34956 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

may be of any dollar value within the

maximum amounts allowed for each

area of interest (so long as those

amounts do not exceed the total amount

available under the BAA), but it is

anticipated that most, if not all,

individual awards (or that part of the

Government’s portion in a cost sharing

arrangement) will have dollar values

ranging between $25,000 and $500,000

each. Prospective offerors are advised

that awards greater than $500,000 will

generally require the awardee (except a

small business concern) to already have

in place or prepare, at or before the time

of award, an acceptable plan to

maximize the participation of minority,

women-owned and disadvantaged

business enterprises. Because the range

and diversity of activities that may be

proposed under the BAA does not

permit a common work statement, no

single Standard Industrial Classification

(SIC) code will be issued for the BAA.

SIC codes will be specific to each

individual contract award as

determined by the type of activity in

which the actual offeror will be

engaged, and as a function of the

ownership characteristics of the

prospective offeror. Cost sharing by

awardees is not mandatory under this

BAA, however because of the potential

for long-term benefits to those firms or

institutions involved in these research

and development activities, offerors are

strongly encouraged to consider sharing

the cost of their proposed projects.

Awards

Research projects, technology

advancements, and/or demonstrations

proposed under this BAA will be

considered for award through a two-step

process. In the first step, interested

parties must submit a pre-proposal

concept paper for each research project,

technology advancement or

demonstration (by area of interest) the

applicant wishes the FRA to consider.

The purpose of the pre-proposal concept

paper is to preclude unwarranted and

possibly costly effort on the part of

interested parties whose proposed work

may not be of interest to the FRA under

this BAA. Pre-proposal concept papers

submitted under this BAA will be

subject to technical review in

accordance with the established

evaluation criteria. Based upon its

evaluations, the FRA will subsequently

notify each respondent who submits a

pre-proposal concept paper as to

whether the Government encourages or

does not encourage the submission of a

full proposal. In the second step,

respondents whose pre-proposal

concept papers are evaluated favorably

and determined by the FRA to be

consistent with the objectives of the

BAA and of interest to the Government,

may be requested to submit a full

technical and cost proposal or other

information relative to the initial

submission for further consideration.

Such a request will NOT guarantee the

applicant that an award will be

forthcoming for the offered work or

project, nor otherwise create an

obligation on the part of the

Government. Awards may take the form

of contracts, grants or cooperative

agreements. Contracts will be used

when the principal purpose is the

acquisition of supplies or services

(including research and development)

for the direct benefit or use of the

Federal Government. Grants or

cooperative agreements will be used

when the principal purpose of the

transaction is to stimulate or support

research and development for another

public purpose.

Areas of Technology Interest

Technologies which are high-priority

research candidates for evaluation

pursuant to this announcement include:

(1) Grade crossing hazard mitigation

systems. (2) Innovative, low cost

technologies to improve track and

structures. (3) Advance train control

systems. (4) Non-electric locomotives

and passenger equipment systems. (5)

Other scientific study, technology

adaptation, or demonstration directed

toward advancing the state-of-the-art or

increasing the knowledge or

understanding of high-speed passenger

rail service in the U.S.

Pre-Proposal Concept Papers and

Preparation Instructions

Pre-proposal concept papers should

be ten (10) pages or less (except as

otherwise noted). Pre-proposal concept

paper submissions must contain a

Technical Concept Section and a Cost or

Pricing Section, and when applicable,

should contain a Phased or Follow-on

Research Project Section. Specific

content and format requirements and

additional instructions for preparing

submissions, as well as further

information on the areas of interest

themselves and the evaluation/selection

process, are provided in the BAA 98–01

Package. Interested parties may obtain a

copy of the BAA 98–01 Package by

submitting a written request to U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal

Railroad Administration, Office of

Acquisition and Grants Services, RAD–

30, 400 7th Street, SW, Mail Stop 50,

Washington, DC 20590, or via telefacsimile request (Fax No. 202/632–

3846), to the attention of the Grants/

Contracting Officer, Mr. Riddle. The

request should also reference the

Solicitation No. BAA 98–01. The BAA

98–01 Package should also be available

on the Internet in July 1998,

Evaluation Criteria

Pre-proposal concept papers (and

later full proposals or other

submissions, if and when requested)

will be evaluated using the following

criteria, which are listed in descending

order of relative importance: (1) The

overall scientific merit and/or technical

merits of the proposal. (2) The degree to

which the overall proposed technical

effort will advance U.S. high-speed rail

technology, and the extent to which its

application to railroad operations would

improve intercity passenger operations

through improved railroad capital

equipment or infrastructure, traffic

control centers, interfaces among these,

or operating methods, and/or its

potential for performance improvement

in one or more qualities such as, cost

effectiveness, reliability, safety,

availability, or maintainability. (3) The

technical qualifications and

demonstrated experience of key

personnel proposed to perform the

technical efforts. (4) The administrative

qualifications and demonstrated

experience of the proposing

organization to support projects such as

those proposed. (5) The reasonableness

and realism of the proposed costs and

fee (if any). (6) The degree to which

Federal funds are leveraged by private,

non-Federal, and/or Federal funds

available from sources other than FRA

programs. (7) The availability of funds.

THIS ANNOUNCEMENT

CONSTITUTES THE ONLY

SOLICITATION. NO OTHER REQUEST

FOR PROPOSALS OR

ANNOUNCEMENT WILL BE ISSUED.

Dated: June 18, 1998.

James T. McQueen,

Associate Administrator for Railroad

Development.

[FR Doc. 98–16762 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33556]

Canadian National Railway Company,

Grand Trunk Corporation, and Grand

Trunk Western Railroad Incorporated—

Control—Illinois Central Corporation,

Illinois Central Railroad Company,

Chicago, Central and Pacific Railroad

Company, and Cedar River Railroad

Company

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices 34957

1CNR, GTC, and GTW, and their affiliates, are

referred to collectively as CN.

2 IC Corp., ICR, CCP, and CRRC, and their

affiliates, are referred to collectively as IC. CN and

IC are referred to collectively as Applicants.

3CN/IC–1 reflected Applicants’ expectation that

they would file the Primary Application on or

before June 12, 1998. In view of the need to take

account of subsequent developments, Applicants

state that they now expect to file in July.

4 In Decision No. 2 (served March 13, 1998, and

published that day in the Federal Register at 63 FR

12574), we found that the transaction contemplated

by Applicants is a major transaction, as that term

is defined at 49 CFR 1180.2(a); we assigned the

proceeding to Administrative Law Judge David

Harfeld for handling of all discovery matters and

the initial resolution of discovery disputes; and we

advised the parties that they will be required to

submit all pleadings both in the required paper

form and also as computer data contained on

diskettes (disks) or compact discs (CDs).

In Decision No. 4 (simultaneously being served

with this decision today), we address Applicants’

petition (CN/IC–4) for waiver or clarification of

certain filing requirements.

5 In Decision No. 3 (served May 19, 1998, and

published on May 22, 1998, in the Federal Register

at 63 FR 28442–44), we denied a petition for

reconsideration of Decision No. 2, concerning the

requirement that parties submit copies of all textual

materials on disks or CDs, and stated that parties

may individually seek a waiver from the disk-CD

requirement.

6Applicants’ proposed schedule is similar to the

180-day schedule proposed to the Interstate

Commerce Commission by applicants in Finance

Docket No. 32549, Burlington Northern Inc. and

Burlington Northern Railroad Company—Control

and Merger—Santa Fe Pacific Corporation and The

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

(BN/SF).

7The term ‘‘F’’ designates the date of filing of the

application and ‘‘F + n’’ means ‘‘n’’ days following

that date.

ACTION: Decision No. 5 in STB Finance

Docket No. 33556; Request for

Comments on Procedural Schedule.

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation

Board (Board) is inviting comments

from interested persons on a proposed

procedural schedule for this proceeding.

On February 12, 1998, Canadian

National Railway Company (CNR),

Grand Trunk Corporation (GTC), and

Grand Trunk Western Railroad

Incorporated (GTW),1 and Illinois

Central Corporation (IC Corp.), Illinois

Central Railroad Company (ICR),

Chicago, Central and Pacific Railroad

Company (CCP), and Cedar River

Railroad Company (CRRC),2 filed a

notice of intent (CN/IC–1) 3 to file a joint

application seeking Surface

Transportation Board (Board) authority

under 49 U.S.C. 11321–26 for the

acquisition of control, by CNR, through

its indirect wholly owned subsidiary

Blackhawk Merger Sub, Inc., of control

of IC Corp. and through it of ICR and its

railroad affiliates, and for the resulting

common control by CNR of GTW and its

railroad affiliates and ICR and its

railroad affiliates.4

DATES: Written comments on the

Board’s proposed schedule must be filed

with the Board no later than July 16,

1998. Applicants’ reply is due by July

27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 25

copies of all pleadings referring to STB

Finance Docket No. 33556 to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, one copy of all

documents in this proceeding must be

sent to Administrative Law Judge David

Harfeld, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, Office of Administrative

Law Judges, 888 First Street, N.E., Suite

11F, Washington, DC 20426 [(202) 219–

2514; FAX: (202) 219–3289] and to each

of Applicants’ representatives: (1) Paul

A. Cunningham, Esq., Harkins

Cunningham, 1300 19th Street, N.W.,

Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036–1609;

and (2) William C. Sippel, Esq.,

Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, Two

Prudential Plaza, 45th Floor, 180 North

Stetson Avenue, Chicago, IL 60601–

6710. Comments should contain the

name and address of the commenting

party, any recommendations for changes

to the attached proposed procedural

schedule and support for any such

changes.

In addition to submitting an original

and 25 copies of all paper documents

filed with the Board, the parties shall

also submit, on disks or CDs, copies of

all textual materials, electronic

workpapers, data bases and

spreadsheets used to develop

quantitative evidence. Data must be

submitted on 3.5 inch IBM-compatible

floppy disks or CDs. Textual materials

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. A copy of each disk or CD

submitted to the Board should be

provided to any other party upon

request.5

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia

M. Farr, (202) 565–1613. [TDD for the

hearing impaired: (202) 565–1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

20, 1998, Applicants filed a petition

(CN/IC–5) to establish a proposed

procedural schedule 6 as follows:

Applicants’ Proposed Procedural

Schedule 7

F Primary Application and any

related applications filed.

F + 30 Board notice of acceptance of

primary application (and any related

applications) published in the Federal

Register.

F + 30 Environmental Report and

Safety Integration Plan due.

F + 45 Notification of intent to

participate in proceeding due.

Description of anticipated inconsistent

and responsive applications due;

petitions for waiver or clarification due

with respect to such applications.

F + 60 Inconsistent and responsive

applications due. All comments,

protests, requests for conditions, and

any other evidence and argument in

opposition to the Primary Application

due. Comments by U.S. Department of

Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) and U.S. Department of

Transportation (‘‘DOT’’) due.

F + 75 Notice of acceptance (if

required) of inconsistent and responsive

applications published in the Federal

Register.

F + 90 Response to inconsistent and

responsive applications due. Response

to comments, protests, requested

conditions, and other opposition due.

Rebuttal in support of primary

application and related applications

due.

F + 105 Rebuttal in support of

inconsistent and responsive

applications due.

F + 125 Briefs due, all parties (not to

exceed 50 pages).

F + 145 Oral argument.

F + 150 Voting conference (at

Board’s discretion).

F + 180 Date of service of final

decision.

The proposed schedule contains

substantially shorter time periods than

those provided for in the statute at 49

U.S.C. 11325. For instance, pursuant to

49 U.S.C. 11325(b)(1), written comments

about an application may be filed with

the Board within 45 days after Board

notice of acceptance of the primary

application (and any related

applications) is published in the

Federal Register. Applicants propose

that comments be filed within 30 days

of publication in the Federal Register.

The proposed schedule also suggests

that inconsistent and responsive

applications be filed 30 days following

acceptance of the primary application

rather than the 90 days noted in the

statute.

Comments in opposition to the

Applicants’ proposed procedural

schedule were filed by the Brotherhood

of Maintenance of Way Employees

(BMWE), on June 2, 1998, and the

United Transportation Union (UTU), on

June 8, 1998. Both BMWE and UTU

state that the proposed schedule is too

short and urge the Board to adopt the

statutory procedural schedule set forth

at 49 U.S.C. 11325(b). Alternatively,

UTU urges the Board to adopt a 350-day

schedule modeled upon the procedural
34958 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices

8Specifically, the statute requires the completion

of the evidentiary stage within 12 months after

publication of the Federal Register notice accepting

the application. That publication is due no later

than 30 days after the application is filed.

9 In Decision No. 1 (served February 26, 1998), a

protective order was issued in this proceeding.

schedule issued by the Board in CSX

Corporation and CSX Transportation,

Inc., Norfolk Southern Corporation and

Norfolk Southern Railway Company—

Control and Operating Leases/

Agreements— Conrail Inc., and

Consolidated Rail Corporation, STB

Finance Docket No. 33388, Decision No.

6 (STB served May 30, 1997).

We do not at this time see any

compelling reason to adopt a 6-month

procedural schedule for this proceeding.

The statute allows 16 months for the

processing of major consolidation

proceedings. Under 49 U.S.C.

11325(b)(3), the Board must conclude

the evidentiary stage of the proceeding

within 13 months of the application’s

filing date,8 and must issue the final

decision by the 90th day after the

conclusion of the evidentiary stage. We

believe that a 10-month procedural

schedule would be sufficiently

expeditious so as not to delay

unnecessarily any benefits that would

flow from the proposed integration of

the CN and IC systems, while at the

same time allowing sufficient time to

develop the record upon which the

Board’s decision would be based. We

propose to modify Applicants’ proposed

procedural schedule so as to conclude

the evidentiary stage of this proceeding

approximately 8 months after the

application is filed, and to issue the

final decision approximately 2 months

thereafter.

Given the importance of the safe

implementation of major rail

consolidations, we propose to require

Applicants to file Safety Integration

Plans on Day (F + 30) as they have

proposed. Also, we propose to require

inconsistent and responsive applicants

to file their Responsive Environmental

Reports and Environmental Verified

Statements on Day (F + 100), which is

20 days in advance of when inconsistent

and responsive applications would be

due.

Specifically, as for the remainder of

the procedural schedule, we propose to

modify Applicants’ proposed schedule

to allow 30 more days for parties

intending to file comments, protests,

requests for conditions, and any other

opposition evidence and argument, so

that these filings would not be due until

90 days after the application is filed

[Day (F + 90)]. Comments from the U.S.

Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT)

would be due 120 days after the

application is filed. Responses to

comments, protests, requested

conditions, and other opposition (except

DOJ and DOT), and also rebuttal in

support of the primary application and

related applications would be due on

Day (F + 120). We propose to keep

inconsistent and responsive

applications due 120 days after the

application is filed [Day (F + 120)] as

provided for under 49 U.S.C.

11325(b)(2). Response to comments of

DOJ and DOT would be due on Day (F

+ 150 ). Descriptions of anticipated

inconsistent and responsive

applications and petitions for waiver or

clarification due with respect to such

applications would be due on Day (F +

60) (rather than Day (F + 45)).

In addition, we propose adding 5 days

for responses to inconsistent and

responsive applications (which would

be due Day (F + 155)), and adding 15

days for rebuttals for inconsistent and

responsive applications (which would

be due Day (F + 185)). Briefs would be

due on Day (F + 205), and we are

proposing page limitations for briefs for

all parties to promote useful, focused

filings, with Applicants permitted to file

somewhat longer briefs, as they would

have more points to address at that time

than would other parties. We propose,

however, adding 10 days to Applicants’

proposed period of time for parties to

prepare for oral argument, so that oral

argument would occur on Day (F + 235).

The oral argument would close the

record. We propose (as did the

Applicants) a 5-day interval between the

oral argument and the voting

conference, so that a voting conference

would occur on Day (F + 240). We also

propose allowing 60 days after the

voting conference for the service of the

Board’s final decision on Day (F + 300).

Proposed Procedural Schedule as

Modified by The Board

F Primary application and any

related applications filed.

F + 30 Board notice of acceptance of

primary application (and any related

applications) published in the Federal

Register.

F + 30 Safety Integration Plan due.

F + 45 Notification of intent to

participate in proceeding due.

F + 60 Description of anticipated

inconsistent and responsive

applications due; petitions for waiver or

clarification due with respect to such

applications.

F + 90 All comments, protests,

requests for conditions, and any other

evidence and argument in opposition to

the Primary Application due (except

filings by U.S. Department of Justice

(DOJ) and U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT)).

F + 100 Responsive Environmental

Report and Environmental Verified

Statements for inconsistent and

responsive applicants due.

F + 120 Inconsistent and responsive

applications due. Comments by DOJ and

DOT due. Response to comments,

protests, requested conditions, and

other opposition (except DOJ and DOT)

due. Rebuttal in support of primary

application and related applications

due.

F + 140 Notice of acceptance (if

required) of inconsistent and responsive

applications published in the Federal

Register.

F + 150 Response to comments of

DOJ and DOT due.

F + 155 Response to inconsistent

and responsive applications due.

F + 185 Rebuttal in support of

inconsistent and responsive

applications due.

F + 205 Briefs due, all parties (not to

exceed 50 pages for Applicants and not

to exceed 25 pages for all other parties).

F + 235 Oral argument (close of

record).

F + 240 Voting conference (at

Board’s discretion).

F + 300 Date of service of final

decision.

Immediately upon each evidentiary

filing, the filing party will place all

documents relevant to the filing (other

than documents that are privileged or

otherwise protected from discovery) in

a depository open to all parties, and will

make its witnesses available for

depositions. Access to documents

subject to protective order will be

appropriately restricted.9 Discovery

relating to applications and other filings

(including responsive and inconsistent

applications), where permitted, will

begin immediately upon their filing.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

assigned to this proceeding will have

the authority initially to resolve any

discovery disputes.

Environmental Review Process

Based on consultations with

Applicants, the Board’s Section of

Environmental Analysis (SEA) has

determined that preparation of an

Environmental Assessment (EA) is

appropriate in this proceeding. This

approach is consistent with the Board’s

environmental rules at 49 CFR 1105.6

(b)(4), which call for an EA in a merger

or acquisition such as this proceeding.

Also, in making its determination to

prepare an EA, SEA considered the

nature of the transaction, including the

projected changes in train traffic, the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 123 / Friday, June 26, 1998 / Notices 34959

10The comments of BMWE and UTU will be

considered along with any other comments received

in response to this notice.

anticipated changes at rail yards and

intermodal facilities, and the number,

type, and location of proposed

construction projects. However, if SEA

determines that this proceeding has the

potential for significant environmental

impacts, then SEA may prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement, as

required by the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA).

Applicants originally proposed to file

an environmental report 30 days after

they filed their application. In a letter

dated June 18, 1998, however,

Applicants requested that SEA conduct

a modified environmental review

process in this proceeding. SEA concurs

with this approach. Under this

approach, Applicants will provide, with

their application and operating plan, an

environmental overview rather than an

environmental report. This is consistent

with the Board’s environmental rules at

49 CFR 1105.10 (d), which waive the

requirement for an environmental report

for applicants that retain an

independent third-party contractor to

work under SEA’s direction to prepare

the necessary environmental

documentation. For this proceeding,

Applicants have retained the requisite

independent third-party contractor.

With direction and guidance from

SEA, Applicants will prepare and

submit to SEA a Preliminary Draft

Environmental Assessment (PDEA).

Preparation of a PDEA is consistent with

the Council on Environmental Quality

regulations at 40 CFR 1506.5(b) that

permit preparation of an environmental

assessment by an applicant. Upon

receipt of Applicants’ PDEA, SEA will

review and verify the environmental

information provided by Applicants in

this document. SEA will then prepare a

Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft

EA) for public review and comment.

The Draft EA will include SEA’s

independent preliminary

recommendations for mitigation to

address potentially adverse

environmental impacts.

As part of the environmental review

process, Applicants also propose to

submit a safety integration plan, which

will fully describe the extensive plans

they have for maximizing the safe

operation of the combined system.

After reviewing all of the public

comments on the Draft EA and

conducting additional analyses, SEA

will prepare a Final Environmental

Assessment (Final EA). The Final EA

will include SEA’s final

recommendations for environmental

mitigation. The Board will consider all

public comments, the Draft EA and

Final EA, and SEA’s environmental

recommendations in making its final

decision in this proceeding.

Other Matters

Applicants recommend that, in

addition to noting that new evidence

may not be filed with briefs, the Board

should further clarify that crossexamination depositions of rebuttal

witnesses cannot be used as a vehicle

for adding to the evidentiary record any

documents not filed with the Board as

part of the application or one of the

rounds of evidentiary filings specifically

provided for by the Board’s schedule.

Applicants suggest that the Board

include in its procedural schedule

language which reminds parties that, in

discovery and in submissions to the

Board, they focus strictly on relevant

issues.

Applicants request that the Board

direct that parties wishing to engage in

discovery consult with the ALJ

designated to handle all discovery

matters and to resolve initially all

discovery disputes, and that the Board

give the ALJ authority to adopt

discovery guidelines and rule on

discovery matters but not to modify the

procedural schedule.

Applicants also suggest that the Board

require appeals of ALJ decisions to be

filed within 3 working days of the date

of a bench ruling, or in its absence the

date of a written ruling, with replies to

appeals or to any motion filed with the

Board to be filed within 3 working days.

We invite all interested persons to

submit written comments on the

procedural schedule we are proposing

here. Comments must be filed by July

16, 1998. Applicants may reply by July

27, 1998.10

This action will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources.

Decided: June 22, 1998.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice

Chairman Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17132 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33585]

RailTex, Inc.—Control Exemption—

Central Properties, Inc., The Central

Railroad Company of Indianapolis, and

The Central Railroad Company of

Indiana

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

SUMMARY: Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the

Board exempts from the prior approval

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323–25 the

acquisition of control by RailTex, Inc.,

of The Central Railroad Company of

Indianapolis and The Central Railroad

Company of Indiana, Class III rail

carriers, through the purchase of all of

the stock of their noncarrier parent

holding company, Central Properties,

Inc.

DATES: The exemption will be effective

July 26, 1998. Petitions to stay must be

filed by July 13, 1998, and petitions to

reopen must be filed by July 21, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10

copies of all pleadings referring to STB

Finance Docket No. 33585 to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, send one copy of

pleadings to petitioner’s representative:

Karl Morell, Ball Janik LLP, Suite 225,

1455 F Street, NW, Washington, DC

20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar (202) 565–1600. [TDD

for the hearing impaired (202) 565–

1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional information is contained in

the Board’s decision. To purchase a

copy of the full decision, write to, call,

or pick up in person from: DC News &

Data, Inc., 1925 K Street, NW, Suite 210,

Washington, DC 20006. Telephone:

(202) 289–4357. [Assistance for the

hearing impaired is available through

TDD services (202) 565–1695.] Board

decisions and notices are available on

our website at WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

Decided: June 22, 1998.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice

Chairman Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–17133 Filed 6–25–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P