DOT REPORT #35 - May, 1997 ================================================================= A compilation of rail notices published by the US Department of Transportation between May 1 - 15, 1997. Includes abandonment, operation and control notices, FRA orders and related petitions. Condensed from original. ================================================================= CONTENTS: Southern Pacific Transportation Company--Trackage Rights Exemption--Union Pacific Railroad Company Aroostook Valley Railroad Company--Abandonment Exemption--in Aroostook County, ME Union Pacific Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company--Control and Merger--Southern Pacific Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, SPCSL Corp., and The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company [oversight] Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief From the Requirements of Title 49 CFR Part 236 Norfolk and Western Railway Company--Purchase Exemption-- Consolidated Rail Corporation Petitions for Waiver of Compliance 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 CSX Transportation, Inc.--Trackage Rights Exemption--Consolidated Rail Corporation Southern Freight Logistics, LLC; Lease and Operation Exemption; Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee CSX Transportation, Inc.; Abandonment Exemption; in Muskegon County, MI Dallas Area Rapid Transit; Abandonment Exemption; in Dallas and Collin Counties, TX Southern Pacific Transportation Company--Discontinuance of Trackage Rights Exemption--in Dallas and Collin Counties, TX St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company--Discontinuance of Trackage Rights Exemption--in Dallas and Collin Counties, TX ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33394] Southern Pacific Transportation Company--Trackage Rights Exemption--Union Pacific Railroad Company Union Pacific Railroad Company has agreed to grant overhead trackage rights to Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SP) over trackage extending from milepost 82.88, near Lathrop, to milepost 94.50, near Stockton, a distance of 11.62 miles in San Joaquin County, CA. The earliest the transaction can be consummated is May 5, 1997, the effective date of the exemption. The purpose of the trackage rights is to facilitate efficient train operations during reconstruction of SP's Roseville Yard. Decided: April 30, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-42 (Sub-No. 3X)] Aroostook Valley Railroad Company--Abandonment Exemption--in Aroostook County, ME ACTION: Notice of exemption. SUMMARY: Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board exempts from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 the abandonment by Aroostook Valley Railroad Company of its entire line of railroad between: (1) Milepost 3.04 on Skyway Branch and milepost 4.62 (the end of the main line) at Skyway Industrial Park, including all line and sidings on Skyway Industrial Park; and (2) the connection with Bangor and Aroostook Railroad at AVR milepost 0.0 at Skyway Junction and milepost 3.41 on Skyway Branch, for a total of approximately 3.19 miles, in Aroostook County, ME. (Actual mileage does not correspond with the milepost numbers.) DATES: Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) is received, this exemption will be effective on June 5, 1997. Decided: April 25, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 21)] Union Pacific Corporation, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company--Control and Merger--Southern Pacific Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, SPCSL Corp., and The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company [oversight] ACTION: Decision No. 1; Notice of Oversight Proceeding, and Request for Comments from Interested Persons on any Effects of the Merger on Competition and Implementation of the Conditions Imposed to Address Competitive Harms. SUMMARY: The Board is instituting a proceeding to implement the oversight condition imposed in Finance Docket No. 32760 (UP/SP), Decision No. 44 (STB served Aug. 12, 1996), and is seeking comments from interested persons on any effects of the merger on competition and the implementation of the conditions imposed to address competitive harms. The Board is also requesting that persons intending to participate in the oversight proceeding notify the Board of their intent to participate. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In UP/SP, Decision No. 44, served August 12, 1996, the Board approved the common control and merger of the rail carriers controlled by Union Pacific Corporation (Union Pacific Railroad Company and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company) and the rail carriers controlled by Southern Pacific Rail Corporation (Southern Pacific Transportation Company, St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, SPCSL Corp., and The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company) (collectively, applicants), subject to various conditions. Common control was consummated on September 11, 1996. The Board imposed a 5- year oversight condition to examine whether the conditions imposed effectively addressed the competitive harms they were intended to remedy, and retained jurisdiction to impose additional remedial conditions if, and to the extent, the Board determines that the conditions already imposed have not effectively addressed the competitive harms caused by the merger. The Board now proposes to initiate an oversight proceeding to take comments from interested persons on the effectiveness and implementation of those conditions. Applicants' Progress Reports On April 1, 1997, applicants submitted their first quarter 1997 progress report. This report follows applicants' January 2, 1997 progress report and their October 1, 1996 progress report and implementing plan with respect to the conditions imposed on the Board's approval of the UP/SP merger. In a preliminary note to the April 1, 1997 progress report, applicants briefly addressed the general status of the merger and implementation of conditions stating that ``at the 6- month point following the consummation of UP-SP control, it may be too early to see the full effects of the merger or the conditions.'' Applicants note that most merger benefits cannot be realized until labor implementing agreements are in place and UP's Transportation Control System (TCS) and other major systems are installed on SP-- processes that will not be completed for some time. Applicants add that many benefits depend on capital investments that will extend over a 4- year period, and the competition-preserving conditions also necessarily take time to implement, although their full effects will actually be felt well before the full benefits of the merger will be realized. Applicants further state that phasing in trackage rights operations, resolving complex systems issues, and sorting out legal disputes as to the scope of various conditions have greatly occupied the parties for the past 6 months and may continue to do so in the near future. Applicants add, nonetheless, that there is already extensive evidence of the benefits of the merger and of the effectiveness of the competition-preserving conditions. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) Progress Reports BNSF submitted its first quarter 1997 progress report on April 1, 1997. This is the third quarterly progress report as it follows BNSF's January 3, 1997 progress report and its October 1, 1996 submission of a progress report and operating plan. In the April 1, 1997 report, BNSF summarized the progress it has made since its last report to the Board on its operations and provision of services to shippers using merger- related rights. It states that total BNSF traffic, as a result of the trackage rights and other rights granted by Decision No. 44, has continued to grow. BNSF indicated that trackage rights volumes in terms of units handled increased by 225% for the first quarter of 1997 compared to the last quarter of 1996, and this growth is attributed to the increased customer awareness of the BNSF competitive option to the new UP/SP franchise, as well as its transition, begun in the fourth quarter of 1996 but accelerating in the first quarter of 1997, from haulage to trackage rights operations as volumes in key lanes continue to grow. BNSF states that it expects to see these volumes continue to grow through the second quarter of 1997 and beyond, and that, in a number of its UP/SP lanes, it has seen volumes grow to permit daily train service in each direction, which is an important milestone to providing effective competitive rail service. BNSF notes that capital improvements have already been made to support these new operations and other improvements are planned as part of the 1997 capital budget, and that BNSF has continued its significant efforts to inform existing and potential customers of the available BNSF services, including marketing efforts to attract new customers over its new routes and offers of competitive service to or from customers at two-to-one points. BNSF further adds that, in spite of its continued vigorous efforts to implement operations and market services to shippers to which BNSF has gained access pursuant to Decision No. 44, there are still challenges to the prompt accomplishment of the Board's intention to preserve vigorous competition. Oversight Proceeding The oversight effort is intended to allow us to determine whether any problems have developed, with respect to implementation of the merger conditions addressing competitive harms, that require us to take further action. Our oversight effort will not exclude, related to those conditions, any aspect of the transaction or the existence of any type of anticompetitive effect. In the progress report filed on April 1, 1997, applicants state that they propose to submit with their next quarterly progress report on July 1, 1997, a more in-depth analysis of the effects of the merger and condition implementation. Therefore, we fully expect that the information presented by applicants in their July 1 progress report will be more extensive, including specific details of how each condition has been met, and we will hold them to that commitment. Regarding BNSF's July 1 progress report, we expect that BNSF will provide more detailed information regarding its efforts to be an effective competitor to the applicants. Parties may submit comments on any effects of the merger on competition and implementation of the conditions imposed to address competitive harms by August 1, 1997. Replies are due on August 20, 1997. We will review the comments and replies, and will then determine what further action is appropriate. Decided: May 1, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief From the Requirements of Title 49 CFR Part 236 Pursuant to Title 49 CFR part 235 and 49 U.S.C. App. 26, the following railroads have petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as detailed below. Block Signal Application (BS-AP)-No. 3422 Applicant: Norfolk Southern Corporation Norfolk Southern Corporation seeks approval of the proposed modification of the traffic control system, on the single main track, at Carrollton, Missouri, milepost S-211.2 and WB Junction, Missouri, milepost S-212.8, on the Kansas City District-Westward, Illinois Division, consisting of the following: 1. Discontinuance and removal of the No. 7 power-operated switch and 40LD controlled signal at WB Junction, milepost S-212.8, associated with the installation of an electrically locked hand-operated switch outside control point limits; 2. Discontinuance and removal of controlled signals 38L, 38RA, and 38RB, associated with the installation of back to back automatic intermediate signals 2113 and 2114 at Carrollton, milepost S-211.2; and 3. Conversion of No. 37 power-operated switch at Carrollton, milepost S-211.2 to an electrically locked hand-operated switch. The reason given for the proposed changes is to reduce maintenance costs without affecting safety. Issued in Washington, D.C. on May 2, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33355] Norfolk and Western Railway Company--Purchase Exemption-- Consolidated Rail Corporation ACTION: Notice of exemption. SUMMARY: Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board exempts from the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 the purchase by Norfolk and Western Railway Company (NW) from Consolidated Rail Corporation of 0.47 miles of railroad beginning at milepost 0.00, where it connects with NW, and extending to milepost 0.47, where it connects with CSX Transportation, Inc., in Detroit, MI, subject to standard labor protective conditions. DATES: The exemption will be effective June 8, 1997. Decided: April 30, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration [FRA Docket No. H-97-1] Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) a request for waiver of compliance with certain requirements of 49 CFR part 213: Track Safety Standards. The purpose of Amtrak's petition is to secure approval from FRA to operate a test train at speeds up to 135 mph between County (MP 34) and MP 54, 1.7 miles east of Ham (MP 55.7) on the Metropolitan Division of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor in the spring of 1997. Amtrak currently operates trains at 125 mph under waiver in this track segment. To conduct this testing, Amtrak seeks relief from the requirements which limit maximum permissible train speeds to 110 mph. The schedule for the testing has not been finalized, but will be limited to a few days depending upon weather conditions. In preparation for operating the new high-speed trainsets between New York City, New York, and Washington, D.C., Amtrak needs to evaluate the high-speed dynamic forces on pantograph assemblies in a configuration similar to the new trainsets. In order to perform this evaluation, Amtrak requests to operate a test train consisting of two AEM-7 electric locomotives and six Amfleet cars, including Amtrak's Track Geometry Car. Issued in Washington, D.C. on May 7, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration [FRA Docket No. H-97-3] Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) a request for waiver of compliance with certain requirements of 49 CFR part 213: Track Safety Standards. The purpose of Amtrak's petition is to secure approval from FRA to operate its Talgo trains at higher cant deficiencies in the Pacific Northwest. Amtrak, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), and the Washington State Department or Transportation (WSDOT) have joined together on a program to reduce trip times of Talgo trains between Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, and between Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia. Talgo trains with tilting passenger cars provide increased comfort at higher cant deficiencies. These trains have been in use since 1979 on the Spanish National Railway at seven inches of cant deficiency. The trains have also been tested under previous waivers granted by FRA, including testing at 5.5 inches of cant deficiency in 1994 on the former Southern Pacific route north of St. Louis, Missouri, and in 1988 at up to 8 inches of cant deficiency conducted for the Coalition of Northeastern Governors. Title 49 CFR Section 213.57(b) prescribes a speed limit not distinguishing between freight and passenger rolling stock at which trains may operate over curved track as a function of curve radius (curvature) and installed superelevation. In general, for any combination of curvature and superelevation, there is a specific (``balanced'') speed at which the effect of centrifugal force is canceled. The track standards permit the operation of trains on curves at speeds producing a conservative underbalance (``cant deficiency'') in line with historic industry practice. The track safety standards also permit a maximum of three inches of cant deficiency; however, FRA has granted waivers for qualified passenger equipment at higher cant deficiencies. Amtrak, BNSF, and WSDOT have worked together to accomplish the goal of reducing trip times. Amtrak plans to dedicate a second locomotive, either a P40 or P42 high-performance locomotive, to each Talgo train. BNSF, the track owner, has initiated a program working with the municipalities to reduce the number of speed restrictions. BNSF also lifted speed restrictions imposed decades ago and not lifted after track improvements were made. Another part of the program is to increase curve speeds from those developing three inches of cant deficiency on as many as 376 curves on the route. Issued in Washington, D.C. on May 7, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33388] 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 ACTION: Decision No. 5; Notice of petitions filed by applicants seeking waiver of otherwise applicable requirements respecting seven construction projects; Request for comments. SUMMARY: CSX Corporation (CSXC), CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC), Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), Conrail Inc. (CRI), and Consolidated Rail Corporation (CRC) intend to file, on or before July 10, 1997, a ``primary application'' seeking Surface Transportation Board (Board) authorization for, among other things, (a) the acquisition by CSX and NS of control of Conrail, and (b) the division of the assets of Conrail by and between CSX and NS. Applicants have now filed petitions seeking waiver of certain otherwise applicable requirements respecting seven related construction projects. These waivers, if granted, would allow applicants to begin construction on these projects following the completion by the Board of its environmental review of the constructions, and the issuance of a further decision approving construction, but prior to approval by the Board of the primary application. The Board seeks comments from interested persons respecting the waivers sought by applicants. (CSXC and CSXT are referred to collectively as CSX. NSC and NSR are referred to collectively as NS. CRI and CRC are referred to collectively as Conrail. CSX, NS, and Conrail are referred to collectively as applicants.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 10, 1997, CSX, NS, and Conrail filed a notice of intent (CSX/NS-1) that indicates that they intend to file a 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 application (referred to as the ``primary application'') seeking Board authorization for, among other things, (a) the acquisition by CSX and NS of control of Conrail, and (b) the division of the assets of Conrail by and between CSX and NS. In Decision No. 2, served April 21, 1997, and published that day in the Federal Register at 62 FR 19390, we determined that the transaction contemplated by applicants is a major transaction as defined at 49 CFR 1180.2(a), and we invited comments on the procedural schedule proposed by applicants. Comments were filed on or before May 1, 1997, and a decision respecting the procedural schedule will be issued shortly. Our regulations provide that applicants shall file, concurrently with their 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 primary application, all ``directly related applications, e.g., those seeking authority to construct or abandon rail lines,'' etc. 49 CFR 1180.4(c)(2)(vi). Our regulations also provide, however, that, for good cause shown, we can waive the requirements otherwise imposed by our regulations. We address, in this decision, two petitions filed by applicants that seek a waiver of the otherwise applicable requirements of 49 CFR 1180.4(c)(2)(vi): the CSX-1 waiver petition filed May 2, 1997, by CSXC, CSXT, CRI, and CRC; and the NS-1 waiver petition filed May 2, 1997, by NSC and NSR. Seven construction projects, more fully detailed below, are the focus of the two petitions. Applicants contend that it is critical that these projects, all of which involve connections, be constructed prior to a decision on the primary application if at all possible. Applicants claim that these connections must be in place prior to a decision on the primary application so that, if and when we approve the primary application, CSXT (with respect to four of the connections) and NSR (with respect to the other three) will be immediately able to provide efficient service in competition with each other. Applicants contend that, without early authorization to construct these connections, both CSXT and NSR would be severely limited in their ability to serve important (though different) customers. At the same time, applicants recognize that there can be no construction until we have completed our environmental review of each of these construction projects and the Board has issued a decision approving the construction, and imposing whatever environmental conditions are found to be appropriate. If we were to grant the waivers sought in the CSX-1 and NS-1 petitions, applicants would file, with respect to each of the seven connections, either a petition or a notice seeking, in either instance, a 49 U.S.C. 10502 exemption for the construction of the particular connection. We emphasize that, with respect to each of the seven connections, the petition or the notice (hereinafter referred to as the exemption filing) would seek an exemption only for the construction by CSXT or NSR of, and not for the operation by CSXT or NSR over, the particular connection. All questions respecting operation by CSXT or NSR over these connections would be addressed in the environmental review process of the primary application proceeding and the decision disposing of the primary application; only questions respecting the construction by CSXT or NSR of these connections would be addressed in the decisions disposing of the exemption filings. We emphasize that, if these waivers are granted, there will be full environmental review of each construction and operation proposal. The environmental effects of operations to be conducted would, as noted, be assessed in our processing of the primary application. As for the proposed constructions, if the waivers are granted, the applicants will be required to file an environmental report containing detailed environmental information regarding construction, assessment of environmental impacts due to construction, and proposed mitigation in this regard for each construction project. The environmental report must reflect consultations with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, and affected parties. In addition, all written responses from these agencies and parties must be included in the environmental report. The Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) would then prepare an appropriate environmental document (an environmental assessment (EA) or a full environmental impact statement (EIS)) in each case and provide for input from the public and appropriate federal, state, and local agencies. After full consideration of the public comments and issuance of a final environmental document, we would issue a decision addressing the environmental issues and imposing any necessary environmental mitigation, and if appropriate allowing construction to begin. In short, the environmental review process for these constructions would be precisely what we would undertake in assessing the physical effects of these projects, if these constructions were filed independently of the merger case. If we were to grant the waivers sought in the CSX-1 and NS-1 petitions, and applicants were thereafter to make their seven exemption filings, and we were to approve the construction of the seven connections following the completion of the environmental review, and if applicants were thereafter to construct these connections, and we were then to deny the primary application (or approve it subject to conditions unacceptable to applicants), the resources expended in constructing the seven connections might prove to be of no benefit to applicants. Similarly, if we were generally to approve the primary application but, concurrently therewith, deny (perhaps on environmental grounds) applicants' request to operate over any particular connection, the resources expended in constructing that particular connection might prove to be of no benefit to applicants. Applicants have acknowledged, and have indicated that they are willing to accept, these risks. We emphasize that, if we were to grant the waivers sought in the CSX-1 and NS-1 petitions, our grant of these waivers would not in any way constitute approval of, or even indicate any consideration on our part respecting approval of, the primary application. It is also appropriate to note that, if we were to grant the waivers sought in the CSX-1 and NS-1 petitions, applicants would not be allowed to argue that, because we had granted the waivers, we should approve the primary application. The CSX Connections If we were to grant the waiver sought in the CSX-1 petition, CSXT would file, in four separate dockets, a notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.36 for construction of a connection at Crestline, OH, and petitions for exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502 and 49 CFR 1121.1 and 1150.1(a) for the construction of connections at Willow Creek, IN, Greenwich, OH, and Sidney, OH. CSXT indicates that it would consult with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies with respect to any potential environmental effects from the construction of these connections and would file environmental reports with SEA at the time that the notice and petitions are filed. The connections at issue are as follows. (1) Two main line CRC tracks cross at Crestline, and CSXT proposes to construct in the northwest quadrant a connection track between those two CRC main lines. The connection would extend approximately 1,142 feet between approximately MP 75.5 on CRC's North-South main line between Greenwich, OH, and Indianapolis, IN, and approximately MP 188.8 on CRC's East-West main line between Pittsburgh, PA, and Ft. Wayne, IN. (2) CSXT and CRC cross each other at Willow Creek, and CSXT proposes to construct a connection track in the southeast quadrant between the CSXT main line and the CRC main line. The connection would extend approximately 2,800 feet between approximately MP BI-236.5 on the CSXT main line between Garrett, IN, and Chicago, IL, and approximately MP 248.8 on the CRC main line between Porter, IN, and Gibson Yard, IN (outside Chicago). (3) The lines of CSXT and CRC cross each other at Greenwich, and CSXT proposes to construct connection tracks in the northwest and southeast quadrants between the CSXT main line and the CRC main line. The connection in the northwest quadrant would extend approximately 4,600 feet between approximately MP BG-193.1 on the CSXT main line between Chicago and Pittsburgh, and approximately MP 54.1 on the CRC main line between Cleveland and Cincinnati. A portion of this connection in the northwest quadrant would be constructed utilizing existing trackage and/or right- of-way of the Wheeling &; Lake Erie Railway Company. The connection in the southeast quadrant would extend approximately 1,044 feet between approximately MP BG-192.5 on the CSXT main line and approximately MP 54.6 on the CRC main line. (4) CSXT and CRC lines cross each other at Sidney Junction, and CSXT proposes to construct a connection track in the southeast quadrant between the CSXT main line and the CRC main line. The connection would extend approximately 3,263 feet between approximately MP BE-96.5 on the CSXT main line between Cincinnati, OH, and Toledo, OH, and approximately MP 163.5 on the CRC main line between Cleveland, OH, and Indianapolis, IN. CSXT argues that, if it must wait for approval of the primary application before it can begin construction of these four connections, its ability to compete effectively with NSR upon the effectiveness of a Board order approving the primary application will be severely compromised. CSXT claims that, if it could not offer competitive rail service from New York to Chicago and New York to Cincinnati using lines that it proposes to acquire from CRC (including its new ``Water Level Route'' between New York and Cleveland), the achievement of effective competition between CSXT and NSR would be delayed significantly. CSXT adds that, if it cannot compete effectively with NSR ``out of the starting blocks,'' this initial competitive imbalance could have a deleterious, and long term, effect on CSXT's future operations and its ability to compete effectively with NSR even when the connections are ultimately built. CSXT claims that, if construction could not begin prior to any approval of the primary application, the time needed for construction and signal work could delay competitive operations for as long as 6 months after the Board did take action on the primary application. CSXT asserts that it would like to begin construction by as early as September 1, 1997, to avoid the delay that would result from the interruption of construction due to the onset of winter. We note that our environmental review of these constructions may not be completed by that time, even if these waiver requests are granted. The NS Connections If we were to grant the waiver sought in the NS-1 petition, NSR would file, in three separate dockets, petitions for exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502 and 49 CFR 1121.1 and 1150.1(a) for the construction of connections at Alexandria, IN, Colsan/Bucyrus, OH, and Sidney, IL. NSR indicates that it would consult with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies with respect to any potential environmental effects from the construction of these connections and would file environmental reports with SEA at the time that the petitions are filed. The connections at issue are as follows. (1) The Alexandria connection would be in the northeast quadrant between former CRC Marion district lines to be operated by NSR and NSR's existing Frankfort district line. The new connection would allow traffic flowing over the Cincinnati gateway to be routed via a CRC line to be acquired by NSR to CRC's Elkhart Yard, a major CRC classification yard for carload traffic. This handling would permit such traffic to bypass the congested Chicago gateway. NSR estimates that the Alexandria connection would take approximately 9.5 months to construct. (2) The Colsan/Bucyrus connection would be in the southeast quadrant between NSR's existing Sandusky district line and the former CRC Ft. Wayne line. This new connection would permit NSR to preserve efficient traffic flows, which otherwise would be broken, between the Cincinnati gateway and former CRC northeastern points to be served by NSR. NSR estimates that the Colsan/Bucyrus connection would take approximately 10.5 months to construct. (3) The Sidney connection would be between NSR and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) lines. NS believes that a connection would be required in the southwest quadrant of the existing NSR/UPRR crossing to permit efficient handling of traffic flows between UPRR points in the Gulf Coast/Southwest and NSR points in the Midwest and Northeast, particularly customers on CRC properties to be served by NSR. NSR estimates that the Sidney connection would take approximately 10 months to construct. NSR states that prompt construction of its three connections is critical to permit NSR to provide service competitive with CSXT if and when the Board approves the primary application. Request for Comments We understand the central purpose of the CSX-1 and NS-1 waiver petitions: a desire to be ready to engage in effective, vigorous competition immediately following consummation of the control authorization applicants intend to seek in their primary application, if such application is approved. We emphasize again what applicants acknowledge--that any resources expended in the construction of these connections may prove to be of no benefit to them if we ultimately deny the primary application, or approve it subject to conditions unacceptable to applicants, or approve the primary application but deny applicants' request to operate over any or all of the seven connections. Nonetheless, given applicants' willingness to assume those risks, we are not inclined to prevent applicants from pursuing this approach simply to protect them from the attendant risks. As noted, we believe that there would be full environmental review of these constructions even if these waivers were granted. Moreover, there would be ample opportunity for public involvement, except that the public would have to comment now on the seven construction projects and separately later on the operation proposals during the course of the primary application proceeding. To ensure that granting the relief sought in the waiver petitions would not have an adverse effect on persons with concerns, including environmental concerns, involving the seven connections, we are inviting all interested persons to submit written comments respecting the CSX-1 and NS-1 waiver petitions. Following receipt of any comments and any replies, we will endeavor to issue a decision on the CSX-1 and NS-1 waiver petitions as soon after June 4, 1997, as is practicable. Decided: May 7, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33379] CSX Transportation, Inc.--Trackage Rights Exemption--Consolidated Rail Corporation Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) has agreed to grant overhead trackage rights to CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) between Conrail's connection with CSXT's line of railroad on the east near the Interstate 70/65 undergrade, at approximately milepost 1.5, through ``IU'' Interlocking and the Indianapolis Union Station area, and the connection with Conrail's St. Louis Line, formerly the Indianapolis Union Railway Company, near West Street, at approximately milepost 0.4, a distance of approximately 1.1 miles, in Marion County, IN. CSXT, Conrail, and The Indiana Rail Road Company are surviving parties to an agreement dated September 20, 1883, whereby all three maintained the right to operate over property owned by the former Indianapolis Union Railway Company (IU). IU's properties were conveyed to Conrail in 1976 by the United States Railway Administration. The track over which CSXT operates consists of Conrail's 13.5-mile Indianapolis Belt Running Track (Belt Track) and the trackage which is the subject matter of this notice. The surviving parties have agreed to terminate the 1883 agreement because many of its provisions have become obsolete. The Board has approved CSXT's notice of exemption to discontinue its trackage rights over the Belt Track in STB Docket No. AB-55 (Sub-No. 546X) (STB served Apr. 22, 1997). The trackage rights involved in this proceeding are an extension of the trackage rights approved in Finance Docket No. 31242 (ICC served Mar. 30, 1988). In its notice, CSXT stated its intention that the trackage rights would become effective on April 20, 1997. The earliest the exemption could take effect is Tuesday, May 6, 1997, 7 days after the notice of exemption was filed at the Board. The purpose of the trackage rights is to allow CSXT to preserve its use of Conrail's trackage in downtown Indianapolis through the Indianapolis Union Station area. Decided: May 6, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33392] Southern Freight Logistics, LLC; Lease and Operation Exemption; Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee Southern Freight Logistics, LLC (SFL), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease 7.0 miles of rail line from the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET) between milepost 0.0, at Blair, TN, and milepost 7.0, near Oak Ridge, TN. In addition, SFL will lease 24 spur tracks, totaling approximately 7.5 miles, from CROET. SFL d/b/a Southern Freight Railroad will be the operator of the leased rail line. The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after May 2, 1997. Decided: May 8, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-55 (Sub-No. 547X)] CSX Transportation, Inc.; Abandonment Exemption; in Muskegon County, MI On April 29, 1997, CSX Transportation, Inc. filed with the Surface Transportation Board a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon a portion of its line of railroad known as the Montague Subdivision, extending from railroad milepost 62.12 at Berry to railroad milepost 72.25 at the end of the track at Montague, including a 3.5-mile industrial lead track at Montague, which traverses U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes 49445, 49461, and 49437, a distance of 13.63 miles, in Muskegon County, MI. The line includes the station of Montague at milepost 72.00. The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in the railroad's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it. The interest of railroad employees will be protected by Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 360 ICC 91 (1979). By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued within 90 days (by August 15, 1997). All interested persons should be aware that following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Decided: May 9, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-439 (Sub-No. 2X)] Dallas Area Rapid Transit; Abandonment Exemption; in Dallas and Collin Counties, TX [STB Docket No. AB-12 (Sub-No. 191X)] Southern Pacific Transportation Company--Discontinuance of Trackage Rights Exemption--in Dallas and Collin Counties, TX [STB Docket No. AB-39 (Sub-No. 22X)] St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company--Discontinuance of Trackage Rights Exemption--in Dallas and Collin Counties, TX ACTION: Notice of exemption. SUMMARY: The Board, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502, exempts from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 the abandonment by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) of an 18.67-mile line of railroad, consisting of 15.45 miles of the White Rock/Plano line and 3.22 miles of a connecting branch line, the Soumethun Branch, in Dallas and Collin Counties, TX, and the discontinuance by Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPT) and St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company (SSW) of local and overhead trackage rights on the White Rock/Plano line, subject to a historic condition and standard labor protective conditions. DATES: Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on June 14, 1997. Decided: May 6, 1997. ================================================================== Comments or questions about this compilation should be directed to Paul Moore at 71367.1057@Compuserve.com. ==================================================================