Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices 64075

2 Legislation to terminate the Commission on

December 31, 1995, is now pending enactment.

Until further notice, the parties submitting

pleadings should continue to use the current name

and address.

1See Wisconsin Central Ltd.—Exemption

Acquisition and Operation—Certain Lines of Soo

Line Railroad Company, Finance Docket No. 31102

(ICC served July 28, 1988). The exemption removes

certain regulatory requirements associated with

filing a formal application under 49 U.S.C. 10901.

2A programmatic agreement, negotiated between

the ACHP and the responsible agency official in

consultation with the appropriate SHPO, may be

sued to determine proper historic preservation

measures for projects when ‘‘effects on historic

properties are similar and repetitive.’’ The

programmatic agreement is a contract that must be

agreed to in writing by ACHP, the SHPO, and the

agency, to be effective.

A memorandum of agreement (MOA) may be

used, usually for a single project, where the agency

and the SHPO agree on a course of action. ACHP

must have an opportunity for comment.

3These rule changes were made in consultation

with the ACHP. It is unclear whether Wisconsin

Central would have had to file a historic report or

be subject to historic preservation conditions under

this new standard, because it is not clear whether

Wisconsin Central anticipated disposing of any

properties at the time.

4 If subsequent abandonment or sale authority is

required for the disposition of properties, the

appropriate NHPA review will take place in the

context of those proceedings.

5We note that the problem relates to sales of

properties that are not part of a line for which

abandonment authority is sought. In abandonment

proceedings, historic structures would be

documented in any event.

107.37, and extending 11,453 feet (2.17

miles) south to the point of switch of

Central of Georgia Railroad Company

Track No. 24 at V.S. 1120+32.5, WRA

milepost XXB–109.55. The total length

of trackage rights is 2.24 miles. The

trackage rights were to become effective

December 1, 1995.

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.

10505(d) may be filed at any time. The

filing of a petition to revoke will not

stay the transaction. Pleadings must be

filed with the Office of the Secretary,

Case Control Branch, Interstate

Commerce Commission, Washington,

DC 20423,2 and served on: Andrew C.

Rambo, 104 Depot St., P. O. Box 129,

Shelbyville, TN 37160.

As a condition to use of this

exemption, any employees adversely

affected by the trackage rights will be

protected pursuant to 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).

Decided: December 6, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30390 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Finance Docket No. 31102]

Wisconsin Central Ltd.—Exemption

Acquisition and Operation—Certain

Lines of Soo Line Railroad Company

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of decision modifying

historic preservation condition imposed

in 1988.

SUMMARY: The Commission has removed

a condition, imposed in 1988 in

connection with a sale of rail lines, that

prevented the railroad from selling,

destroying or modifying affected

properties until completion of

procedures under section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act. 16

U.S.C. 470f.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Louis Mackall, (202) 927–6056. [TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 25, 1994, the Commission

issued a Federal Register notice (59 FR

60656) concerning a proposal to reopen

this proceeding to remove a condition

that was imposed 6 years before in this

rail line sale proceeding. We noted that

the condition is inconsistent with our

current procedures and may no longer

be necessary. After reviewing the

comments, we believe that our proposal

should be adopted, and the condition

modified.

As we previously noted, Wisconsin

Central Ltd. (Wisconsin Central)

purchased approximately 1800 miles of

rail line from Soo Line Railroad

Company (Soo), on October 11, 1987,

pursuant to the class exemption for rail

line sales, 49 CFR 1150.31 et seq.1 We

allowed the sale to proceed under the

class exemption, but imposed a historic

preservation condition. Rather than

delaying the public benefit of the line

sale in preserving rail service, we

permitted the sale, but ordered the

carrier not to take any steps that would

affect historic properties until after the

National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA) process could be completed.

We imposed the following broad

historic preservation condition:

The Commission will undertake a section

106 National Historic Preservation Act

process in this matter. Pending completion

thereof, [Wisconsin Central] shall refrain

from taking any action that may jeopardize

the historic integrity of sites and structures

50 years old or older.

Because of the large number of

properties transferred, our Section of

Environmental Analysis (SEA)

attempted to reach a ‘‘programmatic

agreement’’ (36 CFR 800.13) or

‘‘memorandum of agreement’’ (36 CFR

800.5) with the various State Historic

Preservation Officers (SHPOs) involved

and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (ACHP) 2 to limit this

process to historic properties that might

actually be adversely affected by the

transfer, so that we could craft

appropriate mitigation conditions for

them. As we detailed in our notice,

however, this effort proved

unsuccessful. We then used a case-bycase historic preservation process for

each particular property that Wisconsin

Central has subsequently sought to sell

or demolish. This process has typically

been very slow, and has often taken

several years.

As we pointed out in our notice, the

1991 revisions to our historic

preservation rules now require a historic

preservation process in line sale cases

only where, at the time of the transfer,

the applicant plans to dispose of or alter

properties subject to our jurisdiction

that are 50 years or older.3

Implementation of Environmental Laws,

7 I.C.C.2d 807, 828 (1991). Carriers need

not file a historic report for rail line

sales ‘‘where . . . there are no plans to

dispose of or alter properties subject to

ICC jurisdiction that are 50 years old or

older.’’ 49 CFR 1105.8(b)(1). Nor are

historic preservation conditions

imposed absent such plans.

In our notice, we explained that,

under our new rules, if a condition were

imposed in a line sale case such as this

one, it would apply only to properties

that are used or useful in rail service

and that the buyer has plans to dispose

of or alter as a result of the acquisition

and outside the context of a further

abandonment or sale application.4 As

we noted there, these rules have been

applied in about 100 cases and have

worked well in narrowing the focus of

the historic review process to rail

properties that may actually be affected

by a sale transaction.

The broad condition imposed here

has outlived its usefulness. Before

Wisconsin Central can dispose of any of

the properties it obtained from Soo in

1987, it must complete a lengthy

historic preservation process for each

particular property. This situation

would continue indefinitely, because

unless we amend the condition, it

would cover all of Wisconsin Central’s

properties as long as it remains a

railroad.5
64076 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 13, 1995 / Notices

6Wisconsin Central should submit a list of such

properties within 30 days.

The Comments

In response to our notice, we received

comments only from ACHP and from

the Minnesota and Michigan SHPOs.

ACHP expresses disappointment that it

and the Commission were not able to

work out some kind of programmatic

agreement. ACHP maintains that it

would be premature to remove the

condition without requiring that the

Commission and the Wisconsin Central

demonstrate that they have made a good

faith effort to reach a programmatic

agreement.

The Michigan SHPO argues that

removal of the historic preservation

condition now would nullify the

Commission’s compliance with the

National Historic Preservation Act, and

that the agency should continue to

attempt to reach a suitable

programmatic agreement. The

Minnesota SHPO is concerned that there

is at least one historic property on the

20-mile segment of the Wisconsin

Central that is in Minnesota that may be

adversely affected by the proposal.

Discussion and Conclusions

Eight years have now passed since

Wisconsin Central acquired these

properties. No comment has been filed

challenging our assertion that from this

point forward, Wisconsin Central’s sale

or demolition of properties should no

longer be considered to be the result of

the original purchase from the Soo.

Rather, because of the passage of time,

these decisions more appropriately are

considered to be the normal result of the

carrier’s continuing ownership and

management of these properties. If this

transaction were to take place today, we

would impose a historic condition only

with regard to particular properties that

the carrier identifies at the outset that it

contemplates selling or altering. Thus, it

would be unfair to continue to impose

a greater burden on Wisconsin Central

than we would now impose on other

railroads.

There would be no point in entering

into a programmatic or a memorandum

of agreement now, nor do we believe

that continuing the condition is

necessary for compliance with NHPA.

SEA and Wisconsin Central have

already undertaken the historic

preservation process for every property

that the carrier has altered or disposed

of since these properties were acquired.

That should cover all of the properties

that are affected by the sale. Future

property dispositions, with the

exception set forth in the following

paragraph, will not be deemed to result

from the sale.

Accordingly, we are reopening this

proceeding and modifying the condition

to require completion of the historic

review process only with regard to

specific properties for which that

process is already underway or of which

the carrier has already informed SEA

that it plans to dispose.6 The disposal or

alteration of other properties is outside

the scope of this proceeding.

This action will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources. This proposal should

not have any adverse impact on small

entities.

Decided: December 1, 1995.

By the Commission, Chairman Morgan,

Vice Chairman Owen, and Commissioner

Simmons.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30240 Filed 12–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

In accordance with Departmental

policy, 28 C.F.R. 50.7, notice is hereby

given that a proposed Consent Decree in

United States versus WheelingPittsburgh Steel Corp., Civil Action No.

93–0195W (N.D.WVA), was lodged on

December 6, 1995, with the United

States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia. The decree

addresses the violations of WheelingPittsburgh (‘‘Wheeling-Pitt’’), at its

Follansbee Coke Plant in Follansbee,

West Virginia, of the West Virginia State

Implementation Plan (‘‘SIP’’), enforced

pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air

Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413, and certain

reporting requirements contained in the

National Emission Standard for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (‘‘NESHAP’’)

for Benzene Emissions from Coke ByProduct Recovery Plants, 40 C.F.R. Part

61, Subpart L. Wheeling-Pitt violated

the SIP by combusting coke oven gas

which had not been desulfurized (as a

result of unplanned outages at the

Follansbee furnace by-product recovery

plant, where hydrogen sulfide is

stripped from coke oven gas during

normal operations), by allowing raw

coke oven gas to be emitted (‘‘vented’’)

into the ambient air during two

emergencies caused by elevated gas

pressure within coke oven batteries, and

by occasional failures to comply with

the SIP’s pushing standards.

Under the proposed Consent Decree,

Wheeling-Pitt will pay a civil penalty of

$700,000 and has agreed to detailed

injunctive provisions. Wheeling-Pitt has

abated all of the SIP violations. As to the

SIP’s desulfurization requirements, the

Decree requires that, within 45 days of

entry of the Decree, Wheeling-Pitt must

have demonstrated full compliance with

the SIP for seven consecutive days.

Further, if the continuous emissions

monitor (‘‘CEM’’) used to measure

compliance with the desulfurization

standards should malfunction, and is

out of service for two consecutive hours,

then Wheeling-Pitt must use a backup

CEM, or, failing that, must measure and

report certain parameters of the

desulfurization process so that EPA may

gauge Wheeling-Pitt’s compliance. The

Decree contains, in addition,

requirements for Wheeling-Pitt to

install, and properly operate and

maintain, a new hydrogen sulfide

scrubber and CEM at the recovery plant.

Finally, to ensure that the recovery

plant is operated and maintained

adequately, the Decree contains detailed

requirements regarding preventative

maintenance, spare parts inventories,

and standard operating procedures.

As to pushing, Wheeling-Pitt must,

within 45 days of entry of the Decree,

demonstrate compliance with the SIP’s

pushing standard for five consecutive

days. Further, the company must

continue to monitor its pushing

operations weekly until it has produced

twelve consecutive weeks of data

showing 100% compliance. To correct

its violations of the SIP’s pushing

standards, Wheeling-Pitt has installed a

number of improvements, including

tighter boot seals at the top of the coke

battery wall and a modified hood for the

quench car. To abate its venting

violations, Wheeling-Pitt has installed

flares at its coke batteries, as now

required under the Coke Oven Battery

NESHAP.

The Department of Justice will

receive, for a period of thirty (30) days

from the date of this publication,

comments relating to the proposed

Consent Decree. Comments should be

addressed to the Assistant Attorney

General for the Environment and

Natural Resources Division, Department

of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and

should refer to United States versus

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., DOJ

Ref. #90–5–2–1–1868.

The proposed consent decree may be

examined at the office of the United

States Attorney, 1100 Main Street, Suite

200, Wheeling, West Virginia 26003; the

Region III Office of the Environmental

Protection Agency, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania