Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Notices 67363

1 Legislation to sunset the Commission on

December 31, 1995, and transfer remaining

functions is now under consideration in Congress.

Until further notice, parties submitting pleadings

should continue to use the current name and

address.

1 While in its verified notice of exemption VCTC

states that it is acquiring 32.39 miles of rail line,

the actual mileage between mileposts is 28.39

miles. Commission staff contacted VCTC for

clarification. VCTC supplemented the record by

facsimile dated December 20, 1995, stating that the

balance of the miles are miscellaneous track, spurs

and sidings included in the purchase and sale.

be served on: John J. Paylor,

Consolidated Rail Corporation, 2001

Market St., 16A, P.O. Box 41416,

Philadelphia, PA 19101–1416 and

Daniel R. Minnick, Chicago Short Line

Railway Company, 3060 Eggers Ave.,

Cleveland, OH 44105–1012.

Decided: December 21, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–31501 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Finance Docket No. 32836]

Akron Barberton Cluster Railway

Company; Trackage Rights Exemption;

Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway

Company

Akron Barberton Cluster Railway

Company (ABCR) has filed a verified

notice under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) to

acquire overhead trackage rights from

Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company

(W&LE) over 15.4 miles of rail line, as

follows: (1) That segment of W&LE’s

Cleveland Main Line extending from the

junction with ABCR’s Kent Line at

milepost 33.0±, in Kent, OH, thence to

W&LE’s Mogadore Junction at milepost

40.1 (milepost 169.3 on W&LE’s Akron,

Canton & Youngstown Main Line); and

(2) that segment of W&LE’s Akron,

Canton & Youngstown Main Line

extending from milepost 169.3 through

Brittain Yard to milepost 161.0, near the

Rock Cut interchange. The transaction

was to have been consummated on or

about December 15, 1995.

As a condition to this exemption, any

employees adversely affected by the

trackage rights will be protected under

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 verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the

proceeding to revoke the exemption

under 49 U.S.C. 10505(d) may be filed

at any time. The filing of a petition to

reopen will not stay the exemption’s

effectiveness. An original and 10 copies

of all pleadings, referring to Finance

Docket No. 32836, must be filed with

the Office of the Secretary, Case Control

Branch, Interstate Commerce

Commission, Washington, DC 20423.1 In

addition, a copy of each pleading must

be served on Terence M. Hynes, Sidley

& Austin, 1722 Eye Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20006.

Decided: December 22, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–31502 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Finance Docket No. 32830]

Alameda Corridor Construction

Application

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of construction

application.

SUMMARY: The Commission is

publishing notice of an application filed

by the Cities of Los Angeles and Long

Beach, CA, under 49 U.S.C. 10901 and

49 CFR Part 1150 for authority to

construct a 20-mile rail corridor (the

Alameda Rail Corridor) extending from

the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach

(the Ports) to points in central Los

Angeles. This notice sets forth the

procedures governing public

participation in the application

proceeding.

DATES: Written comments by interested

persons must be filed by January 16,

1996, and concurrently served on

applicants’ representatives. Each

comment must contain the basis for the

party’s position either in support of or

in opposition to the application and

must be accompanied by a certificate of

service. Applicants’ replies must be

filed by January 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10

copies of all pleadings, referring to

Finance Docket No. 32830, to: Office of

the Secretary, Case Control Branch,

Interstate Commerce Commission, 1201

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20423. In addition, commenters

must concurrently send one copy to

each of applicants’ representatives:

Samuel M. Sipe, Jr., Steptoe & Johnson

LLP, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036; James K. Hahn,

425 South Palos Verdes St., San Pedro,

CA 90733; and John R. Calhoun, 11th

Floor, 333 E. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach,

CA 90802.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 927–5660.

[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)

927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed Alameda Rail Corridor

(Corridor) will consist of a multiple

main track, high density, predominantly

40-mile per hour rail line with

centralized traffic control to permit bidirectional operation on each main

track. The Corridor will run north from

the Ports along and generally parallel to

Alameda Street for a distance of

approximately 20 miles to points in

central Los Angeles where it will

connect with the existing rail lines of

The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe

Railway Company, the Union Pacific

Railroad Company, and Southern

Pacific Transportation Company

(Southern Pacific). The Corridor will be

built generally along the existing former

Southern Pacific San Pedro Branch right

of way and is designed to consolidate

rail traffic to and from the Ports on the

rail line, facilitate access, increase

capacity, and improve service to Port

terminals and facilities.

On the basis of the written comments,

the Commission will determine whether

any additional hearing is necessary. If

there is no opposition to the

application, the Commission may reach

a decision using the information in the

application.

Legislation to sunset the Commission

on December 31, 1995, and transfer

remaining functions is now under

consideration in Congress. Until further

notice, parties submitting pleadings

should continue to use the current name

and address.

Decided: December 21, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–31503 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Finance Docket No. 32794]

Ventura County Transportation

Commission—Acquisition

Exemption—Southern Pacific

Transportation Company

Ventura County Transportation

Commission (VCTC), a noncarrier, has

filed a notice of exemption to acquire

28.39 1 miles of rail line known as the

Santa Paula Branch owned by Southern

Pacific Transportation Company (SPT)

from milepost 431.59 to milepost 403.2

in Ventura County, CA. SPT will

continue common carrier freight
67364 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 1995 / Notices

1 Legislation to sunset the Commission on

December 31, 1995, and transfer remaining

functions is now under consideration in Congress.

Until further notice, parties submitting pleadings

should continue to use the current name and

address.

services on the line from milepost 415.0

to milepost 403.2, pursuant to the

agreement of the parties. The portion of

the line between milepost 431.593 and

milepost 415.0, was approved for

discontinuance of service by the

Commission in Southern Pacific

Transportation Company—

Discontinuance of Service Exemption—

In Ventura County, CA, Docket No. AB–

12 (Sub-No. 143X), (ICC served Nov. 30,

1992). The proposed acquisition was

expected to be consummated on or

about October 31, 1995.

Any comments must be filed with the

Commission and served on: Mary Redus

Gayle, Esq., Burke, Williams &

Sorensen, 2310 E. Ponderosa Drive,

Suite 1, Camarillo, CA 93010.

This notice is filed under 49 CFR

1150.31. 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

automatically stay the transaction.

Decided: December 21, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–31405 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 70)]

Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Abandonment—Wallace Branch, ID

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Rails to Trails

Conservancy (RTC) seeks the immediate

issuance of a certificate of interim trail

use (CITU) under section 8(d) of the

National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C.

1247(d) (Trails Act), for a 71.5-mile rail

line of Union Pacific Railroad Company

(UP) between milepost 16.5, near

Plummer, and milepost 7.6, near

Mullan, via milepost 80.4/0.0, near

Wallace, in Benewah, Kootenai, and

Shoshone Counties, ID. This notice is to

request comments from all interested

parties, agencies, and members of the

public as to whether there is any

impediment to the issuance of Trails

Act authority in the unusual

circumstances of this case.

In Union Pacific RR. Co.—Aband.—

Wallace Branch, ID, 9 I.C.C.2d 325

(1992), 9 I.C.C.2d 377 (1992), and 9

I.C.C.2d 446 (1993), the Commission

granted UP’s application to abandon

this line, subject to various conditions.

Specifically, the Commission allowed

UP to discontinue service on the line,

but provided that the carrier could not

fully abandon the line (i.e., salvage the

line and give up the right-of-way) until

the environmental impacts of those

actions are fully addressed and

resolved. A request for a CITU was filed

in 1992, but it was not acted on because

an offer of financial assistance (OFA)

under 49 U.S.C. 10905 was filed to

acquire the line for continued rail

service. The OFA process, however,

terminated without a sale agreement or

a request to the agency to set terms.

On judicial review of the

abandonment decision, the United

States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit affirmed in part and

reversed in part. State of Idaho et al. v.

ICC, 35 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 1994). As

pertinent here, the court affirmed the

Commission’s decision to permit UP to

discontinue rail operations on the line.

But the court concluded that the

Commission had attempted to delegate

away too much of its responsibility to

look at the potential environmental

impacts of salvage activity and

accordingly remanded the conditional

salvage authorization.

By decision served December 2, 1994,

the Commission reopened the

abandonment proceeding. The

Commission’s decision vacated the

conditional authorization of salvage

activity here, except for the portion of

the line within a ‘‘Superfund’’ site,

where section 121(e)(1), 42 U.S.C.

962(e)(1), relieves UP of the requirement

to obtain permission from the

Commission if it does so in compliance

with the Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability

Act. The decision also clarified that UP

may not engage in any other salvage

activity on this line until it has

complied with the six environmental

conditions previously imposed by the

agency (under Commission supervision)

and appropriate environmental

documentation is prepared taking a final

look at the environmental impacts of

salvage followed by a determination as

to whether the economic benefits of

salvage outweigh the potential

environmental harm.

Following the issuance of that

decision, RTC, in August 1995,

requested the immediate issuance of a

CITU to permit trail use under section

8(d) on the entire 71.5-mile right-ofway, including the portion of the line

within the Superfund site. RTC

submitted the statement of willingness

to assume financial responsibility and

liability for the right-of-way required by

the Commission’s Trails Act rules and

agreed to rail banking. UP stated that it

is willing to negotiate with RTC. In

addition, the railroad, in view of the

outstanding environmental conditions

imposed in this case, stated that if there

is an agreement in principle between UP

and RTC or any other group for trail use

or other use of this right-of-way, it

would request Commission approval of

that use prior to execution of any

written agreement between the parties.

Given the unusual circumstances of

this case, we request comments from all

interested parties, agencies, and

members of the public as to whether

there are any impediments to the

issuance of Trails Act authority here.

DATES: Comments are due by January

29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: An original and 10 copies of

all comments, referring to Docket No.

AB–33 (Sub-No. 70), should be filed

with the Office of the Secretary, Case

Control Branch, Interstate Commerce

Commission, 1201 Constitution Avenue

NW, Washington, DC 20423.1 In

addition, a copy of all comments must

be served on all parties of record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 927–5660.

[Assistance for the hearing-impaired is

available through TDD at (202) 927–

5721.]

Decided: December 22, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–31404 Filed 12–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Docket Nos. AB–464X and AB–290 (Sub.

No. 174X)]

Piedmont and Atlantic Railroad Co.,

Inc., d/b/a Yadkin Valley Railroad

Company; Discontinuance of Service

Exemption and Norfolk Southern

Railway Company—Abandonment

Exemption

Piedmont and Atlantic Railroad Co.,

Inc., d/b/a Yadkin Valley Railroad

Company (YVRR), and Norfolk Southern

Railway Company (NS) have filed a

notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152

Subpart F—Exempt Abandonments and

Discontinuances for YVRR to

discontinue service over and NS to

abandon 8.7 miles of rail line between

milepost CF–29.8 at Rural Hall and

milepost CF–38.5 at Brook Cove, in