59988 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2003 / Notices

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470f, pursuant to the that would undermine the conclusions Director, Office of Proceedings. decision of the United States Court of of the Keeper, the ACHP, and the court. Vernon A. Williams, Appeals for the Third Circuit in Friends B. Clarification of the Length and Secretary. of the Atglen-Susquehanna Trail, Inc. v. Location of NS’s Remaining Line [FR Doc. 03–26281 Filed 10–17–03; 8:45 am] Surface Transportation Bd., 252 F.3d Comment. NS’s reply comments BILLING CODE 4915–00–P 246 (3rd Cir. 2001) (FAST), and solicited comments on certain issues regarding attempt to clarify the name, exact length this reinitiation. In response to the and location of the rail line that is the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION October 2002 Notice, the Board received subject of this proceeding. NS states that 18 comment letters, as well as a letter the proper name for the rail line was the Surface Transportation Board replying to the comments of other Atglen and Susquehanna Branch, because the rail line runs from a [STB Docket No. AB–167 (Sub–No. 1095X)] parties, all of which were placed on the Board’s Web site. location near Atglen, PA to a location Consolidated Rail Corporation— near the Susquehanna River. According The Board’s Section of Environmental to NS, the notice of exemption Abandonment Exemption—Lancaster Analysis (SEA) has reviewed the and Chester Counties, PA Consolidated Rail Corporation () comments. Based on the information filed in 1989 was for 66.5 miles of track, AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, therein as well as ongoing consultations but only 33.9 miles of this is actual rail Department of Transportation. with the Advisory Council on Historic right-of-way. NS states that the rail line Preservation (ACHP), the ACTION: Notice responding to comments extends from Milepost 0.0 at CP ‘‘Park’’ State Historic Preservation Officer received on the October 2002 notice to in Parkesburg, PA to Milepost 33.9 near (SHPO), and the parties and requesting comments on a connection with the Port Road Brach Corporation (NS), SEA has developed a an attached proposed draft at CP ‘‘Port’’ in Manor Township, PA. plan to complete the section 106 process memorandum of agreement. The other 32.6 miles of track referred to for this proceeding. The ACHP, the in the notice of exemption refer to the SUMMARY: This Notice to the Parties SHPO, and NS have indicated their second track of the double tracked rail responds to the comments received on approval of SEA’s plan, as well as their line between approximately Milepost the October 2002 Notice to the Parties willingness to sign the attached 1.1 and Milepost 33.7. Subsequently, NS in this rail line abandonment proposed draft Memorandum of has indicated that it will return to the proceeding, discusses the possibility of Agreement (MOA). Changes suggested use of the designation ‘‘Enola Branch’’ trail use for the rail line right-of-way, pursuant to consulting party and public for this line in this proceeding because describes and solicits comments on the review and comment will be of Conrail’s use of this name during the attached proposed draft Memorandum considered. Below, SEA (1) summarizes period that it operated the line and the of Agreement, and provides information and responds to the comments, long use of this name in this proceeding. for a public meeting to be held on including those that favor converting NS also states that it currently intends November 19, 2003. this railroad right-of-way to interim trail to retain the property between Milepost use/rail banking pursuant to 16 U.S.C. DATES: Comments are due by December 27.0 at Safe Harbor, PA and Milepost 3, 2003. 1247(d) (Trails Act), or a privately 33.9 at Port, PA in connection with its negotiated trail use agreement entered operation of the Port Road Branch; and ADDRESS: If you wish to file written into after the abandonment is between Milepost 0.0 at Parkesburg, PA comments regarding the attached consummated, (2) discusses the and Milepost 1.5 at Lenover, PA, except proposed draft Memorandum of remaining steps in the section 106 for ’s bridge, for use as the Agreement, please send an original and process for this case, assuming that trail Parkesburg Industrial Track. According two copies to the Surface Transportation use here is unsuccessful, and (3) to NS, no abandonment authority or Board, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, describes the attached proposed draft exemption was necessary because these NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001, to Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) line segments will continue to be owned the attention of Troy Brady. Please refer setting forth proposed section 106 by NS and used for railroad purposes; to Docket No. AB–167 (Sub-No. 1095X) mitigation. As discussed in more detail only one of the two tracks will be in all correspondence addressed to the below, SEA has also scheduled a public removed. For the same reason, NS states Board. meeting on this case and the proposed that there will be no adverse effect on FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If draft MOA and is providing a 45-day historic properties on these segments. you have questions regarding this period for interested parties to file NS also states that Conrail sold the Notice, you should contact Troy Brady, written comments on the proposed draft portion of the rail line between Milepost the environmental contact for this case, MOA. 1.5 at Lenover to Milepost 4.0 near the by phone at (202) 565–1643 or by fax at Chester County-Lancaster County line to I. Comment Summary and Response (202) 565–9000. Assistance for the Southeastern Pennsylvania hearing impaired is available through A. Historic Eligibility of the Enola Transportation Authority (SEPTA) in the Federal Information Relay Service Branch Rail Line 1996. Thus, according to NS, the only (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339. portion of the rail line (if any) that is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Comment. NS states that it disagrees subject to this section 106 process is October 24, 2002, the Surface with the designation of the Keeper of from about Milepost 4.0 in Chester Transportation Board (Board) issued a the National Register of Historic Places County, PA (the end of a bridge over Notice to the Parties (October 2002 (Keeper) that the entire line is historic. Noble Road and Octoraro Creek and Notice) in the above-titled rail Response. As explained in the about 50 yards of access to the bridge) abandonment proceeding. The October October 2002 Notice, pursuant to the to Milepost 27.0 at Safe Harbor, or 2002 Notice set forth the background of Keeper’s determination, the ACHP approximately 23 miles of rail right-of- the case, described the Board’s regulations, and the court’s holding in way. reinitiation of the section 106 process of FAST, the entire line is historic. NS has Response. Conrail described the line the National Historic Preservation Act not provided any compelling reasons to be abandoned in its 1989 notice of

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:11 Oct 17, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2003 / Notices 59989

exemption filing as two parallel tracks use. In consultations, the SHPO acceptable to the Townships and of a double tracked line. According to indicated that, if the Trails Act remains PennDOT. Conrail, track number 1 extended 32.6 available, and if a Trails Act agreement Response. The Trails Act allows rail miles from Milepost 1.1 in Parkesburg to could be reached that would preserve line that would otherwise be abandoned Milepost 33.7 in Manor Township. the contributing resources on the rail to be preserved (rail banked) and used Track number 2 extended 33.9 miles line right-of-way, there would be no in the interim as trails. See Preseault v. from Milepost 0.0 in Parkesburg to adverse effect on historic properties, ICC, 494 U.S. 1 (1990). The trail sponsor Milepost 33.9 in Manor Township. thereby presumably mooting the need to must assume responsibility for any taxes Subsequent descriptions of the line continue with the mitigation stage of the on, and tort liability for, the property. 16 mistakenly referred to the total length of section 106 process (development of an U.S.C. 1247(d). The Trails Act delays the line to be abandoned as either 66.5 appropriate MOA). abandonment of a line (and any miles of track or 66.5 miles of rail line. Comment. NS has stated that it would consequent reversion of rail easements SEA agrees with NS that the length of consider a proposal for trail use that to adjacent property owners) as a matter the line is the actual length of the right- meets certain criteria. Specifically, NS of law while the line is rail banked and of-way. Thus, the line originally at issue states 3 that it would seriously consider interim trail use continues, and here extended 33.9 miles, from Milepost any proposal for trail use that is made provides that the line may be 0.0 in Parkesburg to Milepost 33.9 in promptly so as not to delay the reactivated for rail service at any time. Manor Township.1 conclusion of this proceeding and that: Id. Alternatively, if the railroad owns Moreover, it now appears that Conrail (1) Does not result in the commitment of the property in fee, a railroad can sold the portion of the line between any additional railroad funds than are convert its property to trail use outside Milepost 1.5 to Milepost 4.0 to SEPTA already committed to this project, (2) does the auspices of the Trails Act after the in 1996, so that NS now retains not result in the commitment of any substantive amount of railroad time to the abandonment is consummated. See ownership only of the line from Hayfield N. R. Co. v. Chicago & North Milepost 0.0 to Milepost 1.5 and from project, (3) does not result in any additional liability for the railroad, (4) does not result Western Transp. Co., 467 U.S. 622, 633– Milepost 4.0 to Milepost 33.9. As the in any continuing responsibility to the 34 (1984) (Hayfield Northern) (following court stated in FAST, ‘‘[i]f, on remand, project by the railroad after it has abandonment, rail right-of-way is like the [Board] concludes that [NS] has consummated that abandonment and any other property).4 disposed of some portion of the line, the conveyed the relevant segment of the [l]ine, The Board’s procedures for [Board] will be without power to (5) completely satisfies all of the [Townships establishing interim trail use/rail expand the historical condition to cover of West Sadsbury, Sadsbury, Eden, Bart, banking on a rail line proposed for Providence, Martic, and Conestoga that property already sold.’’ See FAST abandonment pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 252 F.3d at 262. Accordingly, this (Townships)] and [Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT)], and (6) is 1247(d) are detailed in the Board’s proceeding, pursuant to the court’s regulations at 49 CFR 1152.29 and are remand, will be applicable to the NS- acceptable to the [Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC)] in substitution for its separate from the section 106 process. owned portions of the line from previous order. Parties interested in pursuing interim Mileposts 0.0 to 1.5 and Mileposts 4.0 NS also has indicated that it will trail use under the Trails Act for this to 33.9. proceeding would have to follow the NS suggests that this proceeding does honor the settlement agreements entered Board’s regulations to do so. Although not apply to the line between into by Conrail and approved by PUC. trail use requests are normally due approximately Mileposts 0.0 and 1.5, Specifically, Conrail entered into an within 10 days after the date on which and between Mileposts 27.0 and 33.9 agreement with the Townships under the notice of exemption is published in because NS intends to retain that which it would convey segments of the portion of the Enola Branch as abandoned line to the respective the Federal Register for notice of industrial track. However, NS never Township through which each segment exemption abandonment proceedings, sought to dismiss its request for passed; the Townships would assume the Board generally accepts late-filed authority to abandon that track, and, future ownership and maintenance requests for interim trail use as long as under the court’s remand, this responsibility for the line and the it retains jurisdiction over the subject proceeding includes that track. crossing structures; Conrail would rail line in a particular proceeding. contribute an agreed sum of money to However, interim trail use under 16 C. The Possibility of Trail Use Here the Townships for the future U.S.C. 1247(d) is voluntary on the part Comment. Friends of the Atglen- maintenance of the crossing structures of both the railroad and the potential Susquehanna Trail, Inc. (FAST), the that are to remain in place; and certain trail sponsor,5 and the Board cannot Pennsylvania Department of other crossing structures deemed to impose an interim trail use arrangement Conservation and Natural Resources constitute serious highway safety upon unwilling parties. Thus, while it is (DCNR),2 the County of Chester, the hazards would be removed by either possible that interim trail use under the Historic Preservation Trust of Lancaster Conrail or a specified Township. Trails Act could occur in this case on County, and certain individuals Conrail entered into a similar settlement commented that interim trail use/rail agreement with PennDOT. See PUC 4 Just as with interim trail use under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) there presumably would be no adverse banking would be appropriate here, Docket Nos. A–00111016 and C– effect on historic properties under a private trail which, if an agreement could be entered 00913256, Board of Supervisors of Bart arrangement that would preserve the contributing into, would result in preservation on Township v. Consolidated Rail resources on the rail line right-of-way and the need any railbanked portions of the right-of- Corporation, Pennsylvania Department to continue with the mitigation phase of the NHPA way for the duration of the interim trail process could be mooted. of Transportation, and Lancaster 5 A railroad is under no obligation either to County, et al., October 9, 1997. NS has negotiate concerning or enter into an interim trail 1 The October 2002 Notice incorrectly described indicated that any agreement with a use/rail banking arrangement. See 49 CFR the line as extending from Milepost 0.0 to Milepost potential trail sponsor to use the right- 1152.29(b)(1); Connecticut Trust for Historic 27.0. Preservation v. ICC, 841 F.2d 479, 482–483 (2d Cir. 2 DCNR stated that the Lancaster County of-way as a trail would have to be 1988); National Wildlife Fed’n v. ICC, 850 F.2d 694, Commissioners have expressed interest in 696 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Washington State Dep’t of sponsoring a rail-to-trail project. 3 See NS Reply Comments at 47. Game v. ICC, 829 F.2d 877, 879–82 (9th Cir. 1987).

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:11 Oct 17, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 59990 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2003 / Notices

the portion of the line that NS still owns Southern End Community Association Comment. FAST commented that a and controls 6—if a potential trail have requested to be granted official current analysis of the historic and sponsor files an interim trail use/rail consulting party status. SEA agrees that archeological resources, and a new banking request in accordance with 49 these six parties should be consulting environmental study of the CFR 1152.29 during this remanded parties, and, based on the history of this environmental and physical proceeding, NS agrees to negotiate with proceeding, has also included FAST and characteristics of the line should be the potential trail sponsor, and the the Townships as official consulting performed. FAST also recommended parties ultimately enter into a Trails Act parties for this section 106 process. All that a title search be undertaken and arrangement—it would be inappropriate of these parties will be invited to concur that the assessment of adverse effects for the Board to force the parties to on the terms of the final MOA. should be extended to a continuation of negotiate or to include a trail use Furthermore, SEA has added the the line in Cumberland and York condition as part of the section 106 names of all additional parties Counties. mitigation measures for this identified by commenters to the service Response. Because SEA is considering proceeding.7 list for this proceeding,8 and has the entire line to be historic, including updated the names of the elected all sites and structures on the line, D. Summary of Other Comments and officials on the service list. The service conducting a survey of all the SEA’s Response list now stands at 211 parties.9 SEA archeological and historic resources on Assuming that there is no agreement believes that its efforts to identify the line before developing mitigation for trail use and that the mitigation consulting parties have been extensive. measures is unnecessary. However, a phase of the section 106 process goes All official consulting parties as well SEA staff member has driven by forward for the NS-owned portions of as all parties on the service list will portions of the right-of-way and the line from Mileposts 0.0 to 1.5 and receive a copy of the attached proposed inspected the current physical condition Mileposts 4.0 to 33.9, this section draft MOA, an opportunity to provide of the line. As stated in the October discusses the comments and responses written comments on the proposed draft 2002 Notice, the tracks and ties have received regarding section 106. MOA, and information on how to mostly been removed, and though there 1. Identification of additional participate in a planned public meeting. is some overgrowth of vegetation in the consulting parties to the section 106 Opportunities for public involvement area, the right-of-way on NS’s line process. Comment. FAST commented are discussed in more detail below in appears to be intact.10 Additionally, that SEA needs to make a greater effort Section II. because the tracks and ties have already to identify as many consulting parties as 2. Any need for further assessment of been removed from much of the right- possible, and should include local adverse effects on the line. of-way, there is little chance that the community groups in the consultation Comment. PennDOT submitted abandonment will affect previously process. FAST and other commenters comments stating that if any of the undisturbed ground or impact requested that certain specific parties be bridges on the line are individually archeological sites.11 However, after included as consulting parties to the eligible for inclusion in the National completion of the section 106 process proceeding. Register of Historic Places (National and the conclusion of the abandonment Response. Prior to issuing the October Register), then the effects of the proceeding before the Board, NS would 2002 Notice and pursuant to the ACHP’s proposed abandonment on the be able to remove the structures on the regulations for implementing the section individually eligible bridges should be line and any remaining track and ties, 106 process, 36 CFR 800.3(f), SEA determined and taken into which could disturb previously consulted with the SHPO to identify consideration when developing undisturbed ground. As discussed in possible consulting parties. SEA also appropriate mitigation. more detail in Section III, the proposed conducted internet searches, contacted Response. As stated above and in the draft MOA contains provisions for local government entities, and obtained October 2002 Notice at 4–6, the Keeper protecting any potential archeological updated addresses for parties that had has determined that the entire line is resources from unforeseen impacts. been interested in earlier stages of the historic, including all sites and In accordance with the National case. The Board then served the October structures on the line. Therefore, SEA Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 2002 Notice on 149 parties, placed the will treat the entire line as historic in Board issued an Environmental October 2002 Notice on the Board’s Web accordance with the Keeper’s Assessment for this proceeding in 1989. site, and published the October 2002 determination and the ACHP According to the Council on Notice in the Federal Register, regulations. Separate review of the Environmental Quality’s regulations for requesting comments and information bridges on the line is unnecessary implementing the procedural provisions on the identification of additional because all bridges on the line will be of NEPA, environmental analyses consulting parties. The Historic treated as historic. should be supplemented if ‘‘[t]here are Preservation Trust of Lancaster County, significant new circumstances or Lancaster County Conservancy, 8 SEA was unable to locate the addresses of information relevant to environmental Lancaster Farmland Trust, the Northeast several of the additional organizations submitted by concerns and bearing on the proposed Regional Field Office of the Rails-to- FAST. These organizations are: Town and Country Garden Club, Christiana Lions Club, Lancaster action or its impacts.’’ 40 CFR 1502.9(c). Trails Conservancy, PennDOT, and County Wildlife Center, the Lancaster The NEPA review of this proceeding Environmental Alliance, Octoraro Area Trail was completed long ago. No party has 6 See discussion above on pages 2–3. Society, Penn Manor Neighborhood of Girl Scouts, submitted any evidence indicating new 7 NS has indicated that although it might agree to and a high school track and cross country club. a proposal to use this right-of-way as a trail under 9 The 51 potential consulting parties identified in the circumstances discussed above, it does not the October 2002 Notice were primarily group 10 In its reply comments, NS explains that believe that issuance of a trail condition by the entities or organizations. For some of these parties, portions of the line have been retained by NS and Board (a notice of interim trail use or NITU) would multiple names were acquired and added to the are still being used for industrial track use. be appropriate here. If NS continues to take this service list for this proceeding. Therefore, the total 11 NS has stated that it plans to remove a limited position, any trail use would have to be by private number of 211 parties includes multiple number of structures on the line, and that ‘‘little arrangement of the parties following consummation individuals affiliated with the same organization, as land will be disturbed by the removal of these of the abandonment and conclusion of the section well as individuals unaffiliated with any structures which are mainly above ground.’’ See NS 106 process. organization. Reply Comments at 61.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:11 Oct 17, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2003 / Notices 59991

circumstances or information that measures, as well as information Pennsylvania state standards 13 using would warrant the undertaking of a regarding the current condition of the representative structures on the Enola supplemental environmental analysis at rail line. As stated in the October 2002 Branch is sufficient and that, given the this late date. Furthermore, the court in Notice at 3, the earlier proposed draft mitigation that NS has already FAST only remanded this proceeding to MOA would have provided for undertaken, a more comprehensive the Board to deal with procedural photographic documentation of certain history of the line need not be matters related to the historic review bridges, and the development of a prepared.14 process under section 106. Therefore, public, interpretative display in the 4. Methods or outlets for publicizing SEA need not reconsider the adequacy form of a 6–8 minute video outlining the a proposed MOA. Comment. of its NEPA review here. history of the Enola Branch. Commenters recommend widespread SEA does not believe that a title notification and public participation in Comment. NS commented that it has search need be undertaken as part of the the section 106 process, including press section 106 process. The Board cannot complied with the terms of the earlier releases and public meetings. compel post-abandonment use of a rail proposed draft MOA. NS states that the Response. To ensure widespread line for non-transportation purposes. five bridges that the PUC has ordered to notice and opportunity for public See Hayfield Northern. Therefore, the be removed for safety reasons have been participation the Board placed all ownership of the property after an recorded to state standards, and that NS comments received in response to the abandonment is consummated is not has paid $15,437 to the Pennsylvania October 2002 Notice on the Board’s Web affected by the Board’s action and not Railroad Museum to develop a video site, and informed all interested parties part of the Board’s section 106 review. and exhibit of the rail line. NS states of the availability of the comments on The Board cannot extend the that the settlement agreement between the Web site. SEA is sending this assessment of adverse effects to areas in Conrail and the Townships should also current Notice to the Parties (October Cumberland and York Counties that are be considered a mitigation measure. 2003 Notice) to all 211 parties on the not on the line because this proceeding Comment. PennDOT states that service list for this proceeding, as well is necessarily limited to the rail line mitigation should provide for as publishing the October 2003 Notice proposed for abandonment. See documenting a sampling of the bridges in the Federal Register and posting it on Implementation of Environmental Laws, rather than all of the bridges on the line. the Board’s Web site. The Board has also 7 I.C.C.2d 807, 828–29 (1991).12 PennDOT also suggests that additional issued a press release describing the 3. Appropriate section 106 mitigation outreach and preservation should be contents of the October 2003 Notice. measures. As stated in the October 2002 conducted, such as publishing a more As discussed in more detail below, Notice at 6–7, the Board’s ability to comprehensive history of the line and SEA will accept written comments on protect historic properties is very providing money to municipalities to the attached proposed draft MOA, and limited. Essentially, documentation of take over the maintenance of as many will also hold a public meeting before the historic resources (taking bridges as possible. the close of the comment period to photographs or preparing a history) enable interested parties to provide oral before they are altered or removed is the Response. As discussed in more detail comments. As a result, there will be only form of nonconsensual mitigation in Section III and the proposed draft ample opportunity for public that the Board can require. The Board MOA, the Board, the SHPO, and NS will participation and broad notice of the does not have the power to force a work together to develop a list of continuing section 106 process here. railroad to sell (or donate) its property, appropriate representative structures to Comment. PennDOT states that public or impose a restrictive covenant upon be documented. Documentation of these input is required while developing the the railroad’s transfer of its property, as representative structures will serve to proposed draft MOA and before a condition to obtaining abandonment document the historic nature of the line deciding how to resolve adverse effects authority. Any attempt to either as a whole. Moreover, NS will be of the undertaking, rather than after the preclude or force a railroad to sell (or required to conduct archival research proposed draft MOA is developed. donate) property for a non-rail purpose, and to consolidate all information— PennDOT also states that the Board as a condition to obtaining documentation and the results of the should provide the documentation abandonment authority, would plainly archival research—into one cohesive regarding the section 106 process to the constitute an unauthorized taking under document to be archived at the SHPO’s public in the manner set forth in 36 CFR the Fifth Amendment. See office. The mitigation in the proposed 800.11(e). Implementation of Environmental Laws, draft MOA constitutes a marked change Response. The October 2002 Notice 7 I.C.C.2d at 828–29, and cases cited from the first proposed draft MOA, provided members of the public with therein. which treated only six bridges as the opportunity to comment on all The October 2002 Notice requested historic, not the line as a whole, and did aspects of this proceeding, including comment on appropriate historic not require archival research. As stated ways to mitigate adverse effects. All preservation mitigation measures, above, NS’s settlement agreements with comments received were placed on the including comments on the measures the Townships and with PennDOT Board’s Web site, and the proposed draft specified in a proposed draft MOA for provide for local maintenance of MOA is also being distributed for public this line developed earlier, and structures that would remain intact. comment and placed on the Board’s suggestions for additional or alternative However, because the Board’s ability to Web site. Moreover, as discussed in impose mitigation for the protection of 12 The Enola Branch rail line is part of a larger historic resources is limited, such 13 Pennsylvania state standards are outlined in rail corridor that extends into Cumberland and agreements, if any, must be entered into the guidance document titled ‘‘How To Complete Dauphin Counties. Although the proceeding before the Pennsylvania Historic Resource Survey Form,’’ the Board and this section 106 process pertains only voluntarily and are not within the scope available from the SHPO, and require the to the right-of-way described above in Section II(B), of this section 106 process. As discussed submission of a photo/site plan sheet, a data sheet, it should be noted that the SHPO has determined in Section III below, SEA believes that and a narrative sheet. 14 that the portions of the rail corridor in Cumberland the archival research discussed above As indicated above, NS has already paid to the and Dauphin Counties are eligible for listing in the Museum $15,437 to fund an National Register. and documentation of the line to exhibit or video of the history of the Enola Branch.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:11 Oct 17, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 59992 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2003 / Notices

detail below, SEA will host a public Amtrak’s bridge, for use as the Parkesburg and in all other rail line abandonment meeting to receive additional public Industrial Track. Conrail sold the Line proceedings.16 input on this proceeding in Quarryville, between Milepost 1.5 at Lenover, PA and Response. It is well settled that Milepost 4.0 near the Lancaster County/ section 106 of NHPA applies to all rail Pennsylvania on November 19, 2003. Chester County Line to SEPTA. [NS] intends Thus, SEA believes that ample to honor the Settlement Agreements with line abandonment proceedings. See opportunity has been provided to the PennDOT and the Townships pertaining to Implementation of Environmental Laws, public to participate in the section 106 disposition of the Line between Milepost 4.0 7 I.C.C.2d at 826; Illinois Commerce process here. near the county line and Milepost 27.0 near Comm’n v. ICC, 848 F.2d 1246, 1260–61 Section 800.11(e) of 36 CFR outlines Safe Harbor, PA to the Townships and with (D.C. Cir. 1988) cert. denied, 488 U.S. the documentation that must be made respect to the bridges to be removed. [NS] 1004 (1989). Indeed, in FAST, the court available to the public when an agency intends to retain possession of the property specifically found that rail between Milepost 27.0 near Safe Harbor, PA determines that an action will have an abandonment proceedings, including and Milepost 33.9 at Port, PA in connection this particular notice of exemption adverse effect on historic properties. with its operation of, and in order to protect, SEA believes that all of the required the Port Road Branch. It may retain or place proceeding, were subject to section 106. documentation already has been excepted track on all or a portion of this Line. See 252 F.3d at 251. An undertaking for prepared and made publicly available.15 the purposes of NHPA clearly includes Comment. FAST states that the PUC actions that require Federal approval, 5. Other concerns. order approving the settlement Comment. Several parties commented not simply those that are federally agreement with the Townships conflicts funded. The ACHP’s regulations that they are concerned about public with the section 106 process because the safety at the road crossings along the implementing NHPA define an order does not include mitigation, does undertaking covered by NHPA as right-of-way of the line, and advocated not incorporate the viewpoints of all the bringing the section 106 process to a embracing ‘‘a project, activity, or consulting parties, and was formulated program * * * requiring a Federal close as soon as possible. Commenters prior to the issuance of the Keeper’s also state that the PUC issued an order permit, license or approval.’’ See 36 determination and the court’s decision. CFR 800.16(y). A railroad must obtain addressing existing safety issues, which FAST states that NS should has been stayed pending the outcome of Board authority under 49 U.S.C. 10903 acknowledge that the order may need to or 49 U.S.C. 10502 to abandon a this section 106 process. be modified or vacated depending on Response. SEA acknowledges the common carrier line of railroad such as the outcome of the section 106 process. the Enola Branch. Moreover, use of a public safety concerns expressed by the Response. The requirements of NHPA class exemption for an abandonment commenters. SEA is working to and the ACHP’s regulations apply to the can be revoked for a particular line, complete the section 106 process as abandonment action pending before the when the STB finds that regulation is expeditiously as possible, pursuant to Board. Post-abandonment use of the necessary to carry out the national rail the relevant regulations and procedures. line’s right-of-way is outside of the transportation policy. 49 U.S.C. Comment. FAST states that NS’s Board’s jurisdiction. The settlement 10502(d). Thus, section 106 applies to plans regarding the line should be made agreement is thus outside the Board’s notice of exemption abandonment known. abandonment process, including section Response. In its reply comments at 50, proceedings such as this abandonment. 106. Comment. FAST states that the NS directly responded to FAST’s Comment. NS argues that the section comments provided by the SHPO and request to detail its plans regarding the 106 process does not apply to rail line the ACHP on the October 2002 Notice line. SEA has made all comments abandonment proceedings, because rail prior to its issuance should be made received to date, including NS’s reply abandonment proceedings and the comments, available to all on the public. railroad’s post-abandonment activities Response. The October 2002 Notice Board’s Web site. NS’s response is as are not Federal undertakings for the follows: incorporated the comments that the purposes of section 106 review, as SHPO and the ACHP provided. The [NS] now intends to retain that portion of the specified at 16 U.S.C. 470w(7). NS written comments provided by the Line between Milepost 0.0 at Parkesburg, PA argues that a project must be Federally SHPO and the ACHP prior to the and Milepost 1.5 at Lenover, PA, except for funded in whole or in part to be issuance of the October 2002 Notice considered a Federal undertaking, and have been placed in the public docket 15 Section 800.11(e) states that documentation of notes that in notice of exemption for this proceeding and thus are a finding of adverse effect ‘‘shall include: (1) A proceedings, such as this abandonment, description of the undertaking specifying the available to the public. Federal involvement, and its area of potential Federal funding is not involved. effects, including photographs, maps, and drawings, Furthermore, according to NS, in II. Next Steps in the Section 106 Process as necessary; (2) A description of the steps taken to notices filed pursuant to a class A. Public Meeting identify historic properties; (3) A description of the exemption, the Board’s responsibilities affected historic properties, including information The Board will hold a public meeting on the characteristics that qualify them for the are ministerial in nature, because the National Register; (4) A description of the exercise of the class exemption must be to solicit oral comments on this case undertaking’s effects on historic properties; (5) An allowed so long as the statutory and and the attached proposed draft MOA. explanation of why the criteria of adverse effect regulatory criteria are met. NS also The meeting will be held at the Hoffman were found applicable or inapplicable, including Building, located at the Solanco Fair any conditions or future actions to avoid, minimize states that the Board’s jurisdiction over or mitigate adverse effects; and (6) Copies or a rail line ceases as soon as an Ground in Quarryville, PA, on summaries of any views provided by consulting abandonment is consummated, and that parties and the public.’’ Here, the October 2002 16 NS has subsequently indicated that because Notice described the undertaking, specified the area the Board cannot control a railroad’s this argument was raised in comments to the of potential effects, described the steps taken to post-abandonment activities regarding October 2002 Notice rather than a formal motion identify historic properties, described the the rail line, which is private property. before the Board, it is not requesting a response determination of eligibility of the line for inclusion Therefore, NS argues, the section 106 from the Board on this matter at this time. SEA’s on the National Register, and discussed the finding response is provided here to clarify SEA’s position of adverse effect. As discussed above, all comments process causes unnecessary delay, and on the section 106 process for this proceeding, and received in response to the October 2002 Notice the Board should discontinue the should not be construed as a formal Board response have been made publicly available. section 106 process in this proceeding to NS’s argument.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:11 Oct 17, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2003 / Notices 59993

November 19, 2003 from 3 p.m. to 5 the proposed draft MOA are limited to By the Board, Victoria Rutson, Chief, p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. SEA will documentation. Section of Environmental Analysis. Vernon A. Williams, give a brief presentation and interested The SHPO, NS, and SEA are currently parties may submit written comments or working together to develop a list of Secretary. make oral comments. SEA will have a representative structures on the line. Attachment to STB Docket No. AB–167 (Sub- court reporter available at each session Documentation of these structures will No. 1095X) Notice to the Parties— to ensure that oral comments are serve to document the historic qualities Memorandum of Agreement Among the accurately captured. Both the afternoon Surface Transportation Board and the and evening sessions will follow the of the line as a whole. The first Advisory Council on Historic Preservation same format and utilize the same stipulation of the draft MOA contains a and the Pennsylvania Historical and agenda; it is not necessary to attend both provision requiring the list of Museum Commission and Norfolk Southern sessions. representative structures to be Railway Company Regarding Docket No. Persons wanting to speak at the public completed prior to the commencement AB–167 (Sub-No. 1095X) Consolidated Rail meeting are strongly urged to pre- of any documentation efforts. The first Corporation—Abandonment Exemption— register by calling (202) 565–1643 and Lancaster and Chester Counties, stipulation also requires NS to Pennsylvania providing their name, telephone document the NS-controlled portion of number, the name of any group, Whereas, in 1989 Consolidated Rail the rail line by documenting appropriate Corporation (Conrail) filed a notice of business, or agency they are representative sites and structures on exemption with the Interstate Commerce representing, if applicable, and whether the line, to Pennsylvania state Commission (ICC) 1 pursuant to 49 CFR they wish to speak at the afternoon or standards, as described in footnote 13. 1152.50 seeking an exemption from the evening session. The deadline for pre- SEA believes that documentation to requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon registration is November 7, 2003. Pennsylvania state standards is a segment of a line of railroad commonly known as the Enola Branch. The Enola Persons will be called to speak in the appropriate in this proceeding. order in which they pre-registered. Branch extends generally westward from Previously, the SHPO, Conrail, and the Those wishing to speak but that did not Milepost 0.0 in Parkesburg, Chester County, Board had all agreed that PA to Milepost 33.9 at Port in Lancaster pre-register will be accommodated at County, PA.2 The Enola Branch passes each session as time allows. Those documentation to Pennsylvania state standards was the appropriate level of through the Townships of Sadsbury, Bart, wishing to speak at both the afternoon Eden, Providence, Martic, Conestoga, and and evening sessions will also be documentation when formulating the Manor, and the Borough of Quarryville in accommodated as time allows and after previous proposed draft MOA for this Lancaster County, and the Township of West all others have had an opportunity to proceeding, and SEA has received no Sadsbury, the Borough of Atglen, and the participate in the evening session. As new information to indicate that the City of Parkesburg in Chester County; SEA desires for as many persons as level of documentation should now be Whereas, the portions of the Enola Branch different. In addition, the stipulation that are the subject of this Memorandum of possible to participate and given that Agreement are the portions between there will be a limited amount of time, requires NS to conduct archival research Mileposts 0.0 to 1.5 and between Mileposts all speakers are strongly encouraged to and to consolidate all information— 4.0 to 33.9.3 prepare summary oral comments, and documentation and the results of the Whereas, the ICC issued a decision served submit detailed comments in writing. archival research—into one cohesive February 22, 1990 allowing the abandonment SEA also encourages groups of document to be archived at the SHPO’s subject to a condition, developed as a result individuals with similar comments to office. of consultation with the Pennsylvania State designate a representative to speak for Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), that Although the tracks and ties have Conrail take no steps to alter the historic them. already been removed from most of the integrity of the bridges—the only properties B. Final Memorandum of Agreement right-of-way, the proposed draft MOA on the Enola Branch that had been identified also sets forth provisions for the After the close of the 45-day comment 1 The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104– period on the attached proposed draft protection of unexpected discoveries of 88, abolished the ICC and transferred certain rail MOA, SEA will review all written historic resources, including functions, including the rail line abandonment comments, as well as any oral archeological resources, in the event functions at issue in this case, to the Surface that documentation efforts identify a Transportation Board (Board), effective January 1, comments received at the public 1996. meeting. If trail use is unsuccessful, potential for unanticipated effects on 2 Conrail described the Enola Branch in its 1989 SEA will then prepare a final MOA. archeological sites or in the event that notice of exemption filing as two parallel tracks of one or more archeological sites, any a double tracked line. Track number 1 extended III. Description of the Proposed Draft 32.6 miles from Milepost 1.1 in Parkesburg to Memorandum of Agreement additional cultural resources, or human Milepost 33.7 in Manor Township. Track number remains are discovered during any 2 extended 33.9 miles from Milepost 0.0 in Based on the comments received in remaining salvage activities associated Parkesburg to Milepost 33.9 in Manor Township. the October 2002 Notice and in with the abandonment. 3 Conrail sold the portion of the Enola Branch consultation with the ACHP, the SHPO, from Milepost 1.5 to Milepost 4.0 to the and NS, SEA has developed a proposed Date made available to the public: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation October 20, 2003. Authority in 1996. On June 23, 1997, Norfolk draft MOA for this proceeding, Southern Railway Company (NS) and CSX assuming that no agreement for trail use Transportation Inc. sought permission from the is reached. The proposed draft MOA Board to acquire Conrail and to divide its assets briefly summarizes the background of between them. On July 23, 1998, the Board approved the Conrail Acquisition. CSX Corp., et this proceeding and then sets forth al.—Control—Conrail Inc., et al., 3 S.T.B 196 several stipulations. As discussed (1998). The Enola Branch property was allocated to above, because imposition of any Pennsylvania Line LLC, a subsidiary of Conrail, as nonconsensual mitigation other than part of the Conrail Acquisition transaction. NS operates the Pennsylvania Line LLC allocated assets documentation would be an under an operating agreement approved by the unauthorized taking under the Fifth Board. This Memorandum of Agreement pertains to Amendment, the mitigation measures in the NS-controlled portions of the Enola Branch.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:11 Oct 17, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 59994 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2003 / Notices

as potentially eligible for inclusion on the comments, SEA has determined that the the rail line; and (4) photographs of the National Register of Historic Places (National abandonment at issue here would adversely representative structures; Register)—until completion of the section affect the Enola Branch; B. a Data Sheet, which will describe the 106 process of the National Historic Whereas, NS already has paid to the rail line, its historic function and current use, Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470f; Pennsylvania Railroad Museum $15,437 to the representative structures, including, Whereas, the purpose of the condition was fund an exhibit or video of the history of the relevant historical and descriptive to allow the ICC to work with consulting Enola Branch; information such as the architectural parties to develop a plan to avoid, minimize, Whereas, based on consultation with the classification, composition of the exterior or mitigate any adverse effects of the ACHP, the SHPO, NS, and on all of the materials, classification of the structural abandonment on the bridges. The comments received from interested and system, width, depth and height development of a mitigation plan was held in official consulting parties, SEA has devised measurements, dates of construction and abeyance, however, pending negotiations to additional measures to mitigate the adverse known significant changes or rebuilding, transfer the Enola Branch for interim trail effects on the Enola Branch that would be proposed disposition of the structures after use/rail banking under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) caused by the abandonment; abandonment, and, to the extent relevant (Trails Act) or other public use under former Now Therefore, the Board, the ACHP, the information exists in railroad or local 49 U.S.C. 10906 (now 49 U.S.C. 10905). SHPO, and NS agree that the consummation libraries, museums or archives, cultural When those negotiations proved of the abandonment of the Enola Branch shall affiliations, associated individuals or events, unsuccessful,4 the agency resumed the NHPA be subject to the following stipulations to and names of builders or craftsmen who process; take into account and to mitigate the effect constructed the rail line; Whereas, while the Board’s Section of of the abandonment on historic properties. C. a Narrative Sheet, which will include a Environmental Analysis (SEA) was working physical description (a brief description of Stipulations through the steps of the NHPA process, the current and historic physical appearance Friends of the Atglen-Susquehanna Trail, Inc. The Board shall ensure that the following and condition of the rail line segments and (FAST) filed a petition with the Board to measures are carried out. The Board may all associated structures) and a historical reopen the proceeding and broaden the direct NS (and its contractor) to assist in narrative (a summary of the history and NHPA condition so that it would apply to the fulfilling these stipulations or may use an significance of the property); entire Enola Branch; independent third party contractor, working In addition to the requirements of the Whereas, the Board denied FAST’s request under SEA’s supervision, direction and Pennsylvania state recordation standards, the in a decision served October 2, 1997, and control, and at NS’s expense, to assist in document shall also include: FAST filed a petition for reconsideration; fulfilling these stipulations. A. a written report describing the methods Whereas, the Board, in a decision served I. Additional Documentation Requirements and results of the archival research; and August 13, 1999, believing that the only part B. copies of any relevant historical of the NHPA process that remained open was NS shall retain a professional historian to documents found pursuant to the archival the development of mitigation for the bridges prepare documentation and to conduct research, as well as any available maps of the determined to be historic, denied FAST’s archival research of the history of the Enola rail line and local area. The Board’s FPO, the petition for reconsideration of the 1997 Branch rail line (to include the segments of ACHP, and the SHPO shall have 30 days to decision and FAST then sought judicial the Enola Branch from Milepost 0.0 to review and comment on the draft document. review; Milepost 1.5 and Milepost 4.0 to Milepost At the end of the 30 day period, NS shall Whereas, in Friends of the Atglen- 33.9 and appropriate representative prepare a final version of the document, Susquehanna Trail, Inc. v. Surface structures). The documentation shall be taking into consideration any comments Transportation Bd., 252 F.3d 246 (3rd Cir. completed in accordance with the relevant received, and submit the final document to 2001), the United States Court of Appeals for state standards as specified by the SHPO and the Board, the ACHP, and the SHPO. NS the Third Circuit vacated the Board’s 1997 outlined in the guidance document titled shall also submit two (2) additional copies of and 1999 decisions and remanded the case ‘‘How To Complete The Pennsylvania the final document to the SHPO to be back to the Board, ruling that the Board had Historic Resource Survey Form.’’ The archived at the SHPO’s office. failed to comply fully with the procedural historian also shall prepare a written report requirements of the NHPA; discussing the methods and results of the II. Dispute Resolution Whereas, SEA has reinitiated the section archival research.5 Prior to the Disagreement and misunderstanding about 106 historic review process pursuant to the commencement of documentation efforts, the how this Memorandum of Agreement is or is court’s remand and the procedural provisions Board, the SHPO, and NS shall work together not being implemented shall be resolved in of the NHPA; to develop a list of representative structures the following manner: Whereas, SEA has consulted with the on the Enola Branch. Documentation of these A. If the SHPO or NS should object in Advisory Council on Historic Preservation structures shall serve to document the writing to the Board’s FPO regarding any (ACHP), the SHPO, and NS, and in two historic qualities of the line as a whole. action carried out or proposed with respect separate Notices to the Parties and a public Upon completion of the documentation to the undertaking or implementation of this meeting solicited comments from consulting and archival research, NS shall consolidate Memorandum of Agreement, then the Board’s parties and the public regarding the all information into one cohesive document FPO shall consult with the objecting party to possibility of using the portions of the Enola and submit the document to the Board’s resolve this objection. If after such Branch that are the subject of this Federal Preservation Officer (FPO) (the Chief consultation the Board’s FPO determines that Memorandum of Agreement for interim trail of SEA), the ACHP, and the SHPO for review. the objection cannot be resolved through use/rail banking, and assuming that trail use As provided in Pennsylvania state consultation, then the Board’s FPO shall is unsuccessful, completion of the mitigation standards, this document shall include: forward all documentation relevant to the phase of the section 106 process; A. a Photo/Site Plan Sheet, which will objection to the ACHP, including the Board’s Whereas, based on the Keeper of the contain: (1) Historic name of the property; (2) proposed response to the objection. Within National Register’s 1999 finding that the county; (3) non-color coded sketch maps or 45 days after receipt of all pertinent entire Enola Branch is eligible for inclusion other non-color maps showing the location of documentation, the ACHP shall exercise one in the National Register, and in consultation of the following options: with the ACHP and the SHPO, SEA has 5 Archival research that is conducted from 1. Provide the Board with a staff-level determined that the entire Enola Branch is information or records supplied by or available at recommendation; or eligible for inclusion in the National Register; the railroad, the Pennsylvania Historical and 2. Notify the Board that the objection will Whereas, based on consultation with the Museum Commission, the Pennsylvania State be referred for formal comment pursuant to Archives, the Lancaster County Historical Society, 36 CFR 800, and proceed to refer the ACHP and the SHPO and the public the Southern Lancaster Historical Society, the Chester County Historical Society, the Railroad objection and comment. 4 The ICC terminated the trail use negotiation Museum of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania B. The Board shall take into account any condition with respect to the Enola Branch in a Railroad Technical and Historical Society (as ACHP comment or recommendations in decision served April 19, 1993. available) shall satisfy this requirement. reaching a final decision regarding its

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:11 Oct 17, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 202 / Monday, October 20, 2003 / Notices 59995

response to an objection. The Board’s CFR 800 with regard to the review of the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY responsibility to carry out all actions under undertaking. the Memorandum of Agreement that are not Internal Revenue Service the subjects of the objection shall remain VI. Scope of Agreement unchanged. This Memorandum of Agreement is limited [IA–54–90] in scope to the abandonment of the portions III. Post Review Discovery Proposed Collection; Comment of Enola Branch from Milepost 0.0 to 1.5 and Request for Regulation Project In the event that the professional historian Milepost 4.0 to 33.9 and is entered into solely identifies a potential for unanticipated effects for that purpose. Execution and on archeological sites during the AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), implementation of this Memorandum of implementation of this Memorandum of Treasury. Agreement, NS shall notify the Board’s FPO. Agreement by the Board, the ACHP, the ACTION: Notice and request for The Board’s FPO shall then consult with the SHPO, and NS evidences that the Board has comments. SHPO to determine whether additional afforded the ACHP an opportunity to mitigation measures are necessary. If the comment on the project and its effects on SUMMARY: The Department of the Board’s FPO and the SHPO determine that historic properties, and has taken into Treasury, as part of its continuing effort additional mitigation measures are required, account the effects of the undertaking on to reduce paperwork and respondent all signatories shall consult to devise those properties, and has, therefore, satisfied burden, invites the general public and appropriate mitigation measures and amend its section 106 responsibilities for this other Federal agencies to take this the Memorandum of Agreement, pursuant to undertaking. opportunity to comment on proposed Part IV of this Memorandum of Agreement. and/or continuing information In the event that one or more archeological Signatories collections, as required by the sites, any additional cultural resources, or lllllllllllllllllllll Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, human remains are discovered during NS’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation salvage activities, NS shall immediately cease Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. all work and notify the Board’s FPO. The lllllllllllllllllllll 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is Board’s FPO shall then consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer soliciting comments concerning an SHPO to determine whether additional Pennsylvania Historical and Museum existing final regulation, IA–54–90 (TD mitigation measures are necessary. If the Commission, Bureau for Historic 8459), Settlement Funds (§§ 1.468B–1, Board’s FPO and the SHPO determine that Preservation 1.468B–2, 1.468B–3, and 1.468B–5). additional mitigation measures are required, lllllllllllllllllllll all signatories shall consult to devise DATES: Written comments should be Surface Transportation Board appropriate mitigation measures and amend received on or before December 19, 2003 the Memorandum of Agreement, pursuant to lllllllllllllllllllll to be assured of consideration. Part IV of this Memorandum of Agreement. Norfolk Southern Railway Company ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments Any additional mitigation developed shall Concurring Parties to R. Joseph Durbala, Internal Revenue be consistent with the provisions of the Service, room 6411, 1111 Constitution Pennsylvania Historic & Museum lllllllllllllllllllll Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Commission’s Policy on the Treatment of Friends of the Atglen-Susquehanna Trail FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Human Remains adopted March 10, 1993, the lllllllllllllllllllll Native American Graves Protection and Requests for additional information or Historic Preservation Trust of Lancaster Repatriation Act, and ACHP guidance copies of the regulation should be documents, such as the ACHP’s County directed to Larnice Mack at (202) 622– lllllllllllllllllllll Recommended Approach for Consultation on 3179, or [email protected], or Recovery of Significant Information From Lancaster County Conservancy Internal Revenue Service, room 6407, Archaeological Sites. lllllllllllllllllllll 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., IV. Amendment Lancaster Farmland Trust Washington, DC 20224. Any Signatory to this Memorandum of lllllllllllllllllllll SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agreement may request that it be amended, Northeast Regional Field Office of the Rails- Title: Settlement Funds. whereupon the parties shall consult to to-Trails Conservancy OMB Number: 1545–1299. consider the proposed amendment. 36 CFR lllllllllllllllllllll Regulation Project Number: IA–54– part 800 shall govern the execution of any Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 90. such amendment. Abstract: This regulation prescribes lllllllllllllllllllll V. Termination reporting requirements for settlement Southern End Community Association funds, which are funds established or A. If the terms of this Memorandum of lllllllllllllllllllll approved by a governmental authority Agreement have not been implemented Township of Bart within 1 year of the execution of this to resolve or satisfy certain liabilities, agreement, this Memorandum of Agreement lllllllllllllllllllll such as those involving tort or breach of shall be considered null and void, unless the Township of Conestoga contract. The regulation relates to the parties agree to a written extension. In such lllllllllllllllllllll tax treatment of transfers to these funds, an event, the Board shall notify the parties Township of Eden the taxation of income earned by the to this Memorandum of Agreement, and if NS funds, and the tax treatment of lllllllllllllllllllll chooses to continue with this undertaking, distributions made by the funds. the Board shall re-initiate review of this Township of Martic Current Actions: There is no change to undertaking in accordance with 36 CFR part lllllllllllllllllllll this existing regulation. 800. Township of Providence Type of Review: Extension of a B. Any signatory to the Memorandum of currently approved collection. Agreement may terminate it by providing lllllllllllllllllllll thirty (30) days notice to the other parties, Township of Sadsbury Affected Public: Individuals, business provided that the parties shall consult during lllllllllllllllllllll or other for-profit organizations, not for- the period prior to termination to seek Township of West Sadsbury profit institutions, farms and Federal, agreement on amendments or other actions state, local or tribal governments. that would avoid termination. In the event of [FR Doc. 03–26384 Filed 10–17–03; 8:45 am] Estimated Number of Respondents: termination, the Board shall comply with 36 BILLING CODE 4915–00–P 1,500.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:11 Oct 17, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\20OCN1.SGM 20OCN1