northern

and Santa Fe Railway Company,

wherein the State of Oklahoma by and

through the Oklahoma Department of

Transportation (ODOT) seeks to acquire

rail lines from The Burlington Northern

and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF),

and (2) STB Finance Docket No. 33621,

Stillwater Central Railroad, Inc.—Lease

and Operation Exemption—Oklahoma

Department of Transportation, wherein

SCRR seeks to lease and operate the

lines being acquired by ODOT.

In addition to SCRR,1 Applicants

control two Class III rail carriers.: These

carriers are South Kansas and Oklahoma

Railroad Company, operating in the

States of Kansas and Oklahoma, and the

Palouse River & Coulee City Railroad,

Inc., operating in the States of

Washington and Idaho.2

Applicants state that: (i) the rail lines

operated by SCRR do not connect with

any railroad in the corporate family; (ii)

the transaction is not part of a series of

anticipated transactions that would

connect SCRR’s lines with any railroad

in the corporate family; and (iii) the

transaction does not involve a Class I

carrier. Therefore, the transaction is

exempt from the prior approval

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323. See 49

CFR 1180.2(d)(2).

Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board

may not use its exemption authority to

relieve a rail carrier of its statutory

obligation to protect the interests of its

employees. Section 11326(c), however,

does not provide for labor protection for

transactions under sections 11324 and

11325 that involve only Class III rail

carriers. Because this transaction

involves Class III rail carriers only, the

Board, under the statute, may not

impose labor protective conditions for

this transaction.

If the verified 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. 33619, 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 Karl Morell,

Esq., BALL JANIK, LLP, 1455 F Street,

N.W., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: July 1, 1998.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–18454 Filed 7–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–31 (Sub–No. 35X)]

Grand Trunk Western Railroad

Incorporated—Abandonment

Exemption—in Macomb County, MI

Grand Trunk Western Railroad

Incorporated (GTW) has filed a notice of

exemption under 49 CFR, Part 1152

Subpart F—Exempt Abandonments to

abandon a 19.08-mile line of its railroad

on the Romeo Subdivision between

Richmond and Washington from

milepost 0.42 to milepost 19.50 in

Macomb County, MI. The line traverses

United States Postal Service Zip Codes

48062, 48005, 48065, 48094 and 48095.

GTW has certified that: (1) no local

traffic has moved over the line for at

least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic

that previously moved over the line can

be rerouted over other GTW lines; (3) no

formal complaint filed by a user of rail

service on the line (or by a state or local

government entity acting on behalf of

such user) regarding cessation of service

over the line either is pending with the

Surface Transportation Board (Board) or

with any U.S. District Court or has been

decided in favor of complainant within

the 2-year period; and (4) the

requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7

(environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8

(historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11

(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12

(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR

1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental

agencies) have been met.

As a condition to this exemption, any

employee adversely affected by the

abandonment shall be protected under

Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment— Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91

(1979). To address whether this

condition adequately protects affected

employees, a petition for partial

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

must be filed. Provided no formal

expression of intent to file an offer of

financial assistance (OFA) has been

received, this exemption will be

effective on August 9, 1998, unless

stayed pending reconsideration.

Petitions to stay that do not involve

environmental issues,1 formal

expressions of intent to file an OFA

under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),2 and trail

use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR

1152.29 must be filed by July 20, 1998.

Petitions to reopen or requests for

public use conditions under 49 CFR

1152.28 must be filed by July 30, 1998,

with: Surface Transportation Board,

Office of the Secretary, Case Control

Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington,

DC 20423.

A copy of any petition filed with the

Board should be sent to applicant’s

representative: Robert P. vom Eigen,