Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Notices 12819

dampen the progress of any car that is

derailed, so that the car will stop

moving before the face of the coupler

reaches the aisle. The blue light, derail

and red light will all be remotely and

automatically controlled from a tower

that is within 1,500 feet of the aisle and

will have a continuous uninterrupted

view of the yard. There will also be a

blue light signal and derail across the

aisle, 80 feet from the other blue light

and derail, in essence providing dual

protection for the workmen.

The facility will load and unload

ships and intermodal unit trains. In a

typical operation, a loaded train will

enter the yard from the north, pulling

enough cars to fill the first track. The

speed limit in the yard will be 5 mph.

The locomotive will pull these cars onto

the first track, where a cut will be made

just before the aisle, and those cars to be

unloaded on the north side of the aisle

will be set out. The locomotive will then

pull the rest of the cars onto the track

south of the aisle where they will be set

out. The locomotive will then exit the

first track, proceed north on the runaround track to the north of the yard

and pick-up another cut of cars to fill

the second track. This will continue

until the incoming train is spotted or all

10 tracks are filled. Excess cars can be

spotted in a storage yard northeast of

and adjacent to the main yard. During

the process, once each cut of cars is set

out on the appropriate track, the blue

lights and derails will be set.

At that point, from one to four gantry

type cranes may be used to unload the

railroad cars on any given spur. Tractors

will move the trailers or containers

either to a storage area, or directly to

ships that are berthed at the facility.

These tractors will use the aisle as the

means of access to and from the yard

with both chassis and containers. A

similar process will be followed when

loading unit trains from a ship or the

container storage yard.

APL requests waiver of the 150 foot

requirement for the blue lights and

derail devices to be used in the center

aisle in the yard. Each group of

workmen will be protected by blue light

signals 80 feet apart across the aisle.

Each group of workmen will also be

protected by two derail devices. The

first will be within 5 feet of the coupling

face, and the other will be 80 feet from

the first derail device, across the aisle.

Workmen will not begin working to load

or unload the cars on any given spur

until the cars have come to a complete

stop and are protected as set out in this

waiver request. They will be protected

by two blue light signals and by two

derail devices.

APL states that it ‘‘is working with the

Port in the process of designing the

yard. One important facet of this design

is that workmen be able to work in close

proximity to the aisle to increase

efficiency. As indicated in the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, when certain

criteria are present, a railroad may

safely use different approaches to afford

blue signal protection.’’ APL states they

will meet those criteria. ‘‘First, slow

speeds are involved since there is a 5

mph speed limit in the yard. Next,

control over the movement of the

equipment will be placed in the hands

of individuals directly responsible for

the people who need to be protected. In

the Final Rule, FRA expressed its goal

of assuring workers’ safety.’’ APL states

that ‘‘the combination of very low

speed, a movement dampening surface,

and derails in close proximity to cars

that are standing still will limit travel to

not more than 5 feet after derailment

which is well within FRA’s goal to:

assure that rolling equipment will not

travel more than 50 feet after

derailment.’’

APL states that ‘‘the waiver sought by

APL will allow construction of a

modern and efficient rail yard as part of

an intermodal facility at the Port of Los

Angeles. By operating with a reduced

distance for blue lights and derail

devices, APL will be able to fit the yard

to the property available. This project

will substantially increase the amount

of rail business at the Port and in the

region. Shorter train movements in the

yard will also reduce air emissions in

the Port, thereby reducing harm to the

environment.’’

Issued in Washington, DC on February 23,

1995.

Phil Olekszyk,

Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for

Safety Compliance and Program

Implementation.

[FR Doc. 95–5689 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–6–P

Federal Transit Administration

Environmental Impact Statement on

the North-South Rail Link, Boston,

Cambridge and Somerville, MA

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration,

DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) and the

Massachusetts Bay Transportation

Authority (MBTA) intend to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on

the proposed rail link connecting North

and South Stations in Boston,

Massachusetts. The FTA and the MBTA

will prepare the EIS so that it also

satisfies the requirements of the

Massachusetts Environmental Policy

Act (MEPA).

This effort will be performed in

cooperation with the Massachusetts

Highway Department and the Executive

Office of Transportation and

Construction.

The EIS/EIR will evaluate the

following alternatives: A Build

alternative consisting of an underground

rail link tunnel (with an option of two

or four tracks) connecting North and

South Stations along the Central Artery

alignment, a No-Build alternative, and a

Transportation System Management

alternative which will be identified

during the scoping process. Although

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

has elected to pursue the North-South

Rail Link corridor within the Central

Artery alignment, the FTA is interested

in receiving comments regarding

whether a rail link along the Congress

Street alignment should be included in

the Major Investment Study (MIS).

Scoping will be accomplished through

correspondence with interested persons,

organizations, and Federal, State and

local agencies, and through public

meetings.

DATES: Comment Due Date: Written

comments on the scope of alternatives

and impacts to be considered should be

sent to the MBTA by April 24, 1995. See

ADDRESSES below. Scoping Meeting: A

joint FTA and MEPA public scoping

meeting will be held on Tuesday, March

21, 1995 at 2:00 p.m. at the State

Transportation Building. See ADDRESSES

below.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

project scope should be sent to Mr.

Andrew D. Brennan, Manager of

Environmental Affairs, MBTA, 10 Park

Plaza, Room 6720, Boston, MA 02116. A

Scoping Meeting will be held at the

following location: State Transportation

Building, 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA

02116.

See DATES above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Mary Beth Mello, Deputy Regional

Administrator, Federal Transit

Administration, Region 1, (617) 494–

2055.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Scoping

The FTA and MBTA invite written

comments for a period of 45 days after

publication of this notice (See DATES

and ADDRESSES above.) During scoping,
12820 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Notices

comments should focus on identifying

specific social, economic, or

environmental impacts to be evaluated,

and suggesting alternatives that are less

costly or less environmentally damaging

which achieve similar objectives.

Comments should focus on the issues

and alternatives for analysis, and not on

a preference for a particular alternative.

Individual preference for a particular

alternative should be communicated

during the comment period for the Draft

EIS.

If you wish to be placed on the

mailing list to receive further

information as the project continues,

contact Mr. Andrew Brennan at the

MBTA (see ADDRESSES above).

II. Description of Study Area and

Project Need

The proposed project consists of an

approximately 3 mile rail tunnel linking

North and South Stations in Boston,

Massachusetts. The northern tunnel

portals will be located to the north of

the Gilmore Bridge and west of the I–93

highway viaduct in Somerville,

Massachusetts. There will be two

southern tunnel portals: one on the

southern side of the Massachusetts

Turnpike between Harrison and

Shawmut Avenues, and the other in the

vicinity of the railroad yard south of the

West Fourth Street Bridge in South

Boston. Three underground passenger

stations are proposed: (1) At the existing

South Station, (2) near the MBTA Blue

Line adjacent to the Aquarium Station,

and (3) between Haymarket and North

Stations. The project will also define

options for creating regional MBTA rail

service by combining the two currently

separate north and south side commuter

rail networks.

The construction of the rail link

tunnel will close the gap in intercity rail

service along the Atlantic seaboard, and

will create a unified rail system for

metropolitan Boston by combining the

two currently separate north and south

side commuter rail networks. This will

reduce rapid transit system congestion

in downtown Boston, increase

operational capacity at South Station,

and improve regional air quality by

diverting automobile trips to the rail

system.

III. Alternatives

The alternatives proposed for

evaluation include: (1) No-action, which

involves no change to existing rail

facilities at North and South Stations,

(2) construction of a rail link tunnel

connecting North and South Stations

along the Central Artery alignment. A

two-track and a four-track tunnel option

will be considered, and

(3) a transportation system

management alternative that will be

identified during the scoping process.

Although the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts has elected to pursue the

North-South Rail Link corridor within

the Central Artery alignment, the FTA is

interested in receiving comments

regarding whether a rail link along the

Congress Street alignment should be

included in the MIS.

IV. Probable Effects

FTA and the MBTA will evaluate all

significant environmental, social, and

economic impacts of the alternatives

analyzed in the EIS. Impacts include

changes in the natural environment (air

and water quality, rare and endangered

species), changes in the social

environment (land use and

neighborhoods, noise and vibration,

aesthetics, park lands, historic/

archeological resources), disposal of

excavated material, public safety and

changes in rail service and patronage.

An operational analysis of combined

north and south side commuter rail

networks will be performed and project

capital and operating costs and revenues

will be estimated. The impacts will be

evaluated both for the construction

period and for the long term period of

operation, and financial information in

support of the MIS will be provided.

Measures to mitigate significant adverse

impacts will also be addressed.

Issued on: March 2, 1995.

Richard H. Doyle,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5587 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–57–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

[Docket No. 92–50; Notice 4]

Autokraft Ltd.; Grant of Application for

Renewal of Temporary Exemption

From Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

No. 208

Autokraft Limited of Weybridge,

Surrey, England, applied for a renewal

of NHTSA Exemption No. 92–6,

exempting its AC MkIV until January 1,

1995, from compliance with paragraph

S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash

Protection. The basis of the application

was that compliance would cause

substantial economic hardship to a

manufacturer that has tried to comply

with the standard in good faith.

Notice of receipt of the application

was published on December 19, 1994,

and an opportunity afforded for

comment (59 FR 65428).

Autokraft was granted NHTSA

Exemption No. 92–6 on December 21,

1992 (57 FR 60563), and its exemption

from S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 was

scheduled to expire on January 1, 1995.

Because the application for renewal of

the exemption was filed ‘‘not later than

60 days before the termination date’’ (in

this instance, October 27, 1994), the

termination date has been stayed until

the Administrator has acted upon the

application (49 CFR 555.8(e)).

The applicant sought a further twoyear exemption for its AC Mk IV

passenger car, of which it has produced

15 in the year preceding the filing of its

application. Although the company had

projected sales of 150 units in the

United States in the years 1992–94, in

fact, there were only seven sales.

According to its application, Autokraft

‘‘has continued the process of

researching and developing the

installation of a driver and passenger

side airbag system’’ but ‘‘we have been

unable to achieve the fitting of a suitable

system mainly due to the chassis design

being based upon a classic 1960’s design

and not easily adaptable to suit air bag

installation.’’ The delay is also due to

‘‘the project having insufficient funds

generated by sales and available for

completing the development.’’

Autokraft concluded that the

adaptation of an existing automatic

restraint system is the only viable

alternative. Its continuation of

compliance efforts has given it

‘‘significant knowledge into the areas of

vehicle modification, computer

simulation, design rough road testing

and low, medium and high speed crash

testing.’’ Complicating its efforts is the

need to use a different engine and

transmission after October 1, 1995, and

the possible effect that this will have

upon compliance. It estimated the cost

to achieve conformance would be

$550,000, achievable by spreading these

costs during the exemption period.

Autokraft reported losses totalling

3,308,243 Pounds Sterling

(approximately $5,624,000 at a rate of

$1.70/1) for the years 1992–93, and

projected a further loss for 1994.

The company argued that an

exemption would be in the public

interest and consistent with the

objectives of motor vehicle safety

because it meets all applicable EEC

standards, and all U.S. Federal motor

vehicle safety standards with the

exception of the automatic restraint

requirements of Standard No. 208 (its 3-

point driver and passenger restraints

meet the previous requirements). The

production of the car makes available to