[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26604-26605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10813]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. FD 35617]


Progressive Rail, Incorporated--Lease and Operation Exemption--
Rail Line of Union Pacific Railroad Company

    Under 49 CFR 1011.7(a)(2)(x)(A), the Director of the Office of 
Proceedings (Director) is delegated the authority to determine whether 
to issue notices of exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for lease and 
operation transactions under 49 U.S.C. 10902. However, the Board 
reserves to itself the consideration and disposition of all matters 
involving issues of general transportation importance. 49 CFR 
1011.2(a)(6). Accordingly, the Board revokes the delegation to the 
Director with respect to issuance of the notice of exemption for lease 
and operation of the rail line at issue in this case. The Board 
determines that this notice of exemption should be issued, and does so 
here.
    Progressive Rail, Incorporated (PGR), a Class III rail carrier, has 
filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease from 
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) and operate a 37.3-mile line of 
railroad between milepost 49.00 at or near Cameron and milepost 11.70 
at or near Norma, in Barron and Chippewa Counties, Wis. (the Line). 
According to PGR, PGR and UP have entered into a new Lease Agreement 
(Agreement) for PGR to lease the Line from UP.\1\ The term of the lease 
is 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PGR previously obtained an exemption in 2004 to lease and 
operate the Line. See Progressive Rail, Inc.--Lease & Operation 
Exemption--Rail Line of Union Pac. R.R., FD 34597 (STB served Oct. 
29, 2004). The new lease for which an exemption is sought in this 
proceeding will replace the lease for which the prior exemption was 
obtained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required at 49 CFR 1150.43(h), PGR has disclosed that the 
Agreement contains an interchange commitment in the form of an 
adjustment in the amount of rent payable in each year, depending on the 
percentage of total traffic transported over the Line that is 
interchanged with UP in that year.\2\ Attached to PGR's notice of 
exemption is the verified statement of David Fellon, President of PGR. 
PGR states that a relatively high percentage of traffic interchanged 
with UP would result in a relatively low amount of rent, and vice 
versa. According to PGR, it believes that it can substantially grow its 
outbound traffic if it is able to make significant improvements to the 
Line. PGR states that the interchange commitment will enable it to make 
``major renewals of main tracks, sidetracks, and bridges, and to 
construct a number of new sidings and yard tracks to enable staging of 
railcars for loading and to achieve efficiencies in railcar 
switching,'' to the benefit of the shipping public. PGR also states 
that (1) although there is a Canadian National Railway Company (CN) 
line at Cameron, the CN line is officially out of service and would 
require extensive rehabilitation to be made operable, and (2) there is 
a CN line at Chippewa Falls, but the Line does not extend to Chippewa 
Falls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Concurrently with its verified notice of exemption, PGR has 
filed under seal, pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.43(h)(1)(ii), a 
confidential, complete version of the Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PGR certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of 
this transaction will not result in PGR becoming a Class I or Class II 
rail carrier. PGR further certifies that its projected annual revenues 
will not exceed $5 million.
    The earliest the transaction can be consummated is May 18, 2012, 
the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was 
filed).
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the 
exemption. Stay petitions must be filed no later than May 11, 2012 (at 
least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective).
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. 
FD 35617, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each 
pleading must be served on Thomas F. McFarland, Thomas F. McFarland, 
P.C., 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1890, Chicago, IL 60604-1112.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at 
``www.stb.dot.gov.''
    It is ordered:
    1. The delegation of authority to the Director of the Office of 
Proceedings under 49 CFR 1011.7(a)(2)(x)(A) to determine whether to 
issue a notice of exemption in this proceeding is revoked.
    2. This decision is effective on the date of service.
    Decided: May 1, 2012.
    By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and 
Commissioner Begeman. Vice Chairman Mulvey dissented with a separate 
expression.
Vice Chairman Mulvey, dissenting:
    I disagree with the Board's decision to allow a transaction 
containing a significant interchange commitment to be processed under 
the Board's class exemption procedures at 49 CFR part 1150. In general, 
the Board should be carefully scrutinizing transactions that include 
interchange commitments before deciding whether to permit them to go 
into effect.
    The notice in this particular case does not allow me to conclude 
summarily--without any examination--that the lease is consistent with 
the public interest. 49 U.S.C. 10902(c). The notice asserts that there 
really are no competitive interchange options for PGR because the CN 
line that connects to the Line is not operational. Yet, disregarding 
this claimed reality, the lease nonetheless contains an interchange 
commitment with substantial economic rewards for PGR if it interchanges 
with UP. One has to wonder why such an economic incentive is necessary 
if there is little chance that PGR would interchange with CN in any 
event. The lease term is 30 years, which is far longer than some other 
recent transactions involving paper barriers. See e.g., Middletown & 
New Jersey R.R.--Lease & Operation Exemption--Norfolk S. Ry., FD 35412 
(STB served Sept. 23, 2011) (10-year lease term). Moreover, we do not 
know how many shippers will be affected, what volume of traffic will be 
affected, or whether CN has plans to rehabilitate its connecting line. 
Nor do we know whether the 2004 lease that PGR and UP

[[Page 26605]]

are currently operating under also included an interchange commitment 
and, if it did not, why such a provision became necessary eight years 
later.
    The Board needs to take a close look at long-term leases that have 
the potential to control the competitive environment for shippers--thus 
affecting rates and service--for years to come. At a time of far 
different economic circumstances in the railroad industry, our 
predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, approved long-
term leases and sales involving interchange commitments with little or 
no analysis. Years later, the Board is still grappling with the 
economic and competitive consequences of those transactions.

Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2012-10813 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P