CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway CompanyControl and Operating Leases/AgreementsConrail, Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33388]

CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern

Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company--Control and Operating

Leases/Agreements--Conrail, Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) and request for comments on proposed EIS scope.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On June 23, 1997, CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc.

(CSX), Norfolk Southern Corporation, and Norfolk Southern Railway

Company (NS), and Conrail Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation

(Conrail) filed an application (primary application) with the Surface

Transportation Board (Board) under 49 U.S.C. 11323-25. NS, CSX, and

Conrail are jointly seeking authority for NS and CSX to acquire control

of Conrail and for the subsequent division of Conrail's assets. The

proposed transaction involves over 44,000 miles of rail lines and

related facilities covering a large portion of the eastern United

States. To evaluate and consider the potential environmental impacts

that may result from the proposed transaction, the Board's Section of

Environmental Analysis (SEA) will prepare an environmental impact

statement (EIS). The Board has determined that an EIS is warranted due

to the nature and scope of environmental issues (e.g., intercity

passenger service and commuter rail service) that may arise. As part of

their primary application to the Board, CSX, NS, and Conrail

(collectively, Applicants), have filed a detailed operating plan and

prepared an Environmental Report (ER). The ER describes the physical

and operational changes that would be associated with the proposed

transaction and discusses the potential environmental impacts of those

changes.

DATES: Written comments on the draft scope are due August 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, STB Finance

Docket No. 33388, Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20423-0001. Attention: Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section

of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Filing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Dalton, SEA Project

Manager, Conrail Control Transaction, (202) 565-1530; or Ms. Dana

White, SEA Environmental Specialist, at (202) 565-1552. (TDD for the

hearing impaired: (202) 565-1695).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The proposed transaction would result in certain existing Conrail

facilities and operations being assigned individually to either CSX or

NS through operating agreements or other mechanisms, and certain other

existing Conrail facilities and operations being shared by, and

operated for the benefit of, both CSX and NS. The result would be an

expanded CSX rail system, an expanded NS rail system, and certain areas

of joint ownership and operations. CSX and NS would continue to compete

with each other in the provision of rail freight services and would

expand their competition to areas in which Conrail is currently the

only major rail carrier. Each of the two railroads would utilize its

existing lines, would operate certain Conrail lines independent of the

other, and would jointly operate certain Conrail lines.

Applicants anticipate that the proposed transaction would provide

for benefits that include: reduced energy usage, enhanced safety,

reduced highway congestion, reduced system-wide air pollutant

emissions, expanded competition, and a more efficient rail

transportation system. The proposed transaction, also referred to as

the proposed action, is detailed in the primary application and in the

operating plan and ER that accompanied it. The proposed transaction

includes changes in railroad operations such as increases and decreases

in train traffic, changes in activity at rail yards and intermodal

facilities, and rail line abandonment and construction projects.

Applicants served the ER concurrently on appropriate federal,

state, and local agencies. Federal agencies included: U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service and

Natural Resources Conservation Service), U.S. Department of Interior

(Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park

Service, Office of Environmental Project Review, Fish and Wildlife

Service), U.S. Department of Transportation (Federal Railroad

Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit

Administration, U.S. Coast Guard), and U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA). State agencies included clearinghouses, state departments

of transportation, public service commissions, and historic

preservation offices, in the States of AL, CT, DE, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY,

LA, MA, MD, MI, MS, MO, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, WV, and the

District of Columbia. Applicants also served the ER on cities with

populations of over 50,000, as well as counties and regional planning

organizations that could be affected.

Environmental Review Process and Alternatives

The Board's environmental staff, SEA, is soliciting information and

comments on the scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the

EIS for the proposed transaction. The National Environmental Policy Act

(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 that proposed action is made. 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 and their potential for significance.

Existing rail operations are the baseline from which the potential

environmental impacts of the proposed transaction will be evaluated.

Under the NEPA process, SEA will evaluate only

[[Page 36333]]

the potential environmental impacts of operational and physical changes

that are directly related to the proposed transaction. SEA will not

consider environmental impacts relating to existing rail operations and

existing railroad facilities.1 In making its decision in

this proceeding, the Board will consider the EIS, the public comments,

and the environmental analysis and recommendations, including any

environmental mitigation proposed by SEA. Alternatives to be considered

in the EIS are (1) approval of the transaction as proposed; (2)

disapproval of the proposed transaction in whole (No-Action

alternative); or (3) approval of the proposed transaction with

conditions, including environmental mitigation conditions.2

Other parties may file ``inconsistent or responsive'' applications

requesting modifications to the proposed transaction, such as requests

for trackage rights or the acquisition of particular rail lines.

Potential environmental impacts and rail system changes proposed in the

inconsistent and responsive applications will be evaluated in the EIS.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ In merger and control cases, the Board's practice

consistently has been to mitigate only those environmental impacts

that result directly from the transaction. The Board, like its

predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission, has not imposed

mitigation to remedy preexisting conditions such as those that might

make the quality of life in a particular community better, but are

not a direct result of the merger (i.e., congestion associated with

the existing rail line traffic, or the traffic of other railroads).

\2\ The Board has broad authority to impose conditions in

railroad control transactions under 49 U.S.C. 11324 (c). However,

the Board's power to impose conditions is not limitless. To survive

judicial review, the record must support the imposition of the

condition at issue. Moreover, there must be a sufficient nexus

between the condition imposed and the transaction before the agency,

and the condition imposed must be reasonable. See United States v.

Chesapeake & O. Ry., 426 U.S. 500, 514-15 (1976); Consolidated Rail

Corp. v. ICC, 29 F.3d 706, 714 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Activities

NS and CSX requested, and the Board allowed, the proposed

construction of seven small rail line connections (Seven Connections)

totaling approximately 4 miles, to be filed and reviewed separately

from the primary application. This separate environmental review

process will address only the potential environmental impacts of the

physical construction of these Seven Connections and Applicants'

proposed operations over these lines. The operational implications of

the transaction as a whole, including proposed operations over these

Seven Connections, if authorized, will be examined in the context of

the EIS that is being prepared for the proposed

transaction.3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Board Decision No. 9 in this proceeding, issued June 12,

1997, granted Applicants' petition for waiver related to the Seven

Connections and explained what the environmental review process for

those projects would be. Specifically, SEA intends to prepare a

separate Environmental Assessment for each of these small

construction projects. However, if SEA determines that any one of

the construction proposals could potentially cause, or contribute

to, significant environmental impacts then the project will be

incorporated into the EIS for the overall proposed transaction, and

will not be separately considered. Also, no rail operations can

begin over these Seven Connections until completion of the EIS

process, and issuance of a further decision.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing Environmental Comments

SEA encourages broad participation in the EIS process during

scoping and review of the Draft EIS (DEIS). Interested agencies and

persons are invited to participate in the scoping phase by reviewing

the draft scope of the EIS. Due to the broad geographic scope of the

proposed transaction, SEA does not plan to conduct public scoping

meetings. Written comments on the draft scope of the EIS may be

submitted to the Board within the 30-day comment period, as described

below, no later than August 6, 1997. It is not necessary to be a Party

of Record (as detailed below) to file comments on the draft scope of

the EIS and participate in the environmental review process. You need

only submit a signed original and 10 copies of your comments to: Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, STB Finance Docket No. 33388,

Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423-

0001.

To ensure proper handling of your comments, you must mark your

submission: Attention: Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of

Environmental Analysis, Environmental Filing.

By following this procedure, your comments will be placed in the

formal Public Record for this case. In addition, SEA will add your name

to its mailing list for distribution of the final scope of the EIS, the

DEIS, and Final EIS (FEIS). However, as stated in Board Decision No. 6

4 in this case, copies of Board decisions, orders, and

notices will be served only on persons designated as Parties of Record,

Members of Congress, and Governors on the official service list. All

other interested persons who wish to receive copies of Board decisions,

orders, and notices served in this proceeding are encouraged to make

advance arrangements with the Board's copy contractor, DC News & Data,

Inc., at (202) 289-4357.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Board Decision No. 6 was issued May 30, 1997, and published

at 62 FR 29387-29391.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parties of Record

If you wish to become a Party of Record (POR) in this case, you

must comply with the more rigorous filing and service requirements

explained in Decision No. 6. Specifically, you must notify the Board by

August 7, 1997, or 45 days after the primary application was filed, of

your intent to participate actively in this proceeding by submitting to

the Office of the Secretary, at the above address, an original plus 25

copies of a Notice of Intent to Participate accompanied by a

certificate of service. The Notice must demonstrate compliance with the

service requirements set forth in the section of Decision No. 6

entitled ADDRESSES. Thereafter, each POR will receive a copy of the

official service list that contains the names and addresses of all

PORs, upon whom all subsequent filings must be served.

For Additional Information

Contact Mr. Michael Dalton, SEA Project Manager, Conrail Control

Transaction, (202) 565-1530; or Ms. Dana White, SEA Environmental

Specialist, at (202) 565-1552 (TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 565-

1695). Summary information about the proposed transaction and draft

scope of the EIS can be found at the following Internet web site:

http://www.conrailmerger.com. Requests for summary information on the

control transaction and EIS scope can be made through SEA's toll-free

Environmental Hotline at (888) 869-1997.

Environmental Review Schedule

The Board has adopted a 350-day procedural schedule for the

proposed transaction proceeding,5 and has determined that

preparation of an EIS is warranted in this case. The 350-day schedule

will permit SEA to undertake an EIS that fully considers the

environmental consequences of this proposed action. Below is a

discussion of how SEA plans to conduct the environmental review process

in this case.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See Decision No. 6. This schedule is based on the filing

date (F) of the primary application, which was June 23, 1997.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 23, 1997, Applicants filed an ER containing the information

specified in the Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105.7(e), as

part of the primary application. The ER was concurrently served on the

agencies listed in the Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105.7(b),

and other appropriate entities. The ER describes the physical and

operational changes in the rail systems and facilities anticipated as a

[[Page 36334]]

result of the proposed transaction. In the ER, Applicants also discuss

the potential environmental impacts that would be associated with the

anticipated changes.

The next step in the environmental review process is scoping. Based

on the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations, the

Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105, the ER, and all other

information available to date, SEA has prepared this draft scope of the

EIS. Written public comments on the draft scope of the EIS are invited,

and are due August 6, 1997. After SEA considers all comments submitted

by the comment deadline, SEA will prepare a final scope of the EIS. SEA

intends to issue the final scope of the EIS in September 1997. This

final scope of the EIS will be distributed to all PORs, commenters, and

appropriate agencies.

Based on SEA's independent environmental analysis, review of all

information available to date, and consultations with appropriate

agencies, SEA then will prepare a DEIS. The DEIS will address relevant

environmental concerns, as described in the final scope of the EIS, and

recommend appropriate environmental mitigation. In addition, the DEIS

will address environmental impacts associated with any inconsistent or

responsive applications or settlement agreements. 6 SEA

intends to serve the DEIS in November 1997, approximately 5 months

after the primary application was filed in this proceeding. SEA will

serve the DEIS on all Parties of Record to this proceeding, commenters

who comply with the above-mentioned filing procedures, and appropriate

federal, state, and local government agencies. Also, EPA will publish a

notice of the availability of the DEIS in the Federal Register. The

DEIS will have a comment period of 45 days, as required by CEQ

regulations at 40 CFR 1506.10(c).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Under the procedural schedule previously established for

this proceeding (Decision No. 6), inconsistent and responsive

applicants must provide a description of the proposed inconsistent

or responsive application by day F + 60. Inconsistent and responsive

applicants must file Responsive Environmental Reports or verified

statements by day F + 100, indicating that there are no potentially

significant environmental impacts. They must file inconsistent and

responsive applications by day F + 120. SEA anticipates that the

issues addressed in the final scope of the EIS will be similar to

issues that may be raised in any subsequent filing of inconsistent

or responsive applications.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering comments on the DEIS, SEA will issue a FEIS. The

FEIS will address comments to the DEIS and will include SEA's final

recommendations, including appropriate environmental mitigation. SEA

will serve the FEIS in late March or early April, prior to the Board's

voting conference, which currently is scheduled to be held April 14,

1998. At the voting conference, the Board will announce whether it will

grant the application, deny the application, or grant it with

appropriate conditions, including environmental mitigation conditions.

The Board intends to serve a written decision in this case by June 8,

1998. In that decision, the Board will address both environmental and

transportation issues and impose any conditions found to be

appropriate.

Parties that wish to file an administrative appeal of the Board's

written decision (including any environmental conditions that might be

imposed) may do so within 20 days from the service date of the Board's

decision, as provided in the Board's rules. Any interested party will

have approximately 2 months to consider the FEIS prior to commencement

of the aforementioned period for filing administrative appeals. The

schedule will provide adequate time to pursue administrative review of

the Board's June 1998 decision after it is issued. Any administrative

appeals will be addressed in a subsequent decision. This process is

consistent with CEQ rules (40 CFR 1506.10 (b)).

Projected Schedule 7

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Environmental Report \8\ submitted May 16, 1997.

to SEA. (F-30) \9\.

Primary Application and Environmental Report June 23, 1997.

filed. (F).

Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental July 7, 1997.

Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Statement

Scoping Notice issued. (Federal Register Notice)..

Comments on the Draft Scope of the Aug. 6, 1997.

Environmental Impact Statement due (end of 30-day

comment period)..

Descriptions of Inconsistent and Responsive Aug. 22, 1997.

Applications filed. (F + 60)..

Last day to file Preliminary Draft Sept. 5, 1997.

Environmental Assessments for the Seven Separate

Construction Projects referenced in Decision No. 9..

Final Scope of the Environmental Impact Sept. 1997.

Statement issued..

Responsive Environmental Reports and Verified Oct. 1, 1997.

Environmental Statements due. (F + 100)..

Inconsistent and Responsive Applications due. Oct. 21, 1997.

(F + 120)..

Draft Environmental Impact Statement served... Nov. 1997.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement comments Jan. 1998.

due (end of 45-day comment period)..

Final Environmental Impact Statement served... Late Mar. or Early Apr., 1998.

Oral Argument................................. Apr. 9, 1998.

Voting Conference............................. Apr. 14, 1998.

Final Decision served......................... June 8, 1998.

Administrative Appeals Filing Deadline........ June 29, 1998.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Actual dates may vary slightly. These are the dates that will apply if the Board accepts the primary

application as filed on June 23, 1997.

\8\ The Preliminary Environmental Report contained preliminary, descriptive information on the proposed

transaction.

\9\ ``F'' is the filing date of the primary application. The Board established the time periods related to the

filing date in the procedural schedule set out in Decision No. 6 in this proceeding.

Draft Scope of the EIS

Proposed Action and Definition of Alternatives

The proposed action is Applicants' proposed acquisition and

control, jointly or individually, of Conrail's rail lines and

facilities, as explained in the primary application's operating plan

and ER. The proposed transaction includes changes in railroad

operations such as increases and decreases in train traffic on rail

lines, changes in activity at rail yards and intermodal facilities, and

rail line abandonment and construction projects.

Reasonable or feasible alternatives that will be evaluated in the

EIS are (1) the proposed action, (2) the no-action alternative, and (3)

the proposed action with conditions, including

[[Page 36335]]

environmental mitigation conditions. Proposed modifications to the

proposed transaction as requested by other parties in their

inconsistent or responsive applications will also be addressed in the

EIS.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Analysis in the EIS will address proposed activities and their

potential environmental impacts, as appropriate. The scope of the

analysis will include the following types of activities:

1. Anticipated changes in level of operations on rail lines (e.g.,

an increase in average trains per day) for those rail line segments

which meet or exceed the Board's thresholds for environmental review in

49 CFR 1105.7. In cases where the Board's environmental rules do not

provide a threshold, the EIS generally will use increases of eight (8)

trains per day or more as the threshold for addressing environmental

impacts. Where appropriate, available system-wide data will be used.

2. Proposed rail line abandonments.

3. Proposed changes in activity at rail yards and intermodal

facilities to the extent such changes may exceed the Board's thresholds

for environmental analysis in 49 CFR 1105.7.

4. Proposed requests for trackage rights or rail line acquisitions

that may be included in inconsistent and responsive applications.

5. Proposed physical construction of rail line segments other than

the Seven Connections discussed above and in Decision No.

9.10 Subsequent references to construction projects in this

scoping document do not include these Seven Connections. Alternatives

to construction could include feasible alternate alignments that may be

environmentally preferable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ As noted in Decision No. 9, in reviewing the Seven

Connections separately, the Board will consider the regulatory and

environmental aspects of these proposed constructions and

Applicants' proposed operations over these lines together in the

context of whether to authorize each individual physical

construction project. The operational implications of the proposed

transaction as a whole, including operations over the 4 or so miles

embraced in the Seven Connections will be examined in the context of

the EIS for the overall control transaction.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact Categories

The EIS will address potential impacts on the environment that will

include the areas of safety, transportation systems, land use, energy,

air quality, noise, biological resources, water resources,

socioeconomic effects directly related to physical changes in the

environment, environmental justice, and cultural and historic

resources, as described below.

1. Safety

The EIS will:

A. Address rail highway grade crossing safety factors, as

appropriate.

B. Consider increased probability of train accidents, derailments,

and other incidents, as appropriate.

C. Address potential effects of increased freight traffic on

commuter and intercity passenger service operations.

D. Discuss the potential environmental impacts of the proposed

transaction on public health and safety with respect to the

transportation of hazardous materials, including:

(1) Changes in the types of hazardous materials and quantities

transported or re-routed;

(2) Nature of the hazardous materials being transported;

(3) Applicants' safety practices and protocols;

(4) Applicants' safety record (to the extent available) on

derailments, accidents and hazardous materials spills;

(5) Any existing contingency plans to address accidental spills;

(6) Probability of increased spills given railroad safety

statistics and applicable Federal Railroad Administration requirements;

and

(7) Location and types of hazardous substances at hazardous waste

sites or hazardous materials spills on the right-of-way of any proposed

construction or rail line abandonment site.

2. Transportation System

The EIS will:

A. Describe system-wide effects of the proposed operational

changes, constructions, and rail line abandonments and evaluate

potential environmental impacts on commuter rail service and interstate

passenger service.

B. Discuss potential diversions of freight traffic from trucks to

rail and from rail to trucks, as appropriate.

C. Address, as appropriate, vehicular delays at rail crossings and

intermodal facilities due to increases in rail related operations. A

range of typical rail operations and traffic conditions will be defined

for purposes of evaluating the impacts of potential vehicular delays.

Transportation impacts at grade crossings will be evaluated for those

crossings having average daily vehicle trips of 5,000 or

more.11

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Crossings with average daily vehicle trips of fewer than

5,000 vehicles per day typically do not experience serious delays.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Land Use

The EIS will:

A. Describe whether the proposed rail line construction and

abandonment activities are consistent with existing land use plans.

B. Describe environmental impacts associated with the proposed

construction of new rail lines or expansion of facilities as to acres

of prime farmland potentially removed from production.

C. Discuss consistency of proposed rail line construction and

abandonment activities with applicable coastal zone requirements.

4. Energy

The EIS will:

A. Describe the potential environmental impact of the proposed

transaction on transportation of energy resources and recyclable

commodities to the extent such information is available.

B. Discuss the overall increase or decrease in energy efficiency

(fuel use) from truck-to-rail diversions, based on estimates of such

diversions subject to the Board's thresholds in 49 CFR 1105.7

(e)(4)(iv), for diversions of 1,000 rail carloads per year, or fifty

(50) rail carloads per mile per year for any line segment.

C. Discuss estimated changes in energy efficiency of rail-to-truck

diversions that exceed the Board's environmental thresholds in 49 CFR

1105.7(e)(4)(iv).

5. Air Quality

The EIS will:

A. Evaluate air emissions increases that exceed the Board's

environmental thresholds in 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(5)(i), in an air quality

attainment or maintenance area as designated under the Clean Air Act as

it existed on the date the primary application was filed.12

The thresholds are as follows:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Air quality attainment areas are areas which comply with

national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter,

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead.

Non-attainment areas are areas which do not comply with one or more

ambient air quality standards. Maintenance areas are areas which

were non-attainment in the past but have air quality which complies

with standards at present. These areas are designated by EPA.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) A 100 percent increase in rail traffic or an increase of eight

(8) trains a day on any segment of rail line affected by the proposal;

or

(2) An increase in rail yard activity of at least 100 percent or

more; or

(3) An increase in truck traffic of more than ten (10) percent of

the average daily traffic or fifty (50) vehicles a day.

B. Evaluate emissions increases, if the proposed transaction

affects a Class I or non-attainment area as designated under the Clean

Air Act as of the date the

[[Page 36336]]

application was filed. Thresholds for Class I and non-attainment areas

are as follows:

(1) An increase in rail traffic of at least fifty (50) percent or

an increase of three (3) trains a day or more; or

(2) An increase in rail yard activity of at least twenty (20)

percent; or

(3) An increase in truck traffic of more than ten (10) percent of

the average daily traffic or fifty (50) vehicles a day.

C. Discuss the net increase in emissions from increased railroad

operations associated with the proposed transaction.

D. Evaluate potential air quality benefits of system-wide emission

reductions that would result from projected truck-to-rail diversions.

Net increases, less any estimated reductions due to truck-to-rail

diversions, will be compared to the entire emission inventory for

affected non-attainment areas. This discussion will be based on

emission inventory data provided by the appropriate state agency.

E. Identify the following information for the anticipated

transportation of ozone depleting materials (such as nitrogen oxide and

freon):

(1) Materials and quantity;

(2) Applicants' safety practices;

(3) Applicants' safety record (to the extent available) on

derailments, accidents, and spills;

(4) Contingency plans to address accidental spills; and

(5) Likelihood of an accidental release of ozone depleting

materials in the event of a collision or derailment.

F. Discuss potential air emissions increases from vehicle delays at

rail crossings where the rail crossing is projected to experience an

increase in rail traffic over the thresholds described above in Section

5A for attainment and maintenance areas and in Section 5B for Class I

and non-attainment areas, and which have an average daily vehicle

traffic level above 5,000. Such increases will be factored into the net

emissions estimates for the affected area.

The EIS will not:

Address ambient impacts of net increases or decreases of emissions

related to rail operations changes, traffic delay analysis, and truck

to rail diversions, due to the infeasibility of incorporating such

analysis into local and regional air quality impacts analyses,

emissions databases, and air quality modeling protocols for a project

that involves over 44,000 miles of rail lines and related facilities

covering a large portion of the eastern half of the United States.

Given the broad geographical scope of the proposed transaction, it is

not feasible to do in any reasonable amount of time the thousands of

modeling analyses that would be required to assess such impacts.

6. Noise

The EIS will:

A. Describe potential noise impacts of the proposed transaction for

those areas that exceed the Board's environmental thresholds identified

in Section 5A of the Air Quality discussion.

B. Identify whether the proposed transaction will cause:

(1) An incremental increase in noise levels of three decibels Ldn

or more; or

(2) An increase to a noise level of 65 decibels Ldn or greater. If

so, an estimate of the number of sensitive receptors (e.g., schools,

libraries, hospitals, residences) within such areas will be made based

on census data or other available information. Such receptors will be

estimated for the area that may increase to 65 decibels Ldn due to

proposed transaction-related activities.

7. Biological Resources

The EIS will:

A. Discuss potential environmental impacts from proposed rail line

construction and abandonment projects on federal endangered or

threatened species or designated critical habitats.

B. Discuss the effects of proposed rail line construction and

abandonment projects on wildlife sanctuaries or refuges, and national

or state parks or forests.

8. Water Resources

The EIS will:

A. Discuss whether potential impacts from proposed rail line

construction and abandonment projects may be inconsistent with

applicable federal or state water quality standards.

B. Discuss whether permits may be required under Sections 404 or

402 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) for any proposed rail line

construction and abandonment projects and whether any such projects

have the potential to encroach upon any designated wetlands or 100-year

floodplains.

9. Socioeconomic Issues

The EIS will address socioeconomic issues shown to be directly

related to changes in the physical environment as a result of the

proposed transaction.

10. Environmental Justice

The EIS will:

(1) Report on the demographics in the immediate vicinity of any

area where major activity such as an abandonment or construction is

proposed;

(2) Evaluate whether such activities potentially have a

disproportionately high and adverse health effect or environmental

impact on any minority or low-income group.

11. Cultural and Historic Resources

The EIS will address potential impacts from proposed rail line

construction and abandonment projects on cultural and historic

resources that are on, or immediately adjacent to, a railroad right-of-

way.

Issued: July 1, 1997.

By the Board, Elaine K. Kaiser, Chief, Section of Environmental

Analysis.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97-17631 Filed 7-3-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-00-P