[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