[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5027-5031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2663]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


United States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.; Public Comments and 
Response on Proposed Final Judgment

    Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 
(b)-(h), the United States publishes below the comments received on the 
proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 
Civil Action No. 95-1852 (RCL), United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia, together with the response of the United States 
to the comments.
    Copies of the response and the public comments are available on 
request for inspection and copying in room 215 of the U.S. Department 
of Justice, Antitrust Division, 325 7th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20530, telephone: (202) 514-2481, and for inspection at the Office of 
the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of 
Columbia, United States Courthouse, Third Street and Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Copies of these materials may be 
obtained upon request and payment of a copying fee.
Rebecca P. Dick,
Deputy Director, Office of Operations, Antitrust Division.

In The United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    In the matter of: United States of America, Plaintiff, vs. 
Greyhound Lines, Inc., Defendant. Civil Action No. 95-1852 (RCL).

United States' Response to Public Comments

    Pursuant to section 2(d) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(d), the United States files this response to public 
comments on the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this 
civil antitrust proceeding.
    This action began on September 28, 1995, when the United States 
filed a Complaint charging the defendant, Greyhound Lines, Inc., with 
violations of the antitrust laws. The Complaint alleges that a standard 
provision in Greyhound's terminal leases unreasonably restricts the 
ability of tenant bus companies to compete with Greyhound. The 
provision, known as the ``25-mile rule,'' prohibits tenants from 
selling tickets anywhere else within a 25-mile radius of the Greyhound 
terminal or from accepting the tickets of any other bus company sold in 
that area. The effect of the rule is to prevent tenant carriers from 
serving other terminals within that area and from providing service 
from non-terminal locations such as airports or college campuses. In 
addition, because it prohibits tenants from accepting the tickets of 
other carriers sold within 25 miles, the clause restricts interlining.
    Simultaneously with the filing of the Complaint, the United States 
filed a proposed Final Judgment, a Competitive Impact Statement, and a 
stipulation signed by Greyhound for entry of the proposed Final 
Judgment. The proposed Final Judgment would require Greyhound to remove 
the 25-mile rule from its terminal leases within 60 days after entry. 
In addition, the proposed Final Judgment enjoins other conduct by 
Greyhound that would have the same effect as the 25-mile rule.
    The APPA provides for a 60-day public comment period on the 
proposed Final Judgment. The 60-day comment 

[[Page 5028]]
period commenced on October 12, 1995 and expired on December 11, 1995. 
The United States received only one comment on the proposed Final 
Judgment, from Valley Transit Company, a small bus company operating 
primarily in Texas. As required by 15 U.S.C. 16(b), Valley Transit's 
comment is being filed with this response. (Exhibit A).
    Valley Transit's comment cites Greyhound tariffs that provide that 
Greyhound will not honor Valley Transit tickets sold at various Texas 
locations, in particular a new Valley Transit terminal in Austin. As a 
result of these tariffs, Valley cannot sell passengers through tickets 
on routes where Valley connects with Greyhound. For example, a 
passenger going from Austin to Laredo (Austin-San Antonio on Valley and 
San Antonio-Laredo on Greyhound) must buy a separate ticket in San 
Antonio for the second leg of the trip. Valley argues that Greyhound's 
refusal to honor its tickets makes it difficult for Valley to compete 
with Greyhound and that it is an attempt to achieve the effects of the 
25-mile rule by another means.
    The Complaint in this case alleges that the 25-mile rule is an 
unlawful agreement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because it 
unreasonably restricts the ability of tenant bus companies to operate 
outside the Greyhound terminal or interline with other carriers that 
operate outside the Greyhound terminal. The conduct at issue in this 
case involves agreements between Greyhound and its tenants that 
interfere with the tenant bus companies' ability to interline with 
other carriers.
    As a general rule, companies, even those with large market shares, 
are free to do business with whomever they chose, and are not normally 
required to do business with their competitors. The Complaint does not 
allege that a refusal by Greyhound to interline with or honor tickets 
issued by another bus company violates the antitrust laws. Indeed, the 
proposed Final Judgment explicitly states that it does not affect 
Greyhound's unilateral right to refuse to interline with another 
carrier. Section IV(C)(8). The Greyhound conduct cited by Valley 
Transit is thus outside the scope of the Complaint.
    Valley Transit also alleges that some of Greyhound's tenant bus 
companies have also refused to accept Valley tickets based on an 
agreement with Greyhound. As Valley notes, however, it appears that the 
proposed Final Judgment, which enjoins Greyhound from conditioning 
terminal access on an agreement not to honor the tickets of other 
carriers sold outside the Greyhound terminal (Section IV(B)), fully 
addresses this concern.
    The United States has carefully considered Valley Transit's 
comment. Nothing in Valley's comment has altered the United States' 
conclusion that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest. 
The proposed Final Judgment provides all the relief requested in the 
Complaint against Greyhound, without the substantial expense of a 
trial. The relief provided in the decree would eliminate the 25-mile 
rule and prevent Greyhound from achieving the same anticompetitive 
result by other means. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment is in the 
public interest.

    Dated: December 18, 1995.

        Respectfully submitted,
Michael D. Billiel,
DC Bar #394377
Michele B. Felasco,
Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 555 Fourth 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 307-6666.

December 4, 1995.
Roger W. Fones,
Chief, Transportation and Energy Section, Room 9104, 555 4th Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001

Re: United States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Case No. 1:95CV01852

    Dear Mr. Fones: In announcing the filing of the suit against 
Greyhound Lines, Inc. (``Greyhound''), the Department of Justice 
issued a press release in which it was stated that the ``25-mile 
rule limited other bus companies from competing effectively against 
Greyhound. It resulted in less bus service and less convenience for 
consumers.'' Press Release dated September 29, 1995 at 2. The 
Release further states that:
    Greyhound's 25-mile rule made it harder for bus companies to 
offer full service to other locations near Greyhound terminals, such 
as competing bus terminals, college campuses, train stations, and 
airports. It limited competition in the distribution of bus tickets 
in many cities, making it difficult for any bus tickets to be sold 
except in a Greyhound terminal.
    Finally, it made it harder for smaller bus companies to connect 
with each other to form alternative routes, in competition with 
Greyhound, in intercity bus service.
    Under the agreement, Greyhound would drop the 25-mile rule from 
all of its lease agreements and would not impose any similar rule in 
the future. The agreement also prevents Greyhound from using leasing 
in other ways to limit bus companies from selling tickets outside 
Greyhound terminals.

Emphasis added.
    It is respectfully requested that consideration be given to 
including a provision in the proposed judgment which would prevent 
Greyhound from employing tariff filings to achieve the same 
objective as the 25-mile rule in its Bus Terminal License Agreement. 
In seeking this modification, I respectfully request that you 
consider certain actions which Greyhound has taken since signing the 
consent decree which are causing the identical problems which you 
identified in your press release of September 28, 1995. If these 
activities are not covered by the consent decree, they will create a 
loophole through which one could literally drive a bus.
    On November 2, 1995, Valley Transit Company opened a new 
terminal in Austin, Texas in response to the request for service 
from small towns in southeast Texas, such as Yoakum, Shiner, 
Gonzales, Lockhart, Luling, Mendoza, Nursery, Thomaston and Cuero, 
all of which are located between Victoria and Austin. These small 
communities had recently lost all bus service when Kerrville Bus 
Lines discontinued service between those points. It should be noted 
that Greyhound did not seek to institute its own service replacing 
Kerrville Bus Lines.
    When Valley Transit decided to respond to the public need, it 
approached Greyhound and requested that Valley Transit be allowed to 
operate into Greyhound's Austin terminal, as Kerrville had done. 
Valley Transit's request was summarily denied. As a result, Valley 
Transit was forced to establish its own terminal facility in Austin. 
Recognizing that its main source of passengers would be from the 
central portion of Austin near both the University of Texas and the 
heart of the Hispanic community, Valley Transit spent a considerable 
amount of time and resources in finding such a location.
    Valley Transit also recognized that in order to make the route 
work, it would be necessary to coordinate its Austin schedules with 
its existing operations between the Rio Grande Valley and San 
Antonio. Thus, it initiated three daily schedules which link Austin 
to its existing operations via San Antonio where Valley Transit 
interlines with Greyhound and other bus companies at the Greyhound 
terminal. Valley Transit is currently operating in the Greyhound 
terminal at San Antonio pursuant to a stay order entered by the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 
September 1992. The stay order was entered pending the outcome of an 
antitrust lawsuit which Valley Transit was forced to file when 
Greyhound attempted to evict Valley Transit from the Greyhound 
terminals in Houston, San Antonio and Corpus Christi, Texas--Valley 
Transit Company, Inc. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. C.A. No. B-92-153.
    Although Greyhound had previously assured Valley Transit that it 
would not retaliate against Valley Transit for opening the Austin 
terminal, Greyhound, with no prior notice, issued a tariff on 
October 31, 1995, effective November 1, in which it announced that 
it would not honor any ticket which Valley Transit sold in Austin. 
See Attachment 1. As Greyhound explained in a letter dated November 
3, 1995, ``Greyhound will not honor at Austin, TX or San Antonio, 
TX, any Valley ticket that is issued at Austin, TX for 
transportation to points beyond Austin, TX or San Antonio, TX.'' 
Letter to Robert R. Farris from Gregory Alexander, dated November 3, 
1995 (Attachment 2).
    Subsequently, on November 21, 1995, Greyhound issued another 
tariff which is 

[[Page 5029]]
even more restrictive. See Attachment 3. As Greyhound explained in a 
further letter, ``Greyhound will not honor at Austin, TX, or San 
Antonio, TX, any Valley ticket that is issued at Austin, TX, San 
Marcos, TX, New Braunfels, TX or Seguin, TX, which provides for 
transportation to points beyond Austin, TX or San Antonio, TX. See 
Letter to Robert R. Farris from Gregory Alexander, dated November 
21, 1995 (Attachment 4). Because these letters show copies going to 
Jack Haugsland, Greyhound's Vice President of Operations, and Mark 
Southerst, Greyhound's Vice President, it is evident that these 
actions are being taken with the acquiescence of some top Greyhound 
management.
    What may not be evident is the impact that the Greyhound tariff 
provisions are having on Valley Transits' passengers who have chosen 
to travel via Valley Transit's conveniently located terminal in 
central Austin. If a passenger buys a ticket at Austin with a 
destination at Laredo, Valley Transit can take the passenger from 
Austin as far as San Antonio. Because Valley Transit does not 
operate between San Antonio and Laredo, it must interline with 
Greyhound at San Antonio. However, at San Antonio, Greyhound will 
not accept the passenger's ticket. Nor will Greyhound honor the 
ticket on the return trip from Laredo to Austin. Instead, Greyhound 
forces the passenger to purchase a new ticket at San Antonio to 
travel to Laredo and back, without regard to the passenger's ability 
to advance funds for the additional ticket until a refund can be 
obtained from Valley Transit.
    Also, if Valley Transit sells a round-trip ticket to Dallas at 
New Braunfels, the passenger will travel to Austin via Valley 
Transit. However, because Valley Transit does not operate into 
Dallas, it must interline with Greyhound at Austin. Because 
Greyhound will not allow Valley Transit access to its Austin 
terminal, Valley Transit is required to drop the passenger at 
curbside outside the Greyhound terminal. Of course, when the 
passenger enters the Greyhound terminal at Austin, Greyhound will 
not accept the Valley Transit ticket because it was issued at an 
``intermediate'' point between Austin and San Antonio.
    The message to the passenger is clear. If you deal with Valley 
Transit at Austin, you will be harassed and inconvenienced by 
Greyhound!
    This has been done even though Greyhound's existing Bus Terminal 
License Agreement with Valley Transit contains the following 
provision:
    [Greyhound] shall furnish impartial information as to the 
routes, schedules and fare charged, and impartially give out, upon 
request, such other general information as is available.
    Prospective passengers destined for competitive points on or 
beyond the lines of more than one of the carriers operating from the 
Terminal shall, when the fare, distance and time of arrival and 
departure are substantially equal, be given the option of selecting 
the schedule on which they will travel. Otherwise, tickets to 
competitive points shall be sold on the next bus out or according to 
passenger preference.
    As is obvious, Greyhound has not felt constrained by this 
language in issuing the tariff restriction against optional honoring 
of tickets sold in Valley Transit's Austin terminal.
    Furthermore, because of Greyhound's monopolistic position in the 
industry which flows from its control of the only nationwide network 
of bus terminals, these tariffs have also had an impact on other bus 
companies. Valley Transit's agent in Austin has been advised by 
Arrow Trailways that, if Valley Transit were to bring passengers to 
it at Greyhound's Austin terminal, Arrow Trailways will accept 
Valley Transit's tickets at the Greyhound terminal, even if the 
passenger is traveling to a point which is not served by Greyhound. 
Although Valley Transit has requested Arrow Trailways to stop at 
Valley Transit's Austin terminal to interline with Valley Transit, 
as of this date Arrow Trailways has not accepted the invitation. In 
addition, Valley Transit's agent has been information that Kerrville 
Bus Lines cannot come to Valley Transit's Austin terminal to offer 
service because of an agreement with Greyhound. If these activities 
are not ceased, Valley Transit will have no choice but to withdraw 
from the Austin market, even though it has responded to a public 
demand by providing bus service when no other service was available.
    I would also like to invite your attention to the most recent 
draft of the Bus Terminal License Agreement which Greyhound has 
forwarded to Valley Transit. Section 15(C) of that Agreement 
provides an alternative dispute resolution (``ADR'') process. 
However, as states therein, ``Disputes regarding optional honoring 
of tickets shall not subject to this Section 15(C).'' One can but 
wonder why this particular item has been singled out for disparate 
treatment.
    I have been forced to conclude that Greyhound has determined 
that tariffs cancelling optional honoring of tickets can be 
effectively substituted for the ``25-mile'' rule, which is banned in 
the proposed Consent Decree, and utilized to restrain competition 
from other bus companies which must interline through Greyhound 
terminals. As reflected by the ongoing attempt to drive Valley 
Transit out of the Austin market, this use of tariffs, instead of 
the Bus Terminal License Agreements, is as insidious an antitrust 
practice as the 25-mile rule which the Department of Justice has 
condemned. While Greyhound will not institute new service to meet a 
demonstrated public need, it will endlessly harass a smaller 
competitor which is trying to respond to that need. Furthermore, 
unless called to terms on the matter at this time, Greyhound will 
likely use the consent decree as a defense. Thus, if sued, Greyhound 
will claim that if the Department of Justice had viewed such actions 
as being violative of the Sherman Act, the Department would have 
specifically condemned them in this case.
    In light of the above, I suggest that certain minor 
modifications be made to the proposed Final Judgment which the 
Department of Justice has negotiated with Greyhound. In Section 
IV(B)(1), Greyhound is restrained and enjoined from:

conditioning access to its terminals, directly or indirectly, upon a 
tenant carrier agreeing not to: (i) sell its tickets or busbills at 
locations other than the Greyhound terminal, or (ii) honor the 
tickets or busbills of another carrier sold at such other locations.
    While it may be that this language would address the problem of 
other tenants refusing to honor tickets of another tenant carrier, 
it does not address the problem of Greyhound refusing to honor a 
ticket which is sold at a non-Greyhound terminal. Thus, while Arrow 
Trailways' agreement with Greyhound, which is said to preclude and 
restrain Arrow Trailways from accepting a Valley Transit ticket at a 
Greyhound terminal, would be covered by the Final Judgment, 
Greyhound's activities are not. Indeed, based on its recent 
activities, it appears that Greyhound does not feel constrained by 
this language.
    In order to cure the problem associated with Greyhound's use of 
its tariffs, rather than its Bus Terminal License Agreements to 
restrain competition, it is suggested that a new paragraph be added 
under the heading ``IV PROHIBITED CONDUCT,'' which would read as 
follows:
    5. refusing by any means, direct or indirect, to honor the 
tickets or busbills of a tenant carrier which are sold at locations 
other than a Greyhound terminal.
    Similarly, the language in subparagraph (3) seems to be less 
precise than is necessary to bring this particular monopolist to 
heel. As provided therein, Greyhound is restrained and enjoined 
from:

discriminating against any tenant carrier in the terms or conditions 
of any BTL Agreement or other agreement governing the lease of space 
in a bus terminal, where the purpose or effect of such 
discrimination is to (a) prohibit a tenant carrier from (i) selling 
its tickets or busbills at locations, other than the Greyhound 
terminal, for transportation services using that Greyhound terminal 
or a terminal or facility that is competitive with such Greyhound 
terminal, or (ii) honoring the tickets or busbills of another 
carrier sold at such other locations, or (b) prohibit or 
substantially limit the tenant from interlining any of its traffic 
with another carrier at another terminal.
    Emphasis added. If the phase ``or by tariff provision,'' is 
inserted after the words ``or other agreement governing the lease of 
space in a bus terminal,'' the forbidden discrimination would 
address the situation which Valley Transit is facing.
    Unfortunately, if the Final Judgment is not modified to 
explicitly prohibit the anticompetitive activities which Greyhound 
is using with respect to Valley Transit's Austin terminal, Greyhound 
will consider itself free to employ those same tactics against any 
other bus company which opens a terminal which may be competitive 
with a Greyhound terminal. If that is allowed to happen, the Final 
Judgment will be practically useless in bringing a halt to 
Greyhound's anticompetitive activities to the detriment of the 
traveling public which is dependent upon bus service as most small 
bus companies lack the financial ability to battle Greyhound.

        Very truly yours,
Richard H. Streeter

Greyhound Lines, Inc. 

[[Page 5030]]


Special Honoring Arrangements Tariff (ICC GL 722) Naming Rules and 
Regulations Governing Optional Honoring of Tickets Applicable 
Between Austin, Texas and San Antonio, Texas Including All 
Intermediate Points As Named Herein

Issued: October 31, 1995.
Effective: November 1, 1995.
    Issued on one (1) day's notice under authority of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission in Ex Parte No. MG 176. The provisions published 
herein, if effective, will not result in an effect on the quality of 
the Human Environment.

    Issued By: G. Alexander, Director--Traffic, P.O. Box 660362, 
Dallas, Texas 75266-0362.

SECTION A

Rules No. and Regulations

1. Application of Fares

    The provisions of this tariff apply to the optional honoring of 
any ticket issued by Greyhound Lines, Inc. which includes travel 
between Austin, Texas and San Antonio, Texas including all 
intermediate parties.

2. Optional Honoring Arrangements

    In lieu of Rule No. 3, ``Routes'', Paragraph 8 ``Change of 
Routing or Destination'', subparagraph (1) National Passenger 
Tariff, ICC MSTA 1000, amendments thereto or reissues thereof, 
issued by National Bus Traffic Association, Inc., Agent, any ticket 
issued by Greyhound Lines, Inc. which includes travel between 
Austin, Texas and San Antonio, Texas and all intermediate points 
will be honored by Greyhound Lines, Inc. only unless the ticket, is 
properly ``closed'' to the other carrier or a valid diversion 
sticker is affixed thereon.
    In addition, Greyhound will not honor at San Antonio, Texas or 
Austin, Texas, any ticket issued by a foreign carrier which provides 
for transportation, in whole or in part, San Antonio, Texas and 
Austin, Texas via the lines of a foreign line carrier.

3. Other Rules and Regulations

    Except or otherwise provided herein, Rules and Regulations 
governing this Tariff are as published in National Passenger Tariff, 
ICC MSTA 1000, amendments thereto or reissues thereof, issued by 
National Bus Traffic Association, Inc., Agent.
Greyhound Lines, Inc.
P.O. Box 660362
Dallas, TX 75266-0362

November 3, 1995

Mr. Robert R. Farris
Senior Vice President
VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY, INC.
P.O. Box 530010
Harlingen, TX 78553

Via Facsimile (210) 423-4888 and U.S. Mail

SUBJECT: OPTIONAL HONORING OF TICKETS

    Dear Bobby: Enclosed for your information is a copy of Special 
Honoring Arrangements Tariff, ICC GL 722, effective November 1, 
1995, which states in pertinent part that tickets issued by 
Greyhound Lines, Inc. which include travel between San Antonio, TX 
and Austin, TX or intermediate points, may be honored by Greyhound 
only unless the ticket is properly ``closed'' to another company or 
a valid diversion sticker is affixed thereto. The tariff 
additionally provides that Greyhound will not honor at San Antonio, 
TX or Austin, TX, any ticket issued by a foreign line carrier which 
provides for transportation, in whole or in part, between San 
Antonio, TX and Austin, TX via the lines of a foreign line carrier.
    The provisions contained in that tariff imply the following:
    (1) Valley Transit may not honor any Greyhound ticket for 
transportation, in whole or in part, between San Antonio, TX and 
Austin, TX.
    (2) Greyhound will not honor any Valley ticket for 
transportation, in whole or in part, between San Antonio, TX and 
Austin, TX, when the origin or destination of the ticket is Austin, 
TX.
    (3) Greyhound will not honor at Austin, TX or San Antonio, TX, 
any Valley ticket that is issued at Austin, TX for transportation to 
points beyond Austin, TX or San Antonio, TX.
    Please inform you personnel of the above so that they will not 
honor tickets which will have no reclaim value to your company and 
so that they will not issue tickets that Greyhound will not honor.

        Very truly yours,
Gregory Alexander,
Director--Industry Relations.

Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Special Honoring Arrangements Tariff (ICC 722-1) Cancels Special 
Honoring Arrangements Tariff (ICC 722) Naming Rules and Regulations 
Governing Optional Honoring of Tickets Applicable Between Austin, 
Texas and San Antonio, Texas Including All Intermediate Points And 
* Points Beyond Austin, Texas or San Antonio, Texas As Named Herein

Issued November 21, 1995.
Effective: November 22, 1995.
    Issued on one (1) day's notice under authority of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission in Ex Parte No. MC 176. The provisions published 
herein, if effective, will not result in an effect on the quality of 
the Human Environment.

    * Denotes Addition SW-190-A Cancels SW-190
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued By: G. Alexander, Director--Industry Relations, P.O. Box 
6606362, Dallas, Texas 752-22-0362.

Section A

Rule No.

1. Application of Fares

    * The provisions of this tariff apply to the optional honoring 
by a foreign line carrier of tickets issued by Greyhound Lines, Inc. 
and the optional honoring of foreign line tickets by Greyhound 
Lines, Inc., which include travel between Austin, Texas and San 
Antonio, Texas, including all intermediate points, or travel beyond 
Austin, Texas or San Antonio, Texas.

    * Denotes Addition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Optional Honoring Arrangements

    In lieu of Rule No. 3, ``Routes'', Paragraph 8 ``Change of 
Routing or Destination'', subparagraph (1) of National Passenger 
Tariff, ICC MSTA 1000, amendments thereto or reissues thereof, 
issued by National Bus Traffic Association, Inc. Agent, any ticket 
issued by Greyhound Lines, Inc. which includes travel between 
Austin, Texas and San Antonio, Texas or intermediate points will be 
honored by Greyhound Lines, Inc. only unless the ticket is properly 
``closed'' to another carrier or a valid diversion sticker is 
affixed thereon.
     Greyhound will not honor at San Antonio, Texas or 
Austin, Texas, or intermediate points, any ticket issued at Austin, 
Texas or San Antonio, Texas, or intermediate points, by a foreign 
carrier which provides for transportation, in whole or in part, 
between San Antonio, Texas and Austin, Texas or intermediate points 
via the lines of a foreign line carrier.

     Denotes Change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Greyhound will not honor at Austin, Texas or San 
Antonio, Texas, or intermediate points, any ticket issued by a 
foreign line carrier at Austin, Texas, or at Intermediate points 
between Austin, Texas, or at Intermediate points between Austin, 
Texas and San Antonio, Texas, which provides for transportation to 
points beyond Austin Texas or San Antonio, Texas.

3. Other Rules and Regulations

    Except as otherwise provided herein, Rules and Regulations 
governing this Tariff are as published in National Passenger Tariff, 
ICC MSTA 1000, amendments thereto or reissued by National Bus 
Traffic Association, Inc. Agent.
Greyhound Lines, Inc.
P.O. Box 660362
Dallas, TX 75266-0362

November 21, 1995

Mr. Robert R. Farris
Senior Vice President
VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY, INC.
P.O. Box 530010
Harlingen, TX 78553

Via Facsimile (210) 423-4888 and U.S. Mail

SUBJECT: OPTIONAL HONORING OF TICKETS

    Dear Bobby: Enclosed for your information is a copy of Special 
Honoring Arrangements Tariff, ICC GL 722-A, effective November 21, 
1995, which cancels Special Honoring Arrangements Tariff, ICC GL 
722. Special Honoring Arrangements Tariff, ICC GL 722-A states in 
pertinent part that tickets issued by Greyhound Lines, Inc. which 
include travel between San Antonio, TX and Austin, TX or 
intermediate points, may be honored by Greyhound only unless the 
ticket is properly ``closed'' to another company or a valid 
diversion sticker is affixed thereto. The tariff additionally 
provides that Greyhound will not honor at San Antonio, TX, or 
intermediate points by a foreign line carrier which provides for 
transportation, in whole or in part, between San Antonio, TX and 
Austin, TX, or intermediate points via the lines of a foreign line 
carrier. Finally, the tariff provides that Greyhound will not honor 
at Austin, TX or San Antonio, TX, or intermediate points, any ticket 
issued by a foreign line carrier at Austin, TX, or 

[[Page 5031]]
intermediate points between Austin, TX and San Antonio, TX which 
provides for transportation to points beyond Austin, TX or San 
Antonio, TX.
    The provisions contained in that tariff imply the following:
    (1) Valley Transit may not honor any Greyhound ticket for 
transportation, in whole or in part, between San Antonio, TX and 
Austin, TX or intermediate points.
    (2) Greyhound will not honor any Valley ticket for 
transportation, in whole or in part, between San Antonio, TX and 
Austin, TX, or intermediate points when the origin of the ticket is 
Austin, TX, San Antonio, TX or intermediate points.
    (3) Greyhound will not honor at Austin, TX, or San Antonio, TX, 
any Valley ticket that is issued at Austin, TX, San Marcos, TX, New 
Braunfels, TX, or Seguin, TX, which provides for transportation to 
points beyond Austin, TX or San Antonio, TX.
    Please inform your personnel of the above so that they will not 
honor tickets which will have no reclaim value to your company and 
so that they will not issue tickets that Greyhound will not honor.

        Very truly yours,
Gregory Alexander,
Director--Industry Relations.

Certificate of Service

    I hereby certify that I have caused a copy of the foregoing 
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS to be served on counsel 
for defendant in this matter in the manner set forth below:
    By facsimile and first class mail: Mark F. Horning, Esquire, 
Steptoe & Johnson, 1330 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20036-1795, for defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.

    Dated: December 18, 1995.
Michael D. Billiel,
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 555 Fourth Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 307-6666.
[FR Doc. 96-2663 Filed 2-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M