Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices 2717

1Applicants have already received authority to

pool their operations and revenues for their motor

passenger and express transportation service

between Philadelphia, PA, and New York, NY, in

Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.—Pooling—Greyhound

Lines, Inc., STB Docket No. MC-F–20904 (STB

served June 30, 1997). A similar request involving

operations between New York City and

Washington, DC, is pending in Peter Pan Bus Lines,

Inc.—Pooling—Greyhound Lines, Inc., STB Docket

No. MC-F–20908. A third request involving

operations between Boston and New York City, and

between Springfield, MA, and New York City, is

also pending in Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.—

Pooling—Greyhound Lines, Inc., STB Docket No.

MC-F–20912. According to applicants, the instant

application is a logical extension of their other

pooling agreements. Applicants state that they

consider the four agreements to be interrelated and

intend to implement them simultaneously after

approval by the Board. We note that the United

States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, has

filed comments in STB Docket No. MC-F–20908,

recommending that the Board find that there is a

substantial likelihood that the proposed pooling of

operations between New York City and Washington

would unduly restrain competition.

2Applicants state that each bus line will set its

own passenger fares and express rates, and each

will retain its individual revenues from operations

on the pooled routes.

1 IC will continue to serve the Sewerage and

Water Board track near Oak Street.

1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20005–3934.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565–1600.

[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)

565–1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicants are competitors on certain

intercity routes between Albany, NY,

and Boston, MA. They seek to pool

portions of their passenger and express

services over routes which they both

operate.1 They will not, however, share

the revenues derived from their

operations over these routes.2

Applicants state that their services

between these points overlap and that

excess schedules are operated because

of the need to protect their respective

market shares. According to applicants,

this has resulted in unacceptably low

load factors, an over-served market, and

inefficient operations.

Applicants submit that the pooling

agreement will allow them to reduce

excess bus capacity, cement their

business relationship, and allow them to

share in the financial vicissitudes of the

pooled-route operations. They claim

public benefits that will include: (1)

rationalization of schedules, eliminating

some duplicative departures while

adding some departures at other times

of the day, resulting in more frequent

bus service over a broader time period;

(2) consolidation of terminals and

coordination of ticketing at Boston, MA,

Newton, MA, Worcester, MA,

Springfield, MA, and Albany, NY,

resulting in greater flexibility for

passengers to use buses, tickets, and

terminals; (3) capital improvements; and

(4) continued bus service by more sound

and financially stable carriers. In

addition, they assert that approval of the

pooling agreement will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources. Rather, they claim that

the reduction in the number of

schedules each carrier operates will

result in a salutary effect on the

environment.

Applicants state that competition will

not be unreasonably restrained. They

argue that: (1) the pooled service is

subject to substantial intermodal

competitive pressure from Amtrak, the

airlines, and private automobiles; and

(2) other motor passenger carriers may

easily enter and compete in the market.

Copies of the application may be

obtained free of charge by contacting

applicants’ representatives. A copy of

this notice will be served on the

Department of Justice, Antitrust

Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530.

Decided: January 7, 1998.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice

Chairman Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–1117 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33533]

Illinois Central Railroad Company and

New Orleans Public Belt Railroad—

Joint Relocation Project Exemption—

in New Orleans, LA

On December 23, 1997, Illinois

Central Railroad Company (IC) and New

Orleans Public Belt Railroad (NOPB)

jointly filed a notice of exemption under

49 CFR 1180.2(d)(5) to reconfigure IC

and NOPB operations over their

adjacent track. The proposed transaction

was scheduled to be consummated on or

after the December 30, 1997 effective

date of the exemption.

IC is a Class I railroad operating

approximately 2,600 miles of rail line in

six states, and NOPB is a Class III

terminal switching railroad owned by

the City of New Orleans, LA. NOPB

operates approximately 25 miles of rail

line in and around New Orleans.

Within the City of New Orleans, IC

and NOPB own and operate adjacent

mainlines. Under the joint project, IC

and NOPB propose the following

transactions: (1) NOPB will grant IC

non-exclusive bridge trackage rights

over 3.4 miles of NOPB’s Main Line and

Siding Track between milepost JO.3, at

Lampert Junction, and milepost 3.4, at

Nashville Avenue; 1 (2) IC will relocate

its operation to NOPB trackage and will

abandon its adjacent Main Line trackage

between milepost 917.77, at Nashville

Avenue, and milepost 921.13, at

Lampert Junction, a distance of

approximately 3.36 miles; (3) IC will

grant NOPB non-exclusive bridge

trackage rights over approximately 5,568

feet of IC’s Main Line from Station

120+00.00, at Nashville Avenue, to

Station 175+68.09, at Valence Street;

and (4) IC and NOPB will perform such

incidental relocation of signals and

power switches as necessary to

complete the proposed reconfiguration

of operations contemplated by the

exemption.

The transaction will simplify rail

operations in the area and will reduce

the number of unnecessary tracks on

street right-of-way and reduce the

number of tracks in grade crossings in

the area. The joint project will not

change service to shippers, expand the

operations of IC or NOPB into new

territory, or alter the existing

competitive situation.

The Board will exercise jurisdiction

over the abandonment or construction

components of a relocation project, and

require separate approval or exemption,

only where the removal of track affects

service to shippers or the construction

of new track involves expansion into

new territory. See City of Detroit v.

Canadian National Ry. Co., et al., 9

I.C.C.2d 1208 (1993), aff’d sub nom.,

Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority v.

ICC, 59 F.3d 1314 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Line

relocation projects may embrace

trackage rights transactions such as the

one involved here. See D.T.&I.R.—

Trackage Rights, 363 I.C.C. 878 (1981).

Under these standards, the incidental

abandonment, construction, and

trackage rights components require no

separate approval or exemption when

the relocation project, as here, will not

disrupt service to shippers and thus

qualifies for the class exemption at 49

CFR 1180.2(d)(5).

As a condition to this exemption, any

employees affected by the trackage

rights will be protected by the

conditions imposed in Norfolk and

Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN,

354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in

Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and

Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

If the notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the
2718 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices

1UP states that it filed this notice of exemption

to extend the trackage rights it received from SP in

STB Finance Docket No. 33128 (STB served Oct. 8,

1996), which included, among others, the

Bakersfield Line between Dike (MP 481.0) and West

Colton (MP 494.2).

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 transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33533, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on (1) Anne E.

Keating, Esq., Illinois Central Railroad

Company, 455 North Cityfront Plaza

Drive, Chicago, IL 60611–5504, and (2)

A. J. Waechter, Esq., Jones, Walker,

Waechter, Portevent, Carrere and

Denegre, 202 St. Charles Avenue, 50th

Floor, New Orleans, LA 70170–5100.

Decided: January 9, 1998.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–1118 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33535]

Maumee & Western Railroad

Corporation—Operation Exemption—

Maumee & Western, L.L.C.

Maumee & Western Railroad

Corporation, a noncarrier, has filed a

verified notice of exemption under 49

CFR 1150.31 to acquire operating rights

over a line of railroad owned by

Maumee & Western, L.L.C., from Liberty

Center, OH (milepost TN–28.0), to

Woodburn, IN (milepost 79.0), a

distance of approximately 51 route

miles.

The transaction was scheduled to be

consummated on or after December 31,

1997.

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the

proceeding 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

transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33535, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on Richard R.

Wilson, Esq., 1126 Eighth Avenue, Suite

403, Altoona, PA 16602.

Decided: January 7, 1998.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–1067 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

FR–4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33449]

Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Trackage Rights Exemption—Southern

Pacific Transportation Company

Southern Pacific Transportation

Company (SP) has agreed to grant

overhead trackage rights to Union

Pacific Transportation Company (UP)

over SP’s tracks known as the

Bakersfield Line from milepost 479.1

near Keenbrook to milepost 481.0 near

Dike, a distance of 1.9 miles, in the

vicinity of Los Angeles, CA. 1

The transaction was expected to be

consummated on or as soon as possible

after January 7, 1998, the effective date

of the exemption.

As a condition to this exemption, any

employees affected by the trackage

rights will be protected by the

conditions imposed in Norfolk and

Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN,

354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in

Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and

Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980).

This notice is filed under 49 CFR

1180.2(d)(7). If the 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 transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33449, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on: Joseph D.

Anthofer, General Attorney, 1416 Dodge

Street, #830, Omaha, NE 19381–0796.

Decided: January 7, 1998.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–1069 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33536]

Wabash Central Railroad

Corporation—Operation Exemption—

Wabash Central, L.L.C.

Wabash Central Railroad Corporation,

a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice

of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to

acquire operating rights over a line of

railroad owned by Wabash Central,

L.L.C., from Craigsville, IN (milepost

117.8), to Van Buren, IN (milepost

108.6), a distance of approximately 26.4

miles of rail line and incidental trackage

rights.

The transaction was scheduled to be

consummated on or after December 31,

1997.

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the

proceeding 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

transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 33536, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, a copy of each

pleading must be served on Richard R.

Wilson, Esq., 1126 Eighth Avenue, Suite

403, Altoona, PA 16602.

Decided: January 7, 1998.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–1068 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P