Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices 24589

1On April 23, 1998, NW informed the Board that

the actual mileage for the line is 3.34 miles instead

of 3.3 miles as stated in its verified notice.

first find that the rail carrier has market

dominance over the traffic to which the

rate applies, that is, that there is no

effective competition for that traffic. In

making that determination, we now

consider four forms of competition that

may effectively constrain the carrier’s

pricing: intramodal competition

(whether the shipper could obtain the

transportation service that it needs from

other railroads); intermodal competition

(whether the shipper could obtain

service by another transportation mode);

product competition (whether the

shipper can use a suitable substitute

product that can be acquired without

relying on the services of the same

carrier); and geographic competition

(whether the shipper can obtain the

product it needs from a different source

and/or by shipping its goods to a

different destination using another

carrier). Shippers have the burden of

showing that there is no effective

intramodal and intermodal competition;

carriers have the burden of identifying

any product and geographic competition

and showing its effectiveness.

At the Ex Parte 575 hearings, shippers

complained about the difficulties

associated with seeking rate relief from

the Board today, particularly the

complexity and burden of litigating

issues of product and geographic

competition, issues that they charge

have transformed the threshold market

dominance phase of a rail rate

complaint into a full-blown antitruststyle case of its own. Shippers regard

product and geographic competition

issues as major, undue litigation

obstacles that discourage captive

shippers from even seeking regulatory

relief from unreasonably high rates in

both large and small rates cases.

Accordingly, consistent with our

determination in Ex Parte 575 to

reexamine certain aspects of our current

regulatory regime in the context of

today’s more consolidated rail

industry—particularly those that

concern the availability of regulatory

relief—we are instituting this

proceeding to consider eliminating

product and geographic competition

from our market dominance analysis.

We note that our predecessor, the

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC),

initially concluded that consideration of

product and geographic competition

issues would complicate rate

proceedings unduly. Special Procedures

for Making Findings of Market

Dominance, 353 I.C.C. 875, 905–06,

modified, 355 I.C.C. 12 (1976) (Market

Dominance I), aff’d in relevant part sub

nom. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. v. ICC, 580

F.2d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1978). The ICC

subsequently reversed course and

decided that consideration of these

issues would be manageable. Market

Dominance Determinations, 365 I.C.C.

118, 127–31 (1981) (Market Dominance

II), aff’d sub nom. Western Coal Traffic

League v. United States, 719 F.2d 772

(5th Cir. 1983) (en banc), cert. denied,

466 U.S. 953 (1984). Later, recognizing

that it is inherently ‘‘much more

difficult’’ for shippers to prove the

ineffectiveness of these factors than of

intramodal and intermodal competition,

the ICC placed upon the railroads the

burden of both identifying any product

and geographic competition and

demonstrating the effectiveness of such

competition in individual cases. Market

Dominance III, 2 I.C.C.2d at 15.

The comments presented in the Ex

Parte 575 hearings suggest, however,

that, even without bearing the burden of

proof on these issues, shippers find that

the product and geographic competition

inquiry remains an imposing burden

upon their ability to prosecute rail rate

complaints. Aggressive use of the

discovery process may be partly

responsible for the heavy burdens

associated with the inquiry into product

and geographic competition, and we

have recently taken action to prevent a

rail carrier from effectively shifting

those burdens onto a complaining

shipper through unsupported and/or

overreaching discovery demands. FMC

Wyoming Corp. et al. v. Union Pac. R.R.,

STB Docket No. 42022 (STB served Apr.

17, 1998). However, curbing individual

instances of discovery abuses may not

be sufficient to address the shippers’

concerns. Therefore, we are instituting

this proceeding to obtain public

comment on whether we should

eliminate product and geographic

competition from consideration

altogether.

Any person that wishes to participate

as a party of record in this matter must

notify us of this intent by May 12, 1998.

In order to be designated a party of

record, a person must satisfy the filing

requirements outlined in the ADDRESSES

section. We will then compile and issue

a service list. Copies of comments and

replies must be served on all persons

designated on the list as a party of

record. Comments on the proposal are

due May 29, 1998; replies are due June

29, 1998.

A copy of this decision is being

served on all persons on the service list

in Ex Parte No. 575. This decision will

serve as notice that persons who were

parties of record in the Ex Parte 575

proceeding will not be placed on the

service list in the Ex Parte 627

proceeding unless they notify us of their

intent to participate therein.

The Board preliminarily certifies that

the proposal to eliminate product and

geographic competition from its market

dominance analysis, if adopted, would

not have a significant effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

While the proposal, if adopted, may

ease the burdens on those prosecuting

rate complaints, we do not expect it to

affect a substantial number of small

entities. The Board, however, seeks

comments on whether there would be

effects on small entities that should be

considered.

This action will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources.

Decided: April 28, 1998.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice

Chairman Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–11669 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–290 (Sub–No. 200X)]

Norfolk and Western Railway

Company; Abandonment Exemption;

in Dickenson and Buchanan Counties,

VA

Norfolk and Western Railway

Company (NW) has filed a notice of

exemption under 49 CFR part 1152

Subpart F—Exempt Abandonments to

abandon 3.34 miles of its line of railroad

between milepost CL–13.56 at Duty and

milepost CL–16.90 at Clinchfield Coal

in Dickenson and Buchanan Counties,

VA.1 The line traverses United States

Postal Service Zip Codes 24217 and

24066.

NW has certified that: (1) No local

traffic has moved over the line for at

least 2 years; (2) any overhead traffic on

the line can be rerouted over other lines;

(3) no formal complaint filed by a user

of rail service on the line (or by a state

or local government entity acting on

behalf of such user) regarding cessation

of service over the line either is pending

with the Surface Transportation Board

(Board) or with any U.S. District Court

or has been decided in favor of

complainant within the 2-year period;

and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR

1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR

1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR

1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR
24590 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 85 / Monday, May 4, 1998 / Notices

2The Board will grant a stay if an informed

decision on environmental issues (whether raised

by a party or by the Board’s Section of

Environmental Analysis in its independent

investigation) cannot be made before the

exemption’s effective date. See Exemption of Outof-Service Rail Lines, 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any

request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible

so that the Board may take appropriate action before

the exemption’s effective date.

3Each offer of financial assistance must be

accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is

set at $1000. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).

1105.12 (newspaper publication), and

49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to

governmental agencies) have been met.

As a condition to this exemption, any

employee adversely affected by the

abandonment shall be protected under

Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment— Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91

(1979). To address whether this

condition adequately protects affected

employees, a petition for partial

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

must be filed. Provided no formal

expression of intent to file an offer of

financial assistance (OFA) has been

received, this exemption will be

effective on June 3, 1998, unless stayed

pending reconsideration. Petitions to

stay that do not involve environmental

issues,2 formal expressions of intent to

file an OFA under 49 CFR

1152.27(c)(2),3 and trail use/rail banking

requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be

filed by May 14, 1998. Petitions to

reopen or requests for public use

conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must

be filed by May 26, 1998, with: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423. A

copy of any petition filed with the

Board should be sent to applicant’s

representative: James R. Paschall,

General Attorney, Norfolk Southern

Corporation, Three Commercial Place,

Norfolk, VA 23510.

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio.

NW has filed an environmental report

which addresses the abandonment’s

effects, if any, on the environment and

historic resources. The Section of

Environmental Analysis (SEA) will

issue an environmental assessment (EA)

by May 8, 1998. Interested persons may

obtain a copy of the EA by writing to

SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation

Board, Washington, DC 20423) or by

calling SEA, at (202) 565–1545.

Comments on environmental and

historic preservation matters must be

filed within 15 days after the EA

becomes available to the public.

Environmental, historic preservation,

public use, or trail use/rail banking

conditions will be imposed, where

appropriate, in a subsequent decision.

Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR

1152.29(e)(2), NW shall file a notice of

consummation with the Board to signify

that it has exercised the authority

granted and fully abandoned the line. If

consummation has not been effected by

NW’s filing of a notice of consummation

by May 4, 1999, and there are no legal

or regulatory barriers to consummation,

the authority to abandon will

automatically expire.

Decided: April 23, 1998.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–11517 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Commission to Study Capital

Budgeting

AGENCY: Advisory Commission to the

President of the United States.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

SUMMARY: The agenda for the next

meetings of the Commission to Study

Capital Budgeting includes discussions

and hearing of testimony on capital

budgeting issues on Friday, May 8. On

Saturday morning, May 9, the

Commission will hear reports from its

working groups studying different

aspects of capital budgeting and discuss

the next steps to be taken in preparation

of its report.The Commission’s final

report on capital budgeting is due on

December 13, 1998. Meetings are open

to the public. Limited seating capacity

is available.

Dates, Times and Places of the Next

Commission Meetings

May 8, 1998, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The Federal Courthouse

Conference Room 850, Eighth Floor

500 Pearl Street

New York, NY 10007

May 9, 1998, 9 a.m. to 12 noon

The Federal Courthouse

Conference Room 850, Eighth Floor

500 Pearl Street

New York, NY 10007.

The Commission is seeking all views

on capital budgeting. Interested parties

may submit their views to: President’s

Commission to Study Capital Budgeting,

Old Executive Office Building (Room

258), Washington, DC 20503, Voice:

(202) 395–4630, Fax: (202) 395–6170, EMail: capitallbudget@eop.gov,

Website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/

wh/eop/omb/pcscb/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

E. William Dinkelacker, Designated

Federal Official, Room 4456 Main

Treasury, Washington, DC 20220, Voice:

(202) 622–1285, Fax: (202) 622–1294, EMail:

william.dinkelacker@treas.sprint.com.

Angel E. Ray,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–11790 Filed 5–1–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–25–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

Surety Companies Acceptable on

Federal Bonds: Zenith Insurance,

Ltd.—Fraudulent Bonding

AGENCY: Financial Management Service,

Fiscal Service, Department of the

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This is regarding Treasury

Department Circular 570; 1997 Revision,

published July 1, 1997, at 62 FR 35548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874–6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal

bond-approving officers are advised that

Zenith Insurance Company, Woodland

Hills, CA, a Treasury certified company,

does not issue construction, bid,

performance or payment bonds and is in

no way related to Zenith Insurance, Ltd.

Zenith Insurance, Ltd. is not a Treasury

approved surety company.

Please refer to the State of California

Department of Insurance Press Release

#041, dated April 3, 1998, for additional

information regarding Zenith Insurance,

Ltd.

Questions related to the authenticity

of Zenith bonds should be directed to

Zenith Insurance company at (818) 587–

5721. The authenticity of its bonds

currently in force, that were written

during the past year, should also be

verified.

The Treasury Department Circular

570 may be viewed and downloaded

through the Internet at http://

www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html or

through our computerized public

bulletin board system (FMS Inside Line)

at (202) 874–6887. A hard copy of the

Circular may be purchased from the

Government Printing Office (GPO)

Subscription Service, Washington, DC,

Telephone (202) 512–1800. When

ordering the Circular from GPO, use the

following stock number: 048000–00509–

8.