58710 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 

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 (SEA) 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. 

2Effective July 18, 2008, the filing fee for an OFA 

increased to $1,500. See Regulations Governing 

Fees for Services Performed in Connection with 

Licensing and Related Services—2008 Update, STB 

Ex Parte No. 542 (Sub-No. 15) (STB served June 18, 

2008). 

Electronic Access 

An electronic copy of this rule, a copy 

of the notice of proposed rulemaking, 

and copies of the comments may be 

downloaded at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, by searching 

docket RITA 2008–0002. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline 

Information, RTS–42, Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue Street, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001, (202) 366–4387. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Approval No. 2138–0039. 

Title: Reporting Required for 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO). 

Form No.: BTS Form EF. 

Type Of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Large certificated air 

carriers. 

Number of Respondents: 40. 

Number of Responses: 40. 

Total Annual Burden: 26 hours. 

Needs and Uses: As a party to the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation (Treaty), the United States is 

obligated to provide ICAO with 

financial and statistical data on 

operations of U.S. carriers. Over 99% of 

the data filled with ICAO is extracted 

from the air carriers’ Form 41 

submissions to BTS. BTS Form EF is the 

means by which BTS supplies the 

remaining 1% of the air carrier data to 

ICAO. 

The Confidential Information 

Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act 

of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires 

a statistical agency to clearly identify 

information it collects for non-statistical 

purposes. BTS hereby notifies the 

respondents and the public that BTS 

uses the information it collects under 

this OMB approval for non-statistical 

purposes including, but not limited to, 

publication of both Respondent’s 

identity and its data, submission of the 

information to agencies outside BTS for 

review, analysis and possible use in 

regulatory and other administrative 

matters. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 1, 

2008. 

M. Clay Moritz, Jr., 

Acting Assistant Director, Airline 

Information, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics. 

[FR Doc. E8–23793 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–FE–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–491 (Sub-No. 2X)] 

R.J. Corman Railroad Company/ 

Pennsylvania Lines, Inc.— 

Abandonment Exemption—in 

Clearfield, Jefferson, and Indiana 

Counties, PA 

R.J. Corman Railroad Company/ 

Pennsylvania Lines, Inc. (RJCP), has 

filed a notice of exemption under 49 

CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt 

Abandonments to abandon a 7-mile 

segment of a line of railroad known as 

the Hillman Branch, extending from 

milepost 0 near McGees to the end of 

the line at milepost 7 near Hillman, in 

Clearfield, Jefferson, and Indiana 

Counties, PA. The line traverses United 

States Postal Service Zip Codes 15757, 

15742, and 15767. 

RJCP has certified that: (1) No local 

traffic has moved over the line for at 

least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead 

traffic that has to be rerouted; (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 report), 49 CFR 1105.8 

(historic report), 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 

November 6, 2008, 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 October 17, 2008. Petitions to 

reopen or requests for public use 

conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must 

be filed by October 27, 2008, with: 

Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423– 

0001. 

A copy of any petition filed with the 

Board should be sent to RJCP’s 

representative: Michael J. Barron, Jr., 

Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker 

Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606– 

2832. 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. 

RJCP has filed a combined 

environmental and historic report, 

which addresses the effects, if any, of 

the abandonment on the environment 

and historic resources. SEA will issue 

an environmental assessment (EA) by 

October 10, 2008. Interested persons 

may obtain a copy of the EA by writing 

to SEA (Room 1100, Surface 

Transportation Board, Washington, DC 

20423–0001) or by calling SEA, at (202) 

245–0305. [Assistance for the hearing 

impaired is available through the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.] Comments 

on environmental and historic 

preservation matters must be filed 

within 15 days after the EA becomes 

available to the public. 

Environmental, historic preservation, 

public use, or trail use/rail banking 

conditions will be imposed, where 

appropriate, in a subsequent decision. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 

1152.29(e)(2), RJCP shall file a notice of 

consummation with the Board to signify 

that it has exercised the authority 

granted and fully abandoned the line. If 

consummation has not been effected by 

RJCP’s filing of a notice of 

consummation by October 7, 2009, and 

there are no legal or regulatory barriers 

to consummation, the authority to 

abandon will automatically expire. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at ‘‘http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov.’’ 

Decided: September 30, 2008. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / Notices 58711 

1These track segments were previously the 

subject of a notice of exemption in BNSF Railway 

Company—Abandonment Exemption—In 

Oklahoma County, OK, STB Docket No. AB–6 (SubNo. 430X), that was rejected in a Board decision 

served June 5, 2008. 

2BNSF states that it plans to file an individual 

exemption request or an application to abandon the 

western segment—the portion of the Chickasha 

Subdivision between milepost 541.69 and milepost 

542.91—in the future. Therefore, the western 

segment is not at issue here. 

3The public hearing request will be denied. The 

Board believes that the record can be developed and 

the issues resolved on the basis of written 

submissions. 

4 In that document, BNSF also withdrew an 

earlier request that the Board rule that the United 

States District Court for the Western District of 

Oklahoma was without jurisdiction to enjoin the 

two relocation projects. On August 14, 2008, the 

District Court issued an order granting BNSF’s 

motion to dismiss Kessler’s petition to enjoin BNSF 

for lack of jurisdiction. Edwin Kessler v. BNSF 

Railway Company and Oklahoma Department of 

Transportation, Case No. CIV–08–358–R (W.D. 

Okla. 2008). 

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Anne K. Quinlan, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8–23416 Filed 10–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 35164] 

BNSF Railway Company—Petition for 

Declaratory Order 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Institution of declaratory order 

proceeding; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In response to a petition filed 

by BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) on 

July 15, 2008, the Board is instituting a 

declaratory order proceeding under 49 

U.S.C. 721 and 5 U.S.C. 554(e) to 

determine whether what BNSF 

characterizes as two track relocation 

projects in Oklahoma City, OK, are 

subject to the Board’s jurisdiction and 

require prior Board approval. One reply 

in opposition to the petition and three 

letters in support of the petition have 

been filed. The Board seeks public 

comments on this matter. 

DATES: Supplemental evidence from 

BNSF is due by October 17, 2008. 

Replies are due by November 6, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10 

copies of any comments, referring to 

STB Finance Docket No. 35164, to: 

Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423– 

0001. In addition, send one copy of 

comments to BNSF’s representative, 

Kristy Clark, 2500 Lou Menk Drive, Fort 

Worth, TX 76131–2828, and one copy to 

Edwin Kessler, 1510 Rosemont Drive, 

Norman, OK 73072. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 245–0395. 

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: 1– 

800–877–8339]. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BNSF’s 

petition for declaratory order concerns 

what it now characterizes as a project to 

relocate two track segments of its 

Chickasha Subdivision between 

milepost 541.69 and milepost 539.96 to 

facilitate the Oklahoma City I–40 

Crosstown Relocation project.1

Petitioner states that these two track 

segments must be relocated to make way 

for this major highway project. BNSF 

states that the segment of the Chickasha 

Subdivision between milepost 540.15 

and milepost 541.69 (referred to as the 

middle segment) would be relocated by 

rerouting traffic over BNSF’s 

Packingtown Lead, which will have the 

same throughput capacity and operating 

speeds as the Chickasha Subdivision 

line. BNSF states that the portion of the 

Chickasha Subdivision between 

milepost 540.15 and milepost 539.96 

(referred to as the eastern segment) 

would be relocated to the south.2 BNSF 

adds that a contractor for the Oklahoma 

Department of Transportation (ODOT) is 

constructing: (1) A new railroad bridge 

to elevate BNSF’s Red Rock Subdivision 

where it crosses the Chickasha 

Subdivision and where the new 

highway will be located, and (2) new 

industry tracks to connect the two 

shippers located adjacent to the eastern 

segment (Producers Cooperative Oil 

Mill (Producers) and Mid-States 

Wholesale Lumber (Mid-States)) directly 

to BNSF’s Red Rock Subdivision north 

of the Chickasha Subdivision. 

BNSF argues that neither of these 

relocation projects will affect service to 

shippers or involve an extension into or 

an invasion of new territory, and that 

these projects are therefore outside of 

the Board’s jurisdiction, citing among 

other authorities Missouri Pac. R. Co. 

Trustee Construction, 282 I.C.C. 388 

(1952); and City of Detroit v. Canadian 

National Ry. Co., et al., 9 I.C.C.2d 1208 

(1993), aff’d sub nom. Detroit/Wayne 

County Port Authority v. ICC, 59 F.3d 

1314 (D.C. Cir. 1995). BNSF requests 

expedited processing of this proceeding 

to allow the highway project to move 

forward. 

On August 4, 2008, ODOT submitted 

into the record a letter expressing 

support for an expedited declaratory 

ruling in favor of BNSF. ODOT also 

attached letters of support from Mick 

Cornett, Mayor of Oklahoma City, and 

the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber. 

On August 5, 2008, Edwin Kessler 

filed a reply to BNSF’s petition and a 

request for a procedural schedule, 

including a public hearing in Oklahoma 

City, OK.3 Mr. Kessler argues that BNSF 

has failed to demonstrate that its 

proposed actions would be mere 

relocations of track. Rather, Mr. Kessler 

argues that the relocation of these 

segments will deprive some shippers of 

service, particularly Boardman, Inc. 

(Boardman), and will allow BNSF to 

serve new markets. Mr. Kessler argues 

that BNSF needs Board authorization to: 

(1) Construct the new tracks and (2) 

remove the two crossing diamonds on 

the eastern segment that enable it to 

reach two other shippers (Producers CoOp Oil Mill and Mid-States Lumber 

Company). 

On August 25, 2008, BNSF filed a 

response to Mr. Kessler’s arguments in 

which it challenged several of Mr. 

Kessler’s factual assertions.4 BNSF also 

renewed its request for expedited Board 

handling of this matter. 

On September 5, 2008, Mr. Kessler 

filed a reply to BNSF’s August 25, 2008 

response and also filed a separate 

document labeled ‘‘Motion to Compel’’ 

and ‘‘Motion to Cease and Desist’’ 

asking that the Board compel BNSF to 

undertake certain actions. In these 

motions, Mr. Kessler alleges that, in late 

July 2008, a railroad car carrying his 

locomotive was delivered to BNSF for 

transport to Boardman’s facility, but that 

after reaching Oklahoma City some 19 

days later, the car ultimately could not 

be delivered because the tracks leading 

to Boardman’s facility had been 

removed. Mr. Kessler provided no 

verified statement to support these 

allegations. 

On September 24, 2008, BNSF moved 

the Board to strike Mr. Kessler’s 

September 5 pleading because it is an 

impermissible reply to a reply, is not 

properly verified, and involves matters 

that are either premature or outside the 

scope of this proceeding. BNSF also 

calls Mr. Kessler’s locomotive shipment 

a ‘‘fraudulent ploy,’’ which BNSF is 

investigating. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 554(e), the Board has 

discretionary authority to issue a 

declaratory order to terminate a 

controversy or remove uncertainty. 

BNSF asserts that no Board jurisdiction 

is implicated here, while Mr. Kessler 

argues that these projects are in fact 

subject to the Board’s jurisdiction, as 

they would remove service to existing 

shippers and would allow BNSF to 

extend service into new territory. A 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES