Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 1998 / Notices 40151

7See NYSE Rule 621; see also Federal Arbitration

Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq.

8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). 9 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

processes. Generally, they are reserved

for consideration as part of any overall

review of the lowest court’s or

arbitrator’s decision. This reservation

occurs in part because interlocutory

appeals are frequently employed by

parties simply to gain tactical advantage

in the dispute. In addition, a substantive

resolution of the conflict will often moot

the procedural issues.

Inasmuch as this review by the Board

of staff action is in the nature of an

interlocutory appeal, the arbitrators and

the courts may subsequently review the

Board’s decision. This may result in an

unnecessary delay in the final

resolution of an arbitration claim.

The Exchange notes that as a matter

of statutory interpretation, when two

statutes speak to the same subject

matter, and one is general and the other

is specific, the specific is usually

interpreted to qualify or control the

general. In this case, the Exchange

Constitution and Rules, as well as the

statutory framework within which

alternative dispute resolution processes

operate, create a specific scheme for

review of administrative decisions of

the Director of Arbitration.7 The

Exchange believes that this specific

scheme obviates the need for review of

the Director’s decisions under the

Exchange Constitution’s general scheme

for Board review of staff actions.

Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is

well within the norms of statutory

construction for the Board to interpret

the specific scheme for the review of the

decisions of the Director to displace the

general scheme.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that the

proposed change is consistent with

Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 8 in that it

promotes just and equitable principles

of trade by insuring that members and

member organizations and the public

have a fair and impartial forum for the

resolution of their disputes.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange does not believe that

the proposed rule change will impose

any inappropriate burden on

competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s

Statement on Comments on the

Proposed Rule Change Received From

Members, Participants, or Others

No written comments were either

solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

Within 35 days of the publication of

this notice is Federal Register or within

such longer period (i) as the

Commission may designate up to 90

days of such date if it finds such longer

period to be appropriate and publishes

its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to

which the self-regulatory organization

consents, the Commission will:

(A) By order approve the proposed

rule change, or

(B) Institute proceedings to determine

whether the proposed rule change

should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Act.

Persons making written submissions

should file six copies thereof with the

Secretary, Securities and Exchange

Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20549. Copies of the

submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements

with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying at

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filing will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal office of the Exchange. All

submissions should refer to File No.

SR–NYSE–98–20 and should be

submitted by August 17, 1998.

For the Commission, by the Division of

Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated

authority.9

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–19984 Filed 7–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement: FRA

Regulation of the Use of Locomotive

Horns at Highway-Rail Grade

Crossings Nationwide (FRA Docket No.

RSGC–7)

AGENCY: Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Comment

Period.

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to

advise the public that the comment

period for identifying the scope of

FRA’s planned environmental impact

statement (EIS) on a proposed regulation

related to the use of locomotive horns at

highway-rail grade crossings is extended

to August 7, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Valenstein, Environmental

Specialist, Office of Railroad

Development, Federal Railroad

Administration (RDV 13), 400 Seventh

Street, SW (Mail Stop 20), Washington,

D.C. 20590, (telephone 202–493–6368).

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

Background

On May 26, 1998, the Federal

Railroad Administration (FRA)

published a notice of intent to prepare

an environmental impact statement for

the proposed regulation of the use of

locomotive horns at rail-highway grade

crossings, as required by Section 20153

to title 49 United States Code, (63 Fed.

Reg. 28549). Comments on the scope of

the environmental document were

requested by June 19, 1998. The FRA is

extending the period in which

comments will be accepted to August 7,

1998.

Scoping and Comments

Comments and suggestions are invited

from all interested agencies and the

public at large to insure the full range

of issues related to the proposed action

and all reasonable alternatives are

addressed and all significant issues are

identified. In particular, FRA is

interested in determining whether there

are any other reasonable alternatives

consistent with the provisions of 49

U.S.C. 20153 and whether there are

other areas of environmental concern

where there might be the potential for

significant impacts, either adverse or

favorable, as a result of promulgating

the proposed rule. Persons interested in

providing comments on the scope of

this environmental document should do

so by August 7, 1998. Comments can be
40152 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 143 / Monday, July 27, 1998 / Notices

sent in writing to Mr. David Valenstein

at the address identified above.

Comments can also be sent via the

Internet at: FRAEIS@fra.dot.gov

The Remaining Environmental Review

Process

Comments received on the scope and

methodology to be used in preparation

of the EIS will be reviewed by FRA to

develop the final scope of the

environmental review. A draft EIS will

be made available to the public for

comment, presently scheduled for the

late fall 1998. It is FRA’s intention that

the comment period for the draft EIS

will occur during the comment period

associated with the proposed rule so

that interested agencies and the public

can combine their comments and that

the environmental issues can be fully

considered as FRA develops the final

rule. After reviewing comments on the

draft EIS, FRA will prepare a final EIS

that addresses these comments and

incorporates any additional analyses

and material deemed necessary. The

final EIS will be made available for

public review for not less than 30 days

before FRA takes any final action on the

proposed rule.

Internet

This notice and all subsequent

documents prepared as part of this

environmental review will be available

in the environmental pages of the FRA

internet website, located at: http://

www.fra.dot.gov

Issued in Washington, D.C. on: July 21,

1998.

James T. McQueen,

Assistant Administrator for Railroad

Development.

[FR Doc. 98–19915 Filed 7–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Application for Approval of

Discontinuance or Modification of a

Railroad Signal System or Relief From

the Requirements of Title 49 Code of

Federal Regulations Part 236

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and 49

U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroads

have petitioned the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) seeking approval

for the discontinuance or modification

of the signal system or relief from the

requirements of 49 CFR Part 236 as

detailed below.

Block Signal Application (BS–AP)–No.

3480

Applicant: Burlington Northern and

Santa Fe Railway Company, Mr.

William G. Peterson, Director Signal

Engineering 4515 Kansas Avenue,

Kansas City, Kansas 66106

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway Company seeks approval of the

proposed discontinuance and removal

of the traffic control system, on the

single main track, between North River,

Missouri, milepost 8.6 and Maxwell,

Missouri, milepost 177.7, on the Illinois

Division, Brookfield Subdivision, a

distance of approximately 169 miles.

The proposal includes the

implementation of Track Warrant

Control Rules as the method of

operation, and conversion of the ‘‘Bevier

Control Point’’ to a remote controlled

interlocking.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is that the severe reductions in

train traffic can no longer justify the

ongoing maintenance and operation of

the signals.

BS–AP–No. 3481

Applicant: Union Pacific Railroad

Company, Mr. Phil Abaray, Chief

Engineer—Signal/Quality, 1416

Dodge Street, Room 1000, Omaha,

Nebraska 68179–1000

Union Pacific Railroad Company

seeks approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the

single direction automatic block signal

(ABS) system, on the No. 1 single yard

track, between Brooklyn, milepost 767.9

and East Portland, milepost 770.3, on

the Brooklyn Subdivision, near Portland

Oregon. The proposal includes removal

of six automatic block signals and the

installation of a new ‘‘D’’ signal at

milepost 765.4.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is the installation of a bidirectional signal system, on the No. 2

main track between Brooklyn and East

Portland, has eliminated the need for

the single direction ABS system on the

No. 1 yard track.

BS–AP–No. 3482

Applicant: CSX Transportation,

Incorporated, Mr. R. M. Kadlick, Chief

Engineer Train Control, 500 Water

Street (S/C J–350), Jacksonville,

Florida 32202

CSX Transportation, Incorporated

seeks approval of the proposed

modification of the traffic control

system, on the two main tracks, at Beech

Street, milepost BA–280.5, near Grafton,

West Virginia, on the Mountain

Subdivision, Cumberland Business

Unit, consisting of the conversion of the

power-operated switch to hand

operation, and removal of absolute

controlled signals 29, 31, 33, 37, and 39.

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to increase operating

efficiency.

BS–AP–No. 3483

Applicants:

CSX Transportation, Incorporated,

Mr. R. M. Kadlick, Chief Engineer

Train Control, 500 Water Street (S/

C J–350), Jacksonville, Florida

32202

Consolidated Rail Corporation, Mr. J.

F. Noffsinger, Chief Engineer—C&S

Assets, 2001 Market Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101–

1410

CSX Transportation, Incorporated and

Consolidated Rail Corporation, jointly

seek approval of the proposed

discontinuance and removal of the

automatic block signal system and

interlocking, on the two main tracks,

between milepost BIA–251.9 and

milepost BIA–257.6, near Hammond,

Indiana, on the Lake Subdivision,

Chicago Service Lane. The method of

operation will be by a Direct Traffic

Control Block System. The proposal

includes conversion of the poweroperated switches at Whiting

Interlocking to hand operation; removal

of all existing associated signals; and

installation of two eastward inoperative

approach signals to ‘‘Hick.’’

The reason given for the proposed

changes is to eliminate facilities no

longer needed for present day operation.

Rules, Standards, and Instructions

Application (RS&I–AP)–No. 1104

Applicants:

CSX Transportation, Incorporated,

Mr. R. M. Kadlick, Chief Engineer

Train Control, 500 Water Street (S/

C J–350), Jacksonville, Florida

32202

National Railroad Passenger

Corporation, Mr. Ron Scolaro, Vice

President Operations, 60

Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20002

CSX Transportation, Incorporated

(CSXT) and the National Railroad

Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK),

jointly seek temporary relief from

Section 236.566 of the Rules, Standards,

and Instructions (49 CFR, Part 236),

during the period of September 1,

through October 1, 1998, to the extent

that the CSXT and AMTRAK, as

operating railroads for Virginia Railway

Express (VRE), be permitted to operate

VRE Manassas trains, without cab

signals, in automatic cab signal territory,

between Alexandria and ‘‘RO,’’ Virginia,