Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices 30811

1Under 49 U.S.C. 10901(a), a carrier may ‘‘(1)

construct an extension to any of its railroad lines;

(2) construct an additional railroad line; [or] (3)

provide transportation over, or by means of, an

extended or additional railroad line; * * * only if

the Board issues a certificate authorizing such

activity.’’

2According to UP, the line rehabilitation will

‘‘accommodate the current volume of traffic in this

area, meet the unmet needs of local shippers, and

handle expected growth of Laredo gateway traffic.’’

3Although no citation is given, it appears that in

the merger the line was authorized for

abandonment in Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad

Company-Abandonment Exemption-In Comal

County, TX, Docket No. AB–102 (Sub-No. 18X).

4UP states that, although the lines are not located

within the same right-of-way, in some places they

are only 100 feet apart. Based on the map provided

by UP, it also appears that in one place the lines

are more than 1.5 miles apart.

5UP states that a shipper in New Braunfels is

being served over about one-half mile of the former

MKT line. UP also uses another 4000 feet of track

to serve a lumber shipper. Prior to the

rehabilitation, additional segments of the line were

evidently used for storage.

6UP claims that this case differs from Dakota

Rail, Inc.—Petition for Exemption from 49 U.S.C.

10901, 10903 & 11301, Finance Docket No. 30721

(ICC served Apr. 10, 1986) (Dakota). There the ICC

indicated that the carrier would need to seek

authority to resume service over a line it had

abandoned. UP argues that the discussion in

Dakota was simply dicta. Moreover, the line

abandoned there was the only one in that

geographic area, and if service were resumed, the

carrier would arguably be entering new territory.

Here, UP submits, UP maintained service in the

area even after the abandonment through the use

of its parallel track.

10901 over UP’s decision to rehabilitate

and reactivate 16.7 miles of line passing

though New Braunfels, TX.

DATES: Any interested person may file

with the Board written comments

concerning UP’s petition by June 22,

1998. UP may reply by June 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send an original plus 10

copies of all pleadings, referring to STB

Finance Docket No. 33611, to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, Attn: STB

Finance Docket No. 33611, 1925 K

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, pleadings must certify

that a copy has been served on UP’s

representatives: J. Michael Hemmer and

Pamela L. Miles, Covington & Burling,

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., P.O.

Box 7566, Washington, DC 20044–7566.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565–1600.

[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)

565–1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By

petition filed on May 26, 1998, UP

requests the Board to issue an order

under 49 CFR 1117.1 declaring that its

rehabilitation of the segment of the

former Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad

(MKT) line that runs parallel to UP’s

mainline in the New Braunfels, TX area

does not need to be reviewed by the

Board under 49 U.S.C. 10901. 1

According to UP, the City Council of

New Braunfels adopted in May a

resolution requesting UP to permanently

cease rehabilitating the line.

UP states that it has encountered

significant congestion on its Austin

Subdivision north of San Antonio. UP

maintains that, because of inadequate

rail capacity on this route, it has been

unable to haul all of the aggregates

needed by the Texas construction

industry. To remedy the capacity

problem, UP has begun rehabilitating

the former MKT line between UP

milepost 219.5 at Jude, TX (about 10

miles south of San Marcos), and UP

milepost 236.2 at Ogden Junction, TX, a

distance of about 16.7 miles. 2 UP claims

that this rehabilitation project will

eliminate the only single-track section

on the 56 miles between San Marcos

and San Antonio.

UP notes that, in the UP-MKT merger

(Union Pacific Corp. Et Al.-Cont.—MOKS-TX Co. et al., 4 I.C.C.2d 409 (1988)),

the Interstate Commerce Commission

(ICC) granted abandonment authority for

the line.3 UP states that, while service

has been discontinued on the line, the

track was not removed and, except for

a few locations, the line is intact.4 Parts

of the track continue to be used.5

UP argues that 49 U.S.C. 10901 does

not give the Board authority over all rail

track projects. It notes that 49 U.S.C.

10906 excludes spur tracks from Board

construction jurisdiction. While the line

at issue is not a spur, UP contends that

some track projects fall between section

10906 exclusions and section 10901

jurisdiction, because they are neither

‘‘an extension’’ of a rail line nor ‘‘an

extension of a railroad line.’’

Specifically, UP argues that section

10901 does not apply to this situation

because it is a ‘‘mere addition of a

second track to an existing line or

railroad, [and it does] not alter the

competitive situation by injecting a

carrier into a new service area.’’

UP cites Missouri Pacific R.R.—

Construction and Operation

Exemption— Avondale, LA, STB

Finance Docket No. 33123, (STB served

July 11, 1997) at 2 for the proposition

that ‘‘[a]n extension or addition to a rail

line occurs when a construction project

enables a carrier to penetrate or invade

a new market.’’ UP claims that it is not

creating a new rail line, but simply

reinstating service on a previously

operated line. Moreover, it argues that it

is not penetrating new territory, because

UP is the only railroad serving

customers in the area.6

UP also contends that its

rehabilitation is not a line addition or

extension, because it is simply

developing a second main line or

‘‘double tracking’’ to increase the

capacity of the existing mainline.

According to UP, the ICC found that it

did not have jurisdiction over double

track construction. City of Detroit v.

Canadian National Ry., 9 I.C.C.2d 1208

(1993), aff’d sub nom. Detroit/Wayne

County Authority v. ICC, 59 F.3d 1314

(D.C. Cir. 1995) and City of Stafford,

Texas v. Southern Pacific

Transportation Co., Finance Docket No.

32395 (ICC served Nov. 8, 1994) aff’d

sub nom. City of Stafford v. ICC, 59 F.

3d 535 (5th Cir. 1995).

By this notice, the Board is requesting

comments on UP’s petition.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: June 1, 1998.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–15064 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 121X)]

Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Abandonment Exemption—in

Arkansas County, AR

Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP)

has filed a notice of exemption under 49

CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt

Abandonments and Discontinuances of

Service and Trackage Rights to abandon

and discontinue service over a 26.0-mile

line of railroad on the Stuttgart Branch

from milepost 236.0 near Ricusky to the

end of the line at milepost 262.0 near

Indiana, in Arkansas County, AR. The

line traverses United States Postal

Service Zip Code 72042.

UP 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

1105.12 (newspaper publication), and
30812 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 1998 / Notices

1The 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.

2Each offer of financial assistance must be

accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is

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

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 July 5, 1998, unless stayed

pending reconsideration. Petitions to

stay that do not involve environmental

issues,1 formal expressions of intent to

file an OFA under 49 CFR

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

requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be

filed by June 15, 1998. Petitions to

reopen or requests for public use

conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must

be filed by June 25, 1998, with: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423.

A copy of any petition filed with the

Board should be sent to applicant’s

representative: Joseph D. Anthofer,

General Attorney, Union Pacific

Railroad Company, 1416 Dodge Street,

Room 830, Omaha, NE 68170.

If the verified notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio.

UP has filed an environmental report

which addresses the effects of the

abandonment and discontinuance, if

any, on the environment and historic

resources. The Section of Environmental

Analysis (SEA) will issue an

environmental assessment (EA) by June

10, 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), UP 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

UP’s filing of a notice of consummation

by June 5, 1999, and there are no legal

or regulatory barriers to consummation,

the authority to abandon will

automatically expire.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: May 27, 1998.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–14572 Filed 6–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Treasury Advisory Committee on

Commercial Operations of the U.S.

Customs Service

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, Treasury.

ACTION: Renewal of Treasury Advisory

Committee on Commercial Operations

of the U.S. Customs Service and

solicitation of applications for

committee membership.

SUMMARY: It is in the public interest to

renew the Advisory Committee for

another two-year term. This notice also

establishes criteria and procedures for

the selection of members.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis M. O’Connell, Director, Office of

Tariff and Trade Affairs, Office of the

Under Secretary (Enforcement). (202)

622–0220. Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act 5 U.S.C. App.

I (1962), and section 95603  of the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1987 (Pub. L. 100–203), the Under

Secretary (Enforcement) announces the

renewal of the following advisory

committee:

Title: The Treasury Advisory

Committee on Commercial Operations

of the U.S. Customs Service

Purpose: The purpose of the

Committee is to present advice and

recommendations to the Secretary of the

Treasury regarding commercial

operations of the U.S. Customs Service

and to submit a report to Congress

containing a summary of its operations

and its views and recommendations.

Statement of Public Interest: it is in

the public interest to continue the

existence of the Committee upon

expiration, under the provisions of the

Advisory Committee Act, of its current

two-year term. The Committee provides

a critical forum for distinguished

representatives of diverse industry

sectors to present their views on major

issues involving commercial operations

of the Customs Service. These views are

offered directly to senior Treasury and

Customs officials on a regular basis in

a candid atmosphere. There exists no

other single body that serves a

comparable function.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100–203), Congress

repealed the statutory mandate for a

Customs User Fee Advisory Committee

and directed the Secretary of the

Treasury to create a new Advisory

Committee on Commercial Operations

of the U.S. Customs Service. The

original Committee consisted of 20

members drawn from industry sectors

affected by Customs commercial

operations. The Committee’s charter

was filed on October 17, 1988 and

expired two years later. Charters were

subsequently filed for second, third, and

fourth, and fifth two-year terms. The

current charter will expire on October

15, 1998. the Treasury Department plans

to file a new charter by that date

renewing the Committee for a sixth twoyear term.

Objective, Scope and Description of the

Committee

The Committee’s objectives are to

advise the Secretary of the Treasury on

issues relating to the commercial

operations of the Customs Service. It is

expected that, during its sixth two-year

term, the Committee will consider such

issues as implementation of the

Customs Modernization Act,

administration of staff and resources for

commercial operations, informed

compliance and compliance assessment,

the account system, automated systems,

the International Trade Data System, the

Year 2000 conversion, commercial

enforcement, international efforts to

harmonize customs practices and

procedures, strategic planning, and

northern border and southern board

issues and the relationships with

Canadian Customs and Mexican

Customs.

The Committee will be chaired by the

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for

Enforcement. The Committee will

function for a two-year period before

renewal or termination and will meet

approximately eight times (quarterly)

during the period. Additional special