[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42482-42486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21216]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 26)]\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This decision embraces the following: (1) Finance Docket No. 
32760 (Sub-No. 27), Texas Mexican Railway Company & Kansas City 
Southern Railway--Construction Exemption--Rail Line Between 
Rosenberg and Victoria, TX; (2) Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 
28), Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company--Terminal 
Trackage Rights--Texas Mexican Railway Company; (3) Finance Docket 
No. 32760 (Sub-No. 29), Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway 
Company--Application for Additional Remedial Conditions Regarding 
Houston/Gulf Coast Area; (4) Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 30), 
Texas Mexican Railway Company, et al.--Request For Adoption of 
Consensus Plan; (5) Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 31), Houston & 
Gulf Coast Railroad--Application for Trackage Rights and Forced Line 
Sales; (6) Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 32), Capital 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority-- Responsive Application--
Interchange Rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Union Pacific Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and 
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company--Control and Merger--Southern Pacific 
Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, St. Louis 
Southwestern Railway Company, SPCSL Corp., and The Denver and Rio 
Grande Western Railroad Company; Houston/Gulf Coast Oversight

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

ACTION: Decision No. 6; Notice of acceptance of Requests for additional 
conditions to the UP/SP merger for the Houston, Texas/Gulf Coast area.

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

SUMMARY: The Board is accepting for consideration requests for 
additional conditions to the UP/SP merger for the Houston/Gulf Coast 
region, filed July 8, 1998: (1) jointly by the Texas Mexican Railway 
Company (Tex Mex), Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS), and 
certain shipper and governmental interests; (2) by the Burlington 
Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF); and (3) by certain 
individual shippers. Certain requested conditions will be transferred 
for consideration to the Board's general oversight proceeding for the 
UP/SP merger that began July 1, 1998, in Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-
No. 21).

DATES: Notices of intent to participate in the Houston/Gulf Coast 
oversight proceeding are due August 28, 1998. All comments, evidence, 
and argument opposing the requested new conditions are due September 
18, 1998. Rebuttal in support of the requested conditions is due 
October 16, 1998.

ADDRESSES: An original plus 25 copies of all documents, referring both 
to STB Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 26) and, if applicable, the 
sub-number additionally assigned to a particular request for 
conditions, must be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Case Control 
Unit, ATTN: STB Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 26), Surface 
Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423-0001.
    In addition, one copy of all documents in this proceeding must be 
sent to UP's representative, Arvid E. Roach II, Esq., Covington & 
Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., P.O. Box 7566, Washington, 
D.C. 20044, and to Administrative Law Judge Stephen Grossman, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Suite 11F, 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
    Electronic Submissions. In addition to an original and 25 copies of 
all paper documents filed with the Board, the parties shall also 
submit, on 3.5 inch IBM-compatible diskettes or compact discs, copies 
all textual materials, electronic workpapers, data bases and 
spreadsheets used to develop quantitative evidence. Textual material 
must be in, or convertible by and into, WordPerfect 7.0. Electronic 
spreadsheets must be in, or convertible by and into, Lotus 1-2-3 97 
Edition, Excel Version 7.0, or Quattro Pro Version 7.0.
    The data contained on the diskettes or compact discs submitted to 
the Board may be submitted under seal (to the extent that the 
corresponding paper copies are submitted under seal), and materials 
submitted under seal will be for the exclusive use of Board employees 
reviewing substantive and/or procedural matters in this proceeding. The 
flexibility provided by such computer data is necessary for efficient 
review of these materials by the Board and its staff. The electronic 
submission requirements set forth in this decision supersede, for the 
purposes of this proceeding, the otherwise applicable electronic 
submission requirements set forth in our regulations. See 49 CFR 
1104.3(a), as amended in Expedited Procedures for Processing Rail Rate 
Reasonableness, Exemption and Revocation Proceedings, STB Ex Parte No. 
527, 61 FR 52710, 711 (Oct. 8, 1996), 61 FR 58490, 58491 (Nov. 15, 
1996).\2\

    \2\ A copy of each diskette or compact disc submitted to the 
Board should be provided to any other party upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565-1600. 
[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 565-1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By decision served August 12, 1996, the 
Board approved the common control and merger of the rail carriers 
controlled by Union Pacific Corporation and those controlled by 
Southern Pacific Rail Corporation (collectively UP/SP), subject to 
various conditions.\3\ Common control was consummated on September 11, 
1996. We imposed a 5-year oversight condition to examine whether the 
conditions we imposed ``effectively addressed the competitive issues 
they were intended to address,'' and we retained jurisdiction to impose 
additional remedial conditions if those already imposed proved 
insufficient. UP/SP Merger at 13. In our initial oversight proceeding, 
we determined that, while it was still too early to tell, there was no 
evidence at that time that the merger, with the conditions that the 
Board had imposed, had produced any adverse competitive 
consequences.\4\ We indicated, however, that our oversight would be 
ongoing, and that we would continue vigilant monitoring. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Union Pacific Corp.--Control and Merger--Southern Pacific 
Rail Corp., Finance Docket No. 32760 (UP/SP Merger), Decision No. 44 
(STB served Aug. 12, 1996).
    \4\ Union Pacific Corp.--Control and Merger--Southern Pacific 
Rail Corp., Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 21), Decision No. 10 
(STB served Oct. 27, 1997) (UP/SP Oversight).
    \5\ Id. at 2-3.

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

[[Page 42483]]

    Last summer, UP/SP experienced serious service difficulties caused 
by, among other things, severely congested UP/SP lines in and around 
Houston that, in turn, affected rail service throughout the western 
United States, and the Board issued a series of decisions under its 
emergency service order authority under 49 U.S.C. 11123, effective 
until August 2, 1998, to address those difficulties. \6\ In those 
decisions, we rejected proposals offered by certain shipper, carrier, 
and governmental interests that would have addressed the emergency by 
requiring UP/SP to permanently afford access to certain of its lines in 
and around Houston to other rail carriers, and to divest other lines. 
We determined that one of the primary reasons for the service crisis 
was the inadequate infrastructure in the region, and that proposals to 
transfer line ownership and/or broadly permit other rail carriers 
access to the merged UP/SP network would likely work not to end the 
immediate crisis, but exacerbate it. As a result, and mindful that our 
emergency service order authority under section 11123 is temporary (up 
to 270 days), we adopted only those measures designed to free up 
traffic in and around Houston without further aggravating congestion in 
the area or creating additional service disruptions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ STB Service Order No. 1518, Joint Petition for Service Order 
(Service Order No. 1518) (STB served Oct. 31 and Dec. 4, 1997, and 
Feb. 17 and 25, 1998).
    \7\ Id., Feb. 17, 1998 Decision, at 5-7; Feb. 25, 1998 Decision, 
at 4-5. We also ordered UP/SP to submit detailed infrastructure 
plans for the region, and, on May 1, 1998, the carrier outlined its 
plan to invest $1.4 billion in rail infrastructure in the Houston/
Gulf Coast area over the next five years, including more than $600 
million in new rail capacity. See Union Pacific's Report on Houston 
and Gulf Coast Infrastructure, at 1-2, filed May 1, 1998, in Ex 
Parte No. 573, Rail Service in the Western United States, STB 
Service Order No. 1518, Joint Petition for Service Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board provided, however, that interested persons could present 
longer-term restructuring proposals of the kind suggested above in the 
UP/SP merger oversight process. \8\ Based on a joint request for such 
relief filed on February 12, 1998, by Tex Mex/KCS, and one filed March 
6, 1998, by the Greater Houston Partnership, the Board, on March 31, 
1998, instituted a discrete oversight proceeding to consider requests 
for additional conditions to the UP/SP merger for the Houston/Gulf 
Coast region.\9\ We stated that we would examine whether there is any 
relationship between any market power gained by UP/SP through the 
merger and the failure of service that occurred in the region, and, if 
so, whether additional remedial conditions would be appropriate. We 
also provided that we would grant requested conditions that would 
substantially change UP/SP's existing configuration and operations in 
the region only upon the type of evidence required for inconsistent 
applications in merger proceedings. Houston/Gulf Coast Oversight, 
Decision No. 1, at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id., Feb. 17, 1998 Decision, at 8; see also Feb. 25, 1998 
Decision, at 4.
    \9\ The Board instituted this proceeding in Finance Docket No. 
32760 (Sub-No. 21), Decision No. 12, published in the Federal 
Register on April 3, 1998 (63 FR 16628). By decision served May 19, 
1998, the Board corrected the March 31 decision by designating the 
docket number as Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 26) (Houston/Gulf 
Coast Oversight), rather than (Sub-No. 21), and designating Decision 
No. 12 in Sub-No. 21 as Decision No. 1 in Sub-No. 26. The annual 
``general'' oversight proceeding conducted in the Sub-No. 21 
proceeding, which began July 1, 1998 upon the filing by UP/SP and 
BNSF of their quarterly merger progress reports, will continue as 
planned. See UP/SP Oversight, Decision No. 10, at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All interested persons were directed to file their requests for 
additional conditions, along with all supporting evidence, by June 8, 
1998. Pursuant to a joint motion by KCS/Tex Mex and others, we extended 
that date until July 8, 1998. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 26), Decision No. 5 (STB 
served June 1, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Requests

    As indicated in Decision No. 1, we are confining our consideration 
in this proceeding to requests for new conditions that would 
reconfigure the existing UP/SP network in the Houston/Gulf Coast 
region. Requests for conditions that would affect the UP/SP network 
outside of this region, or requests for other kinds of conditions more 
broadly applicable to the merger as a whole, will be considered instead 
in the ``general'' oversight proceeding, Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-
No. 21), that began on July 1, 1998.11 The requests that we 
will consider in this proceeding are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Thus, we will consider in the Sub-No. 21 proceeding, not 
this proceeding, the request by the Western Coal Traffic League for 
an accounting condition that would require UP to separately account 
for all costs and charges arising as a consequence of the 
inefficiencies caused by the UP/SP merger.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ``Consensus Plan'' (Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 30))

    The ``consensus plan'' has been offered by Tex Mex/KCS, the 
Chemical Manufacturers Association, the Railroad Commission of Texas, 
the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., and the Texas Chemical 
Council. These parties ask us to:
    (1) Impose permanently provisions of Service Order No. 1518 that:
    (a) lifted the restriction on trackage rights that Tex Mex received 
in the UP/SP merger over UP/SP's Corpus Christi/Robstown--Beaumont, TX 
line; 12 and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As a condition to our approval of the UP/SP merger, we 
granted Tex Mex access to Houston area shippers switched by the Port 
Terminal Railroad Association (PTRA) and the Houston Belt & Terminal 
Railway Company (HBT) via trackage rights over UP/SP's Corpus 
Christi/Robstown--Beaumont line, subject to the restriction that all 
Tex Mex traffic using these trackage rights must have a prior or 
subsequent movement over Tex Mex'' Laredo-Corpus Christi line. UP/SP 
Merger, Decision No. 44, at 150. In Service Order No. 1518, we 
suspended that restriction and directed UP to release these shippers 
from their contracts so that those desiring to do so could route 
traffic over Tex Mex and BNSF, in lieu of UP/SP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) afforded trackage rights to Tex Mex over the UP's ``Algoa 
route'' between Placedo and Algoa, TX and over the BNSF between Algoa 
and T&NO Jct.;
    (2) Restore ``neutral switching'' in Houston, said to be lost when 
UP/SP and BNSF dissolved the HBT, that would encompass all of the 
industries and trackage that were formerly served by the HBT, and all 
industries and trackage of the PTRA, and, if PTRA is designated as the 
neutral switching provider, grant it trackage rights over former HBT 
trackage and the use of appropriate yards.
    (3) Expand the neutral switching area to include:
    (a) all shippers currently located on the former SP Galveston 
Subdivision between Harrisburg Jct. and Galveston, including those at 
Sinco, Pasadena, Deer Park, Strang, LaPorte, the Clinton Branch, the 
Bayport Loop and the Bayport area, including Barbours Cut and the 
Navigation Lead; and
    (b) all shippers at Galveston located on both the former SP and the 
former UP routes between Houston and Galveston, and require that the 
neutral switching company be granted trackage rights between Houston 
and Galveston over both routes, with rights to serve all industries 
located along the two lines and access to the former SP and UP yards at 
Strang and Galveston.
    (4) Establish neutral dispatching within the neutral switching 
area, to be located, managed and administered by the PTRA, and require 
that all railroads serving Houston be granted terminal trackage rights 
by the owning carrier over all tracks within the neutral switching and 
dispatching area, so that the neutral dispatcher could route trains 
over the most efficient route.
    (5) Require UP/SP and BNSF to acknowledge Tex Mex's full voting 
membership on the PTRA board and to restore the Port of Houston 
Authority as a full voting member of the PTRA board;

[[Page 42484]]

    (6) Require UP/SP to sell to Tex Mex its line between Milepost 0.0 
at Rosenberg and Milepost 87.8 at Victoria, TX. Tex Mex would re-
construct this line and, when completed, grant UP/SP and BNSF trackage 
rights between Rosenberg and Victoria to facilitate UP's directional 
traffic on the Brownsville Subdivision.13 Grant Tex Mex 
related trackage rights over the two miles on the south end of this 
line between Milepost 87.8 and the point of connection at UP/SP's Port 
LaVaca branch at Victoria;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ We note that, in its initial proposal, filed March 30, 1998 
(Sub-No. 27), Tex Mex requested an exemption from 49 U.S.C. 10901 to 
reconstruct the Rosenberg-Victoria line. In the Consensus Plan, the 
parties now believe that construction authority under section 10901, 
or an exemption from having to obtain our authorization, is not 
required, based on UP's representations that it never exercised its 
abandonment authority over any part of the line. Therefore, as a 
line still within the Board's jurisdiction, Tex Mex asserts that it 
requires only a Board order requiring UP to sell it the line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) Require UP to sell or lease an existing yard in Houston 
(preferably the Booth Yard) to the Tex Mex. Tex Mex would sub-lease to 
UP a portion of the yard to hold up to 300 empty storage cars until Tex 
Mex can complete construction of the line between Rosenberg and 
Victoria and build a storage yard between Rosenberg and El Campo. Upon 
completion of the new storage yard, Tex Mex would cancel its sub-lease 
with UP and offer to lease to UP track space at the new storage yard 
for the same number of empty storage cars and to upgrade Booth Yard by 
reconstructing the south end of the yard; and
    (8) Require UP to allow Tex Mex/KCS to construct a new rail line on 
UP's right-of-way adjacent to UP's Lafayette Subdivision between Dawes 
and Langham Road, Beaumont, TX. Upon completion of this new rail line, 
Tex Mex/KCS would deed it to UP in exchange for a deed to the UP's 
Beaumont Subdivision between Settegast Jct., Houston, and Langham Road, 
Beaumont. Tex Mex would dispatch this line from Houston and grant BNSF 
and UP trackage rights over this line, and would retain trackage rights 
over the Lafayette Subdivision between Houston and 
Beaumont.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Shell Oil Company endorses most of the recommendations of 
the consensus group. However, it does not support compelling UP to 
sell to Tex Mex the Rosenberg-Victoria line or the Booth Yard, nor 
forcing the carrier to allow Tex Mex/KCS to construct a new rail 
line adjacent to the UP Lafayette Subdivision in Beaumont. Instead, 
Shell asks us to facilitate these changes by asking the parties to 
agree to them, with arbitration in the event no agreement can be 
reached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BNSF (Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 29))

    In this proposal, the Board is asked to:
    (1) Grant BNSF permanent bidirectional overhead trackage rights on 
UP's Caldwell-Flatonia-San Antonio and Caldwell-Flatonia-Placedo lines 
to give BNSF long-term operational flexibility to avoid congested UP 
lines between Temple and San Antonio, TX and between Algoa and Corpus 
Christi, TX;
    (2) Grant BNSF trackage rights over both the UP line and the SP 
line between Harlingen and Brownsville, TX (until UP constructs a 
connection between the UP and SP lines at Brownsville to complete a 
rail bypass project) and allow the Brownsville & Rio Grande 
International Railroad (BRGI) to act as BNSF's agent for such service, 
so that BNSF may begin effective and competitive trackage rights 
service to both Brownsville and the Transportacion Ferroviara Mexicana 
(TFM) connection at Matamoros, and to alleviate problems in the 
Brownsville area resulting from the incomplete rail bypass project;
    (3) Grant BNSF overhead trackage rights on the UP Taylor-Milano 
line, so that BNSF may avoid congestion on the UP lines between Temple 
and Taylor, and Taylor and Sealy, and to provide a less circuitous 
routing;
    (4) Order neutral switching supervision on the former SP Baytown 
and Cedar Bayou Branches and on the former SP Sabine and Chaison 
Branches serving the Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX area, to correct UP's 
inadequate local switch service via haulage and reciprocal switch 
between BNSF and its customers. The neutral switching supervisor would 
be selected by the parties unless they were unable to agree, in which 
case the switching supervisor would be selected by an arbitrator;
    (5) Order PTRA's operation of the UP Clinton Branch in Houston, in 
order to eliminate delays caused by UP to BNSF's trains providing 
service to the Houston Public Elevator;
    (6) Grant BNSF overhead trackage rights giving it the option to 
join the directional operations over any UP line, or lines in corridors 
where BNSF has trackage rights over one, but not both, lines involved 
in the UP directional flows, specifically including the Fort Worth-
Dallas line (via Arlington), so that BNSF could provide more efficient 
competitive operations;
    (7) Grant BNSF trackage rights on additional UP lines for BNSF to 
operate over any available clear routes through the terminal, as 
determined and managed by the Spring Consolidated Dispatching Center 
(SCDC), including the SP route between West Junction and Tower 26 via 
Chaney Junction, so that BNSF can avoid congestion in the Houston 
terminal area;
    (8) Order the coordinated dispatching of operations over the UP and 
SP routes between Houston and Longview, TX, and Houston and Shreveport, 
LA, by the SCDC, to alleviate congestion in the corridor and to improve 
coordination of BNSF and UP trains arriving and departing the Houston 
area on UP lines north of Houston; and
    (9) Grant overhead trackage rights on UP's San Antonio-Laredo line 
to avoid the adverse impact of (a) unnecessary routing of traffic 
through Houston, UP's south Texas congestion and service problems, and 
UP's alleged favoritism of its own business, and (b) the unforeseen 
changes in market structuring, including the influence of KCS on Tex 
Mex's ability to work with BNSF at Laredo, and the unexpected lack of 
direct competition in the privatized Mexican rail system.

BNSF (Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 28))

    In a related proposal, BNSF has filed an application asking the 
Board to grant it terminal trackage rights that would permit it:
    (a) to use a segment of Tex Mex track between MP 0.00 at the 
International Bridge at Laredo, TX and the vicinity of MP 0.50, 
including over the International Bridge at Laredo; and
    (b) equal access to use the International Bridge for interchange 
purposes through establishment of defined operational windows for 
BNSF's use.
    The Board will accept and consider the Consensus Plan and BNSF 
proposals.

Shipper-Requested Conditions

    Various Houston area and other Texas shippers have filed requests, 
with supporting evidence, for new conditions to the merger that would 
have discrete application to them. Shippers making these requests are 
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company,15 Dow Chemical 
Company,16 Formosa Plastics

[[Page 42485]]

Corporation, U.S.A.,17 and Central Power & Light 
Company.18 The Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) also 
adopted a resolution with recommendations to promote competitive rail 
service in Houston similar to many of the requested conditions made by 
BNSF and the Consensus Plan, particularly that for neutral 
switching.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ DuPont asks that we impose conditions that would remove the 
prohibition against PTRA serving DuPont's LaPorte, TX, plant; 
require UP and PTRA to work out a service plan for the LaPorte 
plant; and require UP to restore DuPont's unrestricted reciprocal 
switching options. DuPont more generally requests that we remove the 
restriction against reciprocal switching for intrastate 
transportation, and authorize Tex Mex to serve Houston customers 
served by HBT's successors, PTRA, and all other industries open to 
reciprocal switching on the UP.
    \16\ Dow requests a condition that would grant permanent haulage 
rights to BNSF on the Freeport Industrial Spur between the UP 
mainline at Angleton, TX, and Dow's chemicals and plastics 
production complex at Freeport, TX, with (a) the right for Dow and/
or BNSF to construct a storage and gathering yard to interconnect 
with the UP line near Angleton, or another point to be determined 
later, and (b) the requirement that UP efficiently interchange Dow's 
traffic with BNSF at that interconnection, at haulage rates and 
terms to be established pursuant to the UP/BNSF Settlement Agreement 
under the UP/SP Merger. Dow also requests a condition granting BNSF 
authority to build out from Freeport to an interconnection with the 
UP mainline between Chocolate Bayou and Angleton, TX, at an 
undetermined point.
    \17\ Formosa requests a condition that would permit BNSF, which 
has trackage rights on UP's line between Algoa and Corpus Christi, 
TX, to switch with Formosa and serve the shipper's Point Comfort 
plant.
    \18\ Central Power & Light requests a condition that would 
permit BNSF to use 16 miles of UP track beginning in Victoria, TX, 
to deliver unit coal trains to its power plant at Coleto Creek, TX.
    \19\ GHP specifically asks the Board to: (1) consider making 
permanent the temporary trackage rights already granted railroads 
serving the Houston-Gulf Coast region; (2) make the Port of Houston 
and all long haul railroads serving Houston full and equal voting 
members of the PTRA board; (3) provide a mechanism for all railroads 
serving Houston to buy trackage rights over trackage owned by the 
Port of Houston and operated by PTRA, trackage formerly owned by the 
HBT prior to its dissolution, and additional trackage; (4) order the 
reconstitution of PTRA as a neutral dispatching, switching and car 
movement operator, to encompass all of the trackage described in 
(3); (5) encourage UP/SP to agree with other carriers to sell or 
lease abandoned and underutilized rights of way and switching yards, 
and mediate negotiations for sales and leases; and (6) order PTRA to 
develop a regional master plan of added facilities and operations 
needed to provide system capacity in excess of demand for the 
foreseeable future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board will accept and consider all of these proposals. We also 
note that the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL), while 
not making any specific requests, argues that there is a clear need for 
additional conditions to the merger in the Houston/Gulf Coast region, 
and asks that the Board particularly consider proposals that would 
establish neutral switching in Houston, make permanent the emergency 
service order authority granted to Tex Mex, provide increased overhead 
trackage rights in the region, and encourage increased infrastructure.

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Finance Docket No. 
32760 (Sub-No. 32)

    Capital Metro, a regional transit authority that owns a 162-mile 
line that traverses Austin, TX between Giddings and Llano, TX, 
requests, with supporting evidence, a condition granting BNSF trackage 
rights over 4.4 miles of UP/SP tracks between Round Rock and McNeil, 
TX, and interchange rights at McNeil with Capital Metro's operator, the 
Central of Tennessee Railway & Navigation Company, Inc. d/b/a the 
Longhorn Railway Company (Longhorn). The Board will accept and consider 
this request. In the UP/SP merger, the Board determined that Capital 
Metro could interchange freight traffic with BNSF at Giddings, at the 
east end of the line, or Elgin, toward the center of the line, but it 
denied Capital Metro's requested condition that BNSF be permitted to 
interchange with Longhorn at McNeil, the line's westernmost interchange 
point. UP/SP Merger, Decision No. 44, at 182. Capital Metro is seeking 
the ``McNeil'' condition anew, because BNSF no longer runs through 
trains through Elgin, the interchange point Capital Metro selected, due 
to UP/SP congestion south of Elgin, and Giddings is only a theoretical 
interchange.

Kenneth B. Cotton (Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 31))

    On August 3, 1998, Kenneth B. Cotton, a small businessman on behalf 
of the Houston and Gulf Coast Railroad (H&GC), asks the Board to accept 
a late-filed application for new conditions. Mr. Cotton requests the 
following:
    (1) Grant H&GC trackage rights on UP between Wharton, TX and 
Rosenberg, TX, and allow interchange with BNSF at Rosenberg;
    (2) If the Wharton-Rosenberg and Wharton-Victoria segments of UP's 
Rosenberg-Victoria line are sold to Tex Mex, grant H&GC trackage rights 
from Victoria-Rosenberg over Tex Mex, with switching rights between 
Victoria and Rosenberg, and with interchange rights at Victoria with 
Tex Mex, BNSF, and UP;
    (3) Grant H&GC trackage rights on UP between Rosenberg and Houston 
via West Junction, with access to PTRA, New South, Englewood, and 
Settegast Yards;
    (4) Grant H&GC trackage rights on UP between Bay City, TX, and 
Algoa, TX, with interchange rights with BNSF at Algoa;
    (5) Require UP to sell H&GC track from Congress Yard in Houston to 
M.P. 233.0 in Galveston, TX, including rights over the lift bridge at 
Galveston, and to interchange with H&GC all Galveston-bound grain 
trains at Congress Yard or Rosenberg. H&GC also requests access to the 
Texas City Terminal Railway at Texas City, TX; and
    (6) Require UP to sell the former SP Galveston Subdivision line 
between M.P. 38.8 to M.P. 55.6, with trackage rights over the lift 
bridge at Galveston.
    Although Mr. Cotton filed no evidence in support of H&GC's 
requests, he has asserted that a grant of the conditions he has 
requested would benefit freight shippers and competition in the Houston 
area. We will accept and consider his late-filed 
application.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In contrast, we will not accept or consider requested 
conditions by the Texas Electric Rail Lines, which does not appear 
to offer freight service, for the forced sale, or forced 
rehabilitation and reactivation, of several vaguely and inadequately 
described UP/SP lines in Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we note that several persons have filed letters supporting 
one or more of the requested conditions summarized above; others have 
submitted letters, without supporting evidence, that request other 
conditions. These letters will be placed in the docket, but any 
requested conditions made in them different than those outlined above 
will not be considered.
    As set forth previously in Decision Nos. 1 and 5, notices of intent 
to participate are due August 28, 1998. All comments, evidence, and 
argument opposing the requests for new conditions to the merger for the 
Houston/Gulf Coast region are due September 18, 1998, along with 
comments by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of 
Transportation. Rebuttal evidence and argument in support of requests 
for new conditions are due October 16, 1998.
    All discovery matters in this proceeding have been assigned to 
Administrative Law Judge Stephen Grossman, Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Suite 11F, Washington, DC 20426 
[202-219-2538, FAX (202) 219-3289].21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Houston/Gulf Coast Oversight, Finance Docket No. 32760 
(Sub-No. 26), Decision No. 2 (STB served May 19, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the 
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

    Decided: August 3, 1998.

    By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice Chairman Morgan.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.

Procedural Schedule

    August 28, 1998--Notice of intent to participate in proceeding due.
    September 18, 1998--All comments, evidence, and argument opposing 
requests for new remedial conditions to the merger due. Comments by 
U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Transportation due.
    October 16, 1998--Rebuttal evidence and argument in support of 
requests for new conditions due.


[[Page 42486]]


    The necessity of briefing, oral argument, and voting conference 
will be determined after the Board's review of the pleadings.

[FR Doc. 98-21216 Filed 8-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P