R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines Inc.-Construction and Operation Exemption-in Clearfield County, PA, 850-853 [E9-106]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
850
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2009 / Notices
purchases, and abandonments. Other
Federal agencies and industry groups,
including the Railroad Retirement
Board, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and
Association of American Railroads, use
the information contained in the reports
to monitor railroad operations. Certain
information from these reports is
compiled and published on the Board’s
Web site, https://www.stb.dot.gov. The
information contained in these reports
is not available from any other source.
Collection Number 5
Title: Monthly Report of Number of
Employees of Class I Railroads (Wage
Form C).
OMB Control Number: 2140–0007.
Form Number: STB Form 350.
Type of Review: Extension without
change.
Respondents: Class I railroads.
Number of Respondents: Fewer than
10.
Estimated Time per Response: 1.25
hours.
Frequency of Response: Monthly.
Total Annual Hour Burden: 105 hours
annually
Total Annual ‘‘Non-Hour Burden’’
Cost: No ‘‘non-hour cost’’ burdens
associated with this collection have
been identified.
Needs and Uses: This collection
shows, for each reporting carrier, the
average number of employees at midmonth in the six job-classification
groups that encompass all railroad
employees. See 49 CFR 1246. The
information is used by the Board to
forecast labor costs and measure the
efficiency of the reporting railroads. The
information is also used by the Board to
evaluate the impact on rail employees of
proposed regulated transactions,
including mergers and consolidations,
acquisitions of control, purchases, and
abandonments. Other Federal agencies
and industry groups, including the
Railroad Retirement Board, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, and Association of
American Railroads, use the information
contained in these reports to monitor
railroad operations. Certain information
from these reports is compiled and
published on the Board’s Web site,
https://www.stb.dot.gov. The information
contained in these reports is not
available from any other source.
erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Collection Number 6
Title: Annual Report of Cars Loaded
and Cars Terminated.
OMB Control Number: 2140–0011.
Form Number: Form STB–54.
Type of Review: Extension without
change.
Number of Respondents: Fewer than
10.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:57 Jan 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
Estimated Time per Response: 4
hours.
Frequency of Response: Annual.
Total Annual Hour Burden: 28 hours
annually.
Total Annual ‘‘Non Hour Burden’’
Cost: No ‘‘non-hour cost’’ burdens
associated with this collection have
been identified.
Needs and Uses: This collection
reports the number of cars loaded and
cars terminated on the reporting
carrier’s line. See 49 CFR 1247.
Information in this report is entered into
the Board’s URCS, the uses of which are
explained under Collection Number 1.
There is no other source for the
information contained in this report.
Collection Number 7
OMB Control Number: 2140–0001.
Title: Quarterly Report of Freight
Commodity Statistics (Form QCS).
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Extension without
change.
Respondents: Class I railroads.
Number of Respondents: Fewer than
10.
Estimated Time per Response: 217
hours.
Frequency of Response: Quarterly,
with an annual summation.
Total Annual Hour Burden: 6,076
hours annually.
Total Annual ‘‘Non-Hour Burden’’
Cost: No ‘‘non-hour cost’’ burdens
associated with this collection have
been identified.
Needs and Uses: This collection,
which is based on information
contained in carload waybills used by
railroads in the ordinary course of
business, reports car loadings and total
revenues by commodity code for each
commodity that moved on the railroad
during the reporting period. See 49 CFR
1248. Information in this report is
entered into the Board’s URCS, the uses
of which are explained under Collection
Number 1. There is no other source for
the information contained in this report.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
PRA, a Federal agency conducting or
sponsoring a collection of information
must display a currently valid OMB
control number. A collection of
information, which is defined in 44
U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c),
includes agency requirements that
persons submit reports, keep records, or
provide information to the agency, third
parties, or the public. Under the PRA
and 5 CFR 1320.8, an agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless the collection
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Section 3507(b) of the PRA
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requires, concurrent with an agency’s
submitting a collection to OMB for
approval, a 30-day notice and comment
period through publication in the
Federal Register concerning each
proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an
existing collection of information.
Andrea Pope-Matheson,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9–128 Filed 1–7–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 35116]
R.J. Corman Railroad Company/
Pennsylvania Lines Inc.—Construction
and Operation Exemption—in
Clearfield County, PA
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement;
Notice of Availability of the Draft Scope
of Study for the Environmental Impact
Statement; Notice of Scoping Meeting;
and Request for Comments on Draft
Scope.
SUMMARY: On May 20, 2008, R.J. Corman
Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines
Inc. (RJCP) filed a petition with the
Surface Transportation Board (Board)
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502 for
authority to construct and operate an
abandoned 10.8-mile rail line between
Wallaceton Junction and Winburne in
Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the
Western Segment) and to rebuild the
track on a connecting 9.3-mile line
between Winburne and Gorton in
Clearfield and Centre Counties,
Pennsylvania (the Eastern Segment) that
is currently being used for interim trail
use, subject to the possible restoration of
rail service (rail banking) pursuant to
the Trails Act, 16 U.S.C. 1247(d). In
total, the proposed project would
involve the construction or rebuilding,
and operation, of approximately 20
miles of the former Beech Creek
Railroad to serve a new quarry, landfill,
and industrial park being developed by
Resource Recovery, LLC, near Gorton,
Pennsylvania.
Because this project has the potential
to result in significant environmental
impacts, the Board’s Section of
Environmental Analysis (SEA) has
determined that the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
is appropriate pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.). The purpose of this Notice of
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2009 / Notices
Intent is to notify individuals and
agencies interested in or affected by the
proposed project of the decision to
prepare an EIS. SEA will hold a public
scoping meeting as part of the NEPA
process associated with the
development of the EIS. Additionally, as
part of the scoping process, SEA has
developed a draft Scope of Study for the
EIS for review and comment. The public
meeting date and location, along with
the draft Scope of Study, are provided
below:
Date and Location: The public
scoping meeting will be held: Tuesday,
February 10, 2009, 6–8 p.m.,
Philipsburg-Osceola Area Senior High
School, 502 Philips Street, Philipsburg,
PA 16866–1899.
The public scoping meeting will be
held in an informal open-house format
during which interested persons may
ask questions about the proposed
project and the Board’s environmental
review process, and advise SEA staff
about potential environmental effects of
the project. No formal presentations will
be made by agency representatives. SEA
staff will be available to answer
questions and receive comments
individually.
Interested parties are invited to
submit written comments on the draft
Scope of Study, alternatives to the
proposed rail line, and other
environmental issues and concerns by
February 24, 2009, to assure full
consideration during the scoping
process. SEA will issue a final Scope of
Study after the close of the scoping
comment period.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: Simultaneously with the
filing of its petition for exemption
(which seeks Board authority for both
the rail banked Eastern Segment as well
as the Western Segment of the proposed
rail line), RJCP also filed a motion to
dismiss the part of this proceeding that
relates to the reactivation of the rail
banked Eastern Segment. RJCP argues
that reactivation of the rail banked
Eastern Segment does not require Board
approval under 49 U.S.C. 10901 (or an
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502) and
that therefore, the Board should not
perform an environmental review of that
segment of the proposed rail line. At
this time, the Board has not decided
whether reactivation of the Eastern
Segment requires Board authority.
Although the Board has not yet decided
this issue, environmental review of the
Eastern Segment is necessary to satisfy
the NEPA requirements of one of the
Board’s cooperating agencies discussed
below, and therefore SEA is now issuing
this Notice of Intent.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:57 Jan 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.5 and
1501.6, SEA may request agencies that
have jurisdiction under other laws, or
agencies that have ‘‘special expertise
with respect to any environmental
issue,’’ to participate as ‘‘cooperating
agencies’’ in the Board’s environmental
review process. Cooperating agencies
typically make their own decisions
regarding a particular project and tend
to adopt the environmental analysis
prepared by another agency (known as
the ‘‘lead’’ agency) as the basis for their
decision. Where environmental review
takes place with cooperating agencies,
one environmental document therefore
includes information necessary to fulfill
the requirements of NEPA and related
environmental laws for both the lead
and cooperating agencies.
Based on preliminary agency
consultations and field reconnaissance
of the project area conducted by SEA
and its third-party contractor (Skelly
and Loy, Inc.), SEA believes that the
proposed project could impact resources
(i.e., wetlands and watercourses) that
fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).
Therefore, SEA has invited the Corps,
and the Corps has agreed, to participate
as a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the EIS for this project.
To assure that the Corps has the
information it needs to meet all of its
responsibilities under NEPA and the
Clean Water Act, SEA will conduct an
appropriate environmental review of the
entire 20 miles of proposed rail line
(i.e., both the Eastern and Western
Segments), regardless of the Board’s
decision on RJCP’s pending motion to
dismiss.
Summary of the Board’s
Environmental Review Process: The
NEPA process is intended to assist the
Board and the public in identifying and
assessing the potential environmental
consequences of a proposed action
before a decision on the proposed action
is made. SEA is responsible for ensuring
that the Board complies with NEPA and
related environmental statutes. The first
stage of the EIS process is scoping.
Scoping is an open process for
determining the scope of environmental
issues to be addressed in the EIS. As
part of the scoping process, SEA has
developed, and has made available for
public review and comment in this
notice, a draft Scope of Study for the
EIS. SEA will host a scoping meeting to
provide further opportunities for public
involvement and input during the
scoping process. Interested parties are
also encouraged to comment on any
potential alternatives for the proposed
project. SEA is currently considering
four alternatives for the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
851
project (construction and operation of
the 20 miles of rail line along the former
Beech Creek line, two non-rail
transportation options for the no-build
alternative, and the no-action
alternative). At the conclusion of the
scoping and comment period, SEA will
issue a final Scope of Study for the EIS.
After issuing the final Scope of Study,
SEA will prepare a Draft EIS for the
project. The Draft EIS will address the
environmental issues and concerns
identified during the scoping process. It
will also contain SEA’s preliminary
recommendations for environmental
mitigation measures. The Draft EIS will
be made available upon its completion
for review and comment by the public,
government agencies, and other
interested parties. SEA will then
prepare a Final EIS that considers
comments on the Draft EIS, sets forth
any additional analyses, and makes final
recommendations to the Board on
appropriate mitigation measures. In
reaching its decision in this case, the
Board will take into account the Draft
EIS, the Final EIS, and all
environmental comments that are
received.
Filing Environmental Comments:
Comments submitted by mail should be
addressed to: Danielle Gosselin, Surface
Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20423, Attention:
Environmental Filing, STB Finance
Docket No. 35116.
Comments may also be filed
electronically on the Board’s Web site,
https://www.stb.dot.gov, by clicking on
the ‘‘E-FILING’’ link.
Please refer to STB Finance Docket
No. 35116 in all correspondence,
including e-filings, addressed to the
Board.
All comments must be post marked by
February 24, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Danielle Gosselin, Section of
Environmental Analysis, Surface
Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20423. Assistance for
the hearing impaired is available
through the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. The
Web site for the Board is https://
www.stb.dot.gov.
Draft Scope of Study for the EIS
Proposed Action and Alternatives
The Proposed Action is the
construction and operation of an
abandoned 10.8-mile rail line between
Wallaceton Junction and Winburne and
the reactivation of track on a connecting
9.3-miles of currently rail banked line
between Winburne and Gorton. The
approximately 20 miles of track would
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
852
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2009 / Notices
allow RJCP to provide rail service to a
proposed new quarry, landfill, and
industrial park being developed by
Resource Recovery, LLC, near Gorton in
Rush Township, Centre County,
Pennsylvania. The anticipated train
traffic would be two trains daily, with
one train per day traveling in each
direction. The EIS will also analyze the
potential impacts of two non-rail
transportation options for the no-build
alternative and a no-action alternative
set forth below.
The reasonable and feasible
alternatives that will be evaluated in the
EIS are: (1) Construction and operation
of the proposed rail line along the
former Beech Creek line, (2) no-build
alternative option 1 involving the
construction of a new interchange on
Interstate 80, (3) no-build alternative
option 2 involving improving the
existing local road system (i.e., road
paving, bridge replacement etc.), and (4)
the no-action alternative.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Proposed New Construction or
Rebuilding and Operation
Analysis in the EIS will address the
proposed activities associated with the
construction or rebuilding, and
operation, of the proposed 20 miles of
rail line and potential environmental
impacts, as appropriate.
erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Impact Categories
The EIS will analyze the potential
impacts associated with the proposed
project on both the human and natural
environment, or in the case of the noaction alternative, the lack of these
impacts. Impact areas addressed will
include the categories of transportation
and safety, land use, energy resources,
air quality, noise, biological resources
including threatened and endangered
species, water resources including
wetlands and other jurisdictional waters
of the U.S., socioeconomics as they
relate to physical changes in the
environment, recreation, environmental
justice, geology and soils, and cultural/
historic resources. Other categories of
impacts may also be included as a result
of comments received during the
scoping process or the Draft EIS. The
EIS will include a discussion of each of
these categories as they currently exist
in the project area and will address the
potential impacts of each alternative on
each category as described below.
1. Transportation and Safety
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate potential pedestrian and
motor vehicle safety concerns at each
public and private at-grade road
crossing.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:57 Jan 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
b. Include a level of service analysis
focusing on average vehicle delay time
for all grade crossings having an average
daily traffic volume greater than 5,000
vehicles.
c. Include an assessment of the
appropriate safety appurtenances to be
erected at each crossing.
d. Assess the project’s operational
safety with respect to its close proximity
to residential structures.
e. Evaluate the project’s consistency
with local and regional transportation
planning goals.
f. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential impacts
to safety, as appropriate.
2. Land Use
The EIS will:
a. Identify existing land uses that
would be potentially impacted by the
project.
b. Evaluate the project’s consistency
with local and regional land use
planning goals.
c. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential impacts
to land use, as appropriate.
3. Energy Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe the effect of the project on
energy resources, recyclable
commodities, and overall changes in
energy efficiency.
b. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential impacts
to energy resources, as appropriate.
4. Air Quality
The EIS will:
a. Quantitatively evaluate rail
operation air emissions, if the project
would affect a Class I or non-attainment
or maintenance area as designated
under the Clean Air Act.
b. Qualitatively evaluate the
temporary air quality impact resulting
from rail line construction activities.
c. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential project
impacts to air quality, as appropriate.
5. Noise
The EIS will:
a. Quantitatively evaluate rail
operation noise impacts, including the
use of any auditory warning devices at
public road crossings.
b. Qualitatively evaluate the
temporary noise impact resulting from
rail line construction activities.
c. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential project
impacts to sensitive noise receptors, as
appropriate.
6. Biological Resources
The EIS will:
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a. Evaluate the existing biological
resources within the project area,
including vegetative communities,
terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and
known wildlife species.
b. Evaluate project impacts to any
Federal or state threatened and
endangered plant or animal species.
c. Describe the proposed project’s
impact on any wildlife sanctuaries,
refuges, national and state parks/forests,
or state game lands.
d. Document all coordination
conducted with those Federal and state
agencies having jurisdiction over
biological resources.
e. Propose mitigative measures to
avoid, minimize or compensate for
potential impacts to biological
resources, as appropriate.
7. Water Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe the existing surface water
resources identified within the project
area, including all jurisdictional
wetlands and watercourses and their
regulatory floodplains.
b. Evaluate project impacts to all
jurisdictional surface water resources.
c. Document the necessary Federal
and state water resource/encroachment
permitting requirements that the
proposed project will be subject to.
d. Propose mitigative measures to
avoid, minimize or compensate for
potential impacts to water resources, as
appropriate.
8. Socioeconomics
The EIS will:
a. Summarize the existing local and
regional socioeconomic conditions,
including long-term population,
housing and employment metrics.
b. Document the locations of existing
community facilities and services
identified within the regional project
area.
c. Evaluate the proposed project’s
impact to socioeconomic conditions
within the regional project area,
including employment gains and losses.
d. Propose mitigative measures to
avoid, minimize or compensate for
potential impacts to regional
socioeconomic factors, as appropriate.
9. Recreation
The EIS will:
a. Identify existing public and private
recreational facilities within the project
area, and evaluate the proposed
project’s impact to these recreational
facilities.
b. Propose mitigative measures to
avoid, minimize, or compensate for
potential impacts to recreational
facilities, as appropriate.
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 5 / Thursday, January 8, 2009 / Notices
10. Environmental Justice
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate the potential project
impacts on local and regional minority
and low-income populations.
b. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential project
impacts on environmental justice
populations, as appropriate.
Surface Transportation Board
11. Geology and Soils
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF),
pursuant to a modified written trackage
rights agreement entered into between
BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad
Company (UP), has agreed to extend the
expiration date of the local trackage
rights granted to UP 1 over BNSF’s line
of railroad extending from BNSF
milepost 579.3 near Mill Creek, OK, to
BNSF milepost 631.1 near Joe Junction,
TX, a distance of approximately 51
miles.2
The transaction is scheduled to be
consummated on January 22, 2009.
The purpose of this transaction is to
modify the temporary trackage rights
exempted in STB Finance Docket No.
34554 (Sub-No. 8) to further extend the
expiration date to on or before
December 31, 2009. The modified
trackage rights will permit UP to
continue to move loaded and empty
The EIS will:
a. Describe the geologic and soil
conditions within the project area,
including the status of past and present
coal mining operations.
b. Evaluate potential measures to
avoid or construct through active
surface mined areas.
c. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential project
impacts to geology and soils, as
appropriate.
12. Cultural/Historic Resources
The EIS will:
a. Document all historic resource
eligibility and effect studies conducted
pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
b. Document all project coordination
with the state historic preservation
officer.
c. Propose mitigative measures to
minimize or eliminate potential project
impacts to cultural/historic resources, as
appropriate.
13. Cumulative and Indirect Impacts
erowe on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
The EIS will:
a. Address any identified potential
cumulative impacts of the project, as
appropriate. Cumulative impacts are the
impacts on the environment which
result from the incremental impact of
the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or non-federal) or person
undertakes such actions (for example,
Resource Recovery, LLC’s proposed new
quarry, landfill and industrial park).
b. Address any identified potential
indirect impacts of the project, as
appropriate. Indirect impacts are
impacts that are caused by the action
and are later in time or farther removed
in distance, but are still reasonably
foreseeable.
Decided: January 2, 2009.
By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief,
Section of Environmental Analysis.
Kulunie L. Cannon,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9–106 Filed 1–7–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:57 Jan 07, 2009
Jkt 217001
[STB Finance Docket No. 34554 (Sub-No.
10)]
Union Pacific Railroad Company—
Temporary Trackage Rights
Exemption—BNSF Railway Company
1 UP submits that the trackage rights being
granted here are only temporary rights, but, because
they are ‘‘local’’ rather than ‘‘overhead’’ rights, they
do not qualify for the Board’s class exemption for
temporary trackage rights at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8).
See Railroad Consolidation Procedures, 6 S.T.B.
910 (2003). Therefore, UP and BNSF concurrently
have filed a petition for partial revocation of this
exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 34554 (SubNo. 11), Union Pacific Railroad CompanyTemporary Trackage Rights Exemption-BNSF
Railway Company, wherein UP, with the support of
BNSF, requests that the Board permit the proposed
local trackage rights arrangement described in the
present proceeding to expire on or about December
31, 2009. That petition will be addressed by the
Board in a separate decision.
2 The original trackage rights granted in Union
Pacific Railroad Company-Trackage Rights
Exemption-The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railway Company, STB Finance Docket No. 34554
(STB served Oct. 7, 2004), also extended from BNSF
milepost 579.3 near Mill Creek, OK, to BNSF
milepost 631.1 near Joe Junction, TX. By decisions
served on November 24, 2004, in STB Finance
Docket No. 34554 (Sub-No. 1), on March 25, 2005,
in STB Finance Docket No. 34554 (Sub-No. 3), on
March 23, 2006, in STB Finance Docket No. 34554
(Sub-No. 5), on March 13, 2007, in STB Finance
Docket No. 34554 (Sub-No. 7), and on March 20,
2008, in STB Finance Docket No. 34554 (Sub-No.
9), the Board granted exemptions to permit the
trackage rights authorized in STB Finance Docket
No. 34554 and extended in STB Finance Docket No.
34554 (Sub-No. 2), served on February 11, 2005, in
STB Finance Docket No. 34554 (Sub-No. 4), served
on March 3, 2006, in STB Finance Docket No.
34554 (Sub-No. 6), served on January 12, 2007, and
in STB Finance Docket No. 34554 (Sub-No. 8),
served on January 4, 2008, to expire. At the time
of the last extension, it was anticipated by the
parties that the rights would expire on or about
December 31, 2008. However, this authority has not
yet been exercised.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
853
ballast trains for use in its maintenanceof-way projects.
As a condition to this exemption, any
employee affected by the trackage rights
will be protected by the conditions
imposed in 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).
This notice is filed under 49 CFR
1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)
may be filed at any time. The filing of
a petition to revoke will not
automatically stay the effectiveness of
the exemption. Stay petitions must be
filed by January 15, 2009 (at least 7 days
before the exemption becomes
effective).
Pursuant to the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law
No. 110–161, § 193, 121 Stat. 1844
(2007), nothing in this decision
authorizes the following activities at any
solid waste rail transfer facility:
collecting, storing or transferring solid
waste outside of its original shipping
container; or separating or processing
solid waste (including baling, crushing,
compacting and shredding). The term
‘‘solid waste’’ is defined in section 1004
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42
U.S.C. 6903.
An original and 10 copies of all
pleadings, referring to STB Finance
Docket No. 34554 (Sub-No. 10), must be
filed with the Surface Transportation
Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of
each pleading must be served on Gabriel
S. Meyer, Union Pacific Railroad
Company, 1400 Douglas Street, STOP
1580, Omaha, NE 68179.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at ‘‘https://
www.stb.dot.gov.’’
Decided: January 2, 2009.
By the Board, David M. Konschnik,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9–84 Filed 1–7–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
December 31, 2008.
The Department of Treasury will
submit the following public information
collection requirement(s) to OMB for
review and clearance under the
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 850-853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-106]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 35116]
R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania Lines Inc.--
Construction and Operation Exemption--in Clearfield County, PA
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement;
Notice of Availability of the Draft Scope of Study for the
Environmental Impact Statement; Notice of Scoping Meeting; and Request
for Comments on Draft Scope.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 20, 2008, R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Pennsylvania
Lines Inc. (RJCP) filed a petition with the Surface Transportation
Board (Board) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502 for authority to construct
and operate an abandoned 10.8-mile rail line between Wallaceton
Junction and Winburne in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the Western
Segment) and to rebuild the track on a connecting 9.3-mile line between
Winburne and Gorton in Clearfield and Centre Counties, Pennsylvania
(the Eastern Segment) that is currently being used for interim trail
use, subject to the possible restoration of rail service (rail banking)
pursuant to the Trails Act, 16 U.S.C. 1247(d). In total, the proposed
project would involve the construction or rebuilding, and operation, of
approximately 20 miles of the former Beech Creek Railroad to serve a
new quarry, landfill, and industrial park being developed by Resource
Recovery, LLC, near Gorton, Pennsylvania.
Because this project has the potential to result in significant
environmental impacts, the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA) has determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is appropriate pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The
purpose of this Notice of
[[Page 851]]
Intent is to notify individuals and agencies interested in or affected
by the proposed project of the decision to prepare an EIS. SEA will
hold a public scoping meeting as part of the NEPA process associated
with the development of the EIS. Additionally, as part of the scoping
process, SEA has developed a draft Scope of Study for the EIS for
review and comment. The public meeting date and location, along with
the draft Scope of Study, are provided below:
Date and Location: The public scoping meeting will be held:
Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 6-8 p.m., Philipsburg-Osceola Area Senior
High School, 502 Philips Street, Philipsburg, PA 16866-1899.
The public scoping meeting will be held in an informal open-house
format during which interested persons may ask questions about the
proposed project and the Board's environmental review process, and
advise SEA staff about potential environmental effects of the project.
No formal presentations will be made by agency representatives. SEA
staff will be available to answer questions and receive comments
individually.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments on the
draft Scope of Study, alternatives to the proposed rail line, and other
environmental issues and concerns by February 24, 2009, to assure full
consideration during the scoping process. SEA will issue a final Scope
of Study after the close of the scoping comment period.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: Simultaneously with the filing of its petition for
exemption (which seeks Board authority for both the rail banked Eastern
Segment as well as the Western Segment of the proposed rail line), RJCP
also filed a motion to dismiss the part of this proceeding that relates
to the reactivation of the rail banked Eastern Segment. RJCP argues
that reactivation of the rail banked Eastern Segment does not require
Board approval under 49 U.S.C. 10901 (or an exemption under 49 U.S.C.
10502) and that therefore, the Board should not perform an
environmental review of that segment of the proposed rail line. At this
time, the Board has not decided whether reactivation of the Eastern
Segment requires Board authority. Although the Board has not yet
decided this issue, environmental review of the Eastern Segment is
necessary to satisfy the NEPA requirements of one of the Board's
cooperating agencies discussed below, and therefore SEA is now issuing
this Notice of Intent.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.5 and 1501.6, SEA may request agencies that
have jurisdiction under other laws, or agencies that have ``special
expertise with respect to any environmental issue,'' to participate as
``cooperating agencies'' in the Board's environmental review process.
Cooperating agencies typically make their own decisions regarding a
particular project and tend to adopt the environmental analysis
prepared by another agency (known as the ``lead'' agency) as the basis
for their decision. Where environmental review takes place with
cooperating agencies, one environmental document therefore includes
information necessary to fulfill the requirements of NEPA and related
environmental laws for both the lead and cooperating agencies.
Based on preliminary agency consultations and field reconnaissance
of the project area conducted by SEA and its third-party contractor
(Skelly and Loy, Inc.), SEA believes that the proposed project could
impact resources (i.e., wetlands and watercourses) that fall under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Therefore,
SEA has invited the Corps, and the Corps has agreed, to participate as
a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS for this project. To
assure that the Corps has the information it needs to meet all of its
responsibilities under NEPA and the Clean Water Act, SEA will conduct
an appropriate environmental review of the entire 20 miles of proposed
rail line (i.e., both the Eastern and Western Segments), regardless of
the Board's decision on RJCP's pending motion to dismiss.
Summary of the Board's Environmental Review Process: The NEPA
process is intended to assist the Board and the public in identifying
and assessing the potential environmental consequences of a proposed
action before a decision on the proposed action is made. SEA is
responsible for ensuring that the Board complies with NEPA and related
environmental statutes. The first stage of the EIS process is scoping.
Scoping is an open process for determining the scope of environmental
issues to be addressed in the EIS. As part of the scoping process, SEA
has developed, and has made available for public review and comment in
this notice, a draft Scope of Study for the EIS. SEA will host a
scoping meeting to provide further opportunities for public involvement
and input during the scoping process. Interested parties are also
encouraged to comment on any potential alternatives for the proposed
project. SEA is currently considering four alternatives for the
proposed project (construction and operation of the 20 miles of rail
line along the former Beech Creek line, two non-rail transportation
options for the no-build alternative, and the no-action alternative).
At the conclusion of the scoping and comment period, SEA will issue a
final Scope of Study for the EIS.
After issuing the final Scope of Study, SEA will prepare a Draft
EIS for the project. The Draft EIS will address the environmental
issues and concerns identified during the scoping process. It will also
contain SEA's preliminary recommendations for environmental mitigation
measures. The Draft EIS will be made available upon its completion for
review and comment by the public, government agencies, and other
interested parties. SEA will then prepare a Final EIS that considers
comments on the Draft EIS, sets forth any additional analyses, and
makes final recommendations to the Board on appropriate mitigation
measures. In reaching its decision in this case, the Board will take
into account the Draft EIS, the Final EIS, and all environmental
comments that are received.
Filing Environmental Comments: Comments submitted by mail should be
addressed to: Danielle Gosselin, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423, Attention: Environmental Filing, STB
Finance Docket No. 35116.
Comments may also be filed electronically on the Board's Web site,
https://www.stb.dot.gov, by clicking on the ``E-FILING'' link.
Please refer to STB Finance Docket No. 35116 in all correspondence,
including e-filings, addressed to the Board.
All comments must be post marked by February 24, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danielle Gosselin, Section of
Environmental Analysis, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20423. Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-
800-877-8339. The Web site for the Board is https://www.stb.dot.gov.
Draft Scope of Study for the EIS
Proposed Action and Alternatives
The Proposed Action is the construction and operation of an
abandoned 10.8-mile rail line between Wallaceton Junction and Winburne
and the reactivation of track on a connecting 9.3-miles of currently
rail banked line between Winburne and Gorton. The approximately 20
miles of track would
[[Page 852]]
allow RJCP to provide rail service to a proposed new quarry, landfill,
and industrial park being developed by Resource Recovery, LLC, near
Gorton in Rush Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania. The anticipated
train traffic would be two trains daily, with one train per day
traveling in each direction. The EIS will also analyze the potential
impacts of two non-rail transportation options for the no-build
alternative and a no-action alternative set forth below.
The reasonable and feasible alternatives that will be evaluated in
the EIS are: (1) Construction and operation of the proposed rail line
along the former Beech Creek line, (2) no-build alternative option 1
involving the construction of a new interchange on Interstate 80, (3)
no-build alternative option 2 involving improving the existing local
road system (i.e., road paving, bridge replacement etc.), and (4) the
no-action alternative.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Proposed New Construction or Rebuilding and Operation
Analysis in the EIS will address the proposed activities associated
with the construction or rebuilding, and operation, of the proposed 20
miles of rail line and potential environmental impacts, as appropriate.
Impact Categories
The EIS will analyze the potential impacts associated with the
proposed project on both the human and natural environment, or in the
case of the no-action alternative, the lack of these impacts. Impact
areas addressed will include the categories of transportation and
safety, land use, energy resources, air quality, noise, biological
resources including threatened and endangered species, water resources
including wetlands and other jurisdictional waters of the U.S.,
socioeconomics as they relate to physical changes in the environment,
recreation, environmental justice, geology and soils, and cultural/
historic resources. Other categories of impacts may also be included as
a result of comments received during the scoping process or the Draft
EIS. The EIS will include a discussion of each of these categories as
they currently exist in the project area and will address the potential
impacts of each alternative on each category as described below.
1. Transportation and Safety
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate potential pedestrian and motor vehicle safety concerns
at each public and private at-grade road crossing.
b. Include a level of service analysis focusing on average vehicle
delay time for all grade crossings having an average daily traffic
volume greater than 5,000 vehicles.
c. Include an assessment of the appropriate safety appurtenances to
be erected at each crossing.
d. Assess the project's operational safety with respect to its
close proximity to residential structures.
e. Evaluate the project's consistency with local and regional
transportation planning goals.
f. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
impacts to safety, as appropriate.
2. Land Use
The EIS will:
a. Identify existing land uses that would be potentially impacted
by the project.
b. Evaluate the project's consistency with local and regional land
use planning goals.
c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
impacts to land use, as appropriate.
3. Energy Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe the effect of the project on energy resources,
recyclable commodities, and overall changes in energy efficiency.
b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
impacts to energy resources, as appropriate.
4. Air Quality
The EIS will:
a. Quantitatively evaluate rail operation air emissions, if the
project would affect a Class I or non-attainment or maintenance area as
designated under the Clean Air Act.
b. Qualitatively evaluate the temporary air quality impact
resulting from rail line construction activities.
c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to air quality, as appropriate.
5. Noise
The EIS will:
a. Quantitatively evaluate rail operation noise impacts, including
the use of any auditory warning devices at public road crossings.
b. Qualitatively evaluate the temporary noise impact resulting from
rail line construction activities.
c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to sensitive noise receptors, as appropriate.
6. Biological Resources
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate the existing biological resources within the project
area, including vegetative communities, terrestrial and aquatic
habitats, and known wildlife species.
b. Evaluate project impacts to any Federal or state threatened and
endangered plant or animal species.
c. Describe the proposed project's impact on any wildlife
sanctuaries, refuges, national and state parks/forests, or state game
lands.
d. Document all coordination conducted with those Federal and state
agencies having jurisdiction over biological resources.
e. Propose mitigative measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for
potential impacts to biological resources, as appropriate.
7. Water Resources
The EIS will:
a. Describe the existing surface water resources identified within
the project area, including all jurisdictional wetlands and
watercourses and their regulatory floodplains.
b. Evaluate project impacts to all jurisdictional surface water
resources.
c. Document the necessary Federal and state water resource/
encroachment permitting requirements that the proposed project will be
subject to.
d. Propose mitigative measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for
potential impacts to water resources, as appropriate.
8. Socioeconomics
The EIS will:
a. Summarize the existing local and regional socioeconomic
conditions, including long-term population, housing and employment
metrics.
b. Document the locations of existing community facilities and
services identified within the regional project area.
c. Evaluate the proposed project's impact to socioeconomic
conditions within the regional project area, including employment gains
and losses.
d. Propose mitigative measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for
potential impacts to regional socioeconomic factors, as appropriate.
9. Recreation
The EIS will:
a. Identify existing public and private recreational facilities
within the project area, and evaluate the proposed project's impact to
these recreational facilities.
b. Propose mitigative measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate
for potential impacts to recreational facilities, as appropriate.
[[Page 853]]
10. Environmental Justice
The EIS will:
a. Evaluate the potential project impacts on local and regional
minority and low-income populations.
b. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts on environmental justice populations, as appropriate.
11. Geology and Soils
The EIS will:
a. Describe the geologic and soil conditions within the project
area, including the status of past and present coal mining operations.
b. Evaluate potential measures to avoid or construct through active
surface mined areas.
c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to geology and soils, as appropriate.
12. Cultural/Historic Resources
The EIS will:
a. Document all historic resource eligibility and effect studies
conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
b. Document all project coordination with the state historic
preservation officer.
c. Propose mitigative measures to minimize or eliminate potential
project impacts to cultural/historic resources, as appropriate.
13. Cumulative and Indirect Impacts
The EIS will:
a. Address any identified potential cumulative impacts of the
project, as appropriate. Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the
environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes
such actions (for example, Resource Recovery, LLC's proposed new
quarry, landfill and industrial park).
b. Address any identified potential indirect impacts of the
project, as appropriate. Indirect impacts are impacts that are caused
by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but
are still reasonably foreseeable.
Decided: January 2, 2009.
By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, Section of Environmental
Analysis.
Kulunie L. Cannon,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9-106 Filed 1-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
