DOT REPORT #45 - October, 1997 ================================================================= A compilation of rail notices published by the US Department of Transportation between October 1 - 15, 1997. Includes abandonment, operation and control notices, FRA orders and related petitions. Condensed from original. ================================================================= CONTENTS: Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company--Abandonment Exemption--in Harrison and Jefferson Counties, OH The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company; Trackage Rights Exemption; Union Pacific Railroad Company and Southern Pacific Transportation Company East Penn Railways, Inc.; Lease and Operation Exemption; Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief From the Requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 236 Rail Service in the Western United States Application of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a)--Union Pacific Railroad Company and Southern Pacific Transportation Company Gateway Western Railway Company--Lease Exemption--The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company 4 States Railway Service, Inc., d/b/a West Chester Railroad Co.; Lease and Operation Exemption; Borough of West Chester Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, Inc.--Abandonment Exemption--in Jefferson County, PA Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, Inc.--Abandonment Exemption--in Armstrong County, PA Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, Inc.; Abandonment Exemption; in Jefferson County, PA Central Kansas Railway, L.L.C.--Lease Exemption--Union Pacific Railroad Company CSX Transportation, Inc.--Trackage Rights Exemption--East Tennessee Railway, L.P. CSX Transportation, Inc.--Construction and Operation Exemption-- Connection Track at Willow Creek, IN Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Company--Abandonment Exemption-- in Aroostook County, ME Interstate Railroad Company--Abandonment Exemption--in Wise County, VA R.J. Corman Railroad Co./Allentown Lines, Inc.--Acquisition and Operation Exemption--Consolidated Rail Corp. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-227 (Sub-No. 11X)] Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company--Abandonment Exemption--in Harrison and Jefferson Counties, OH Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company (W&LE) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F--Exempt Abandonments to abandon an approximately 11.4-mile line of railroad on the Georgetown Branch, from milepost 0.0 in Adena to milepost 0.5 at AC&NA Junction and from milepost 0.0 at AC&NA Junction to milepost 10.9 at the former Georgetown Coal Preparation Plant, in Harrison and Jefferson Counties, OH. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 43901, 43989, 43981 and 43907. The 0.5-mile segment of the Georgetown Branch between Adena and AC&NA was formerly the north end of W&LE's Saginaw Branch, which, according to W&LE, was abandoned south of AC&NA Junction in 1993. W&LE 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; (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 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met. Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on November 1, 1997, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), W&LE 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 W&LE's filing of a notice of consummation by October 2, 1998, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire. Decided: September 25, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 24)] The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company; Trackage Rights Exemption; Union Pacific Railroad Company and Southern Pacific Transportation Company The Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) and Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SP) have agreed to grant overhead trackage rights and certain local access rights to The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company as follows: (a) Over a rail line owned by SP extending from milepost 212.7 near Tower 105 at San Antonio, TX; and (b) over a rail line owned by UP extending from milepost 235.9 near Craig Junction, TX, to milepost 259.8 near SP Junction (Tower 112) via Fratt, TX, a total distance of approximately 25.6 miles, for the purpose of serving CPSB's (City Public Service Board of San Antonio) facilities at Elmendorf, TX. The transaction was expected to be consummated on September 24, 1997. These trackage rights are related to conditions imposed as part of the UP/SP merger. Decided: September 26, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33456] East Penn Railways, Inc.; Lease and Operation Exemption; Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority East Penn Railways, Inc. (East Penn), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease and operate a total of approximately 14.9 miles of rail line owned by Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, known as the Bethlehem Branch, which includes the portion of the Quakertown Line extending from MP 30.5+/- at Telford, Montgomery County, PA, and MP 45.4+/- at Quakertown, Bucks County, PA, and the right to interchange with Consolidated Rail Corporation south of MP 30.5+/-. The transaction was expected to be consummated on or after September 15, 1997. Decided: September 26, 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 Code of Federal Regulations Part 236 Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (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. 3436 Applicant: South Orient Railroad Company, LTD. The South Orient Railroad Company, LTD. seeks approval of the proposed temporary discontinuance of the traffic control system, on the single main track, between Birds Siding, milepost 0.0 and Rickers, milepost 134.5, Texas, on the Dublin Subdivision, for a period of six months. The reason given for the proposed changes is that the railroad is for sale. BS-AP-No. 3437 Applicant: Consolidated Rail Corporation The Consolidated Rail Corporation seeks approval of the proposed modification of ``IU'' Interlocking, milepost 283.7, on the Indianapolis Line and milepost 0.0, on the St. Louis Line, at Indianapolis, Indiana, on the Indianapolis Division, involving Main Tracks No. 1 and No. 2, the Amtrak Depot Track, and the Louisville Secondary Track. The proposed changes are associated with relocation of the control of ``IU'' Interlocking to the Indianapolis, Indiana dispatchers' office and includes the discontinuance and removal of switch No. 61 and signal L68 on the depot track, and the discontinuance and removal of the following signals: R48, L48, L34, R58, R74, L74, RA108, L108, R46, L32, L54, R60, L50, R62, LA76, RA110, R126, R78, R86, L78, L122, RB116, R114, RB110, RD116, and LB76. The reason given for the proposed changes is to retire facilities no longer needed for present operation and to improve safety of train operation through ``IU'' Interlocking. Issued in Washington, D.C. on October 1, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Ex Parte No. 573] Rail Service in the Western United States ACTION: Notice of proceeding and public hearing. SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is instituting a proceeding and will hold a public hearing on October 27, 1997, at its offices in Washington, DC, to provide interested persons the opportunity to report on the status of rail service in the western United States and to review proposals for solving the service problems that exist. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is instituting a proceeding on its own motion and will hold a public hearing beginning at 10:00 a.m., on October 27, 1997, at its offices at 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC, to provide an opportunity for interested persons, including carriers, shippers, and employees, to report on the status of rail service in the western United States and to review proposals for solving service problems. The Board has been made aware of railroad service problems in this area of the country [recently involving the Union Pacific Railroad Company/Southern Pacific Transportation Company (UP/SP)] through formal filings and public accounts, and, more recently, through informal communications between affected persons and the Board's Office of Compliance and Enforcement (OCE) about specific UP/SP service problems, which OCE has worked with UP/SP to resolve. Based on this information, we believe it is appropriate to hold a public hearing on the issue of rail service in the western part of the country, problems in the delivery of that service, and solutions, both governmental and non-governmental, that have been offered or might be offered to remedy these service problems. The focus of this proceeding is on the immediate resolution of existing problems. This proceeding and this public hearing are being conducted separate and apart from the ongoing oversight proceeding in 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, STB Finance Docket No. 32760 (Sub-No. 21). There, the focus is on whether the conditions we imposed in approving the application in Finance Docket No. 32760 have been successful in resolving the competitive problems that we found would exist as a result of our approval of the UP/SP control transaction in the absence of those conditions. Parties to the oversight proceeding have, however, commented on service problems on the UP/SP system, and both UP/SP and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, in their most recent quarterly reports, filed October 1, 1997, in the oversight proceeding, have separately put forth proposals that, in their view, would lead to a resolution of the existing service problems. Given the immediacy of these service problems and the national, as well as regional, interest in their resolution, we are instituting this proceeding to focus specifically on the rail service problems that have arisen in the western part of the country. Decided: October 2, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33469] Application of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a)--Union Pacific Railroad Company and Southern Pacific Transportation Company ACTION: Order and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Board is seeking comments from interested persons on the application of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a), formerly section 402(a) of the Rail Passenger Service Act (the Act), for an order determining under the law the nature and extent of the duty of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) and its affiliate, Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SP) (collectively, UP/SP), to allow Amtrak to use UP/SP's tracks and facilities for the carriage of express. The Board is also ordering UP/ SP to continue to make its tracks and facilities available to Amtrak, as directed herein, while this proceeding is pending. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proceeding raises questions about the definition of ``express'' traffic and the extent to which freight railroads are required to allow Amtrak to use their facilities to carry express. Freight railroads must permit Amtrak to operate over their lines. The provisions of 49 U.S.C. 24305(a)(1) and 24305(c)(2) authorize Amtrak to operate intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation and to transport mail and express. In addition, the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 24306(a) and 24101(c)(1)(B) direct Amtrak to seek to increase its revenues from the transportation of mail and express. The statute, however, does not define ``express.'' Historically, in addition to its passenger service, Amtrak has carried what it and UP/SP appear to agree is express traffic. In recent months, however, Amtrak has taken steps that it indicates are necessary to improve its financial condition by carrying additional volumes of freight that it describes as express. Amtrak's financial condition is well known. UP/SP has resisted Amtrak's efforts to expand its freight operations. UP/SP's position is that the type of traffic that Amtrak contemplates now handling falls into the category of general freight rather than express as intended under the law. UP/SP also argues that the expanded freight operations that Amtrak contemplates would create operational and logistical problems for the railroads over whose tracks Amtrak operates, as well as the towns and cities through which Amtrak operates. The recent operational difficulties that have been experienced by UP/SP are well known, as are the concerns of many towns and cities about train traffic in general. Because Amtrak and UP/SP could not resolve the issue privately, by application filed September 16, 1997, under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a), formerly section 402(a) of the Act, Amtrak seeks an order that: (1) requires UP/SP to continue to make available to Amtrak the facilities necessary for it to continue to transport express on its trains while this proceeding is pending; and (2) establishes a procedural schedule ``leading ultimately to entry of a final order determining that Amtrak's transport of express traffic is necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act, and requiring UP/SP to make available to Amtrak the facilities and services needed to allow Amtrak trains to transport express.'' In its application, Amtrak states that its existing general agreement governing its relationship with UP/SP, which was scheduled to expire on September 30, 1997, has been extended through October 31, 1997. However, Amtrak asserts, UP/SP is unwilling to extend beyond September 30, 1997, a ``provision in Amtrak's agreements with UP/SP that gives Amtrak the right to carry express on Amtrak's trains to the extent authorized by the Act.'' UP/SP filed a reply on September 23, 1997. In its reply, UP/SP takes issue with Amtrak's contentions that the freight operations that Amtrak contemplates are operationally feasible, and that they are consistent with the express service provisions of the Act. UP/SP states in that reply that it does not object to entry of an order preserving the status quo while Amtrak's application is being reviewed, as long as the order does not allow Amtrak to effect a ``blanket authorization for unlimited expansion of its commodity-hauling operation.'' On September 26, 1997, Amtrak sought leave to file a tendered response to UP/SP's reply, which UP/SP has opposed. Amtrak asserts that it should be permitted to file the response because it could not have reasonably anticipated the arguments that UP/SP would be advancing in its reply. We do not find that assertion credible; indeed, given the extensive relief that Amtrak has sought, UP/SP's reply raises the types of arguments we would have expected it to present. Nevertheless, we will accept and consider Amtrak's response, and UP/SP's opposition to it, in the interest of developing a complete record. Discussion and Conclusions Under 49 U.S.C. 24308(a)(2), we have authority to prescribe the terms and compensation for Amtrak's use of facilities owned by, or receipt of services to be provided by, freight railroads in connection with Amtrak's operation over their track, if (1) the parties cannot agree and (2) such prescription is necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. Here, it is apparent that the parties cannot agree, as Amtrak has asked us to declare the nature and extent of UP/SP's duty to make its facilities available to Amtrak for the carriage of express, which is an important issue that bears on the fundamental purposes of the Act. Accordingly, we are commencing a proceeding to resolve this dispute. Because of the potentially broad impact of any ruling that we might issue in this matter, we are publishing this notice in the Federal Register soliciting comments from persons that may be affected: other railroads and railroad employees, potential users, and, particularly insofar as operational matters are concerned, cities and towns and the Secretary of Transportation. After we resolve this matter, we may also be called upon to address other issues relating to the facilities that UP/SP must provide to Amtrak, such as the incremental cost of access and the terms of payment. At this point, however, we are focusing only on the narrow issue raised. We expect that any final compensation methodology that we may prescribe would be made retroactive to October 1, 1997. As noted, this dispute revolves around the meaning of the statutory term ``express'' in the Act, and whether there are limits on the type and quantity of freight traffic that Amtrak may carry consistent with the statutory authorization to carry express. Amtrak argues that there are no ``defined limits'' to its authority to transport express, and that UP/SP is improperly taking the position that: (1) The Act does not give Amtrak the right to transport carload or truckload shipments of express; (2) certain commodities transported by Amtrak do not constitute express; and (3) Amtrak may be subjected to overall footage limits on individual trains carrying express cars. Amtrak asserts that passenger trains historically operated ``with 30 to 40 mail and express cars,'' and that, ``As recently as 1959, intercity passenger trains derived as much as 46% of their revenue from mail and express. * * *'' Amtrak also asserts that Board precedent does not limit the commodities that can qualify as express. UP/SP argues that Amtrak's efforts to solicit carload traffic (such as carloads of beer), and to expand considerably the length of its trains, are inconsistent with the statutory intent that transportation of mail and express traffic be ancillary to Amtrak's provision of passenger service. UP/SP also argues that expansion of Amtrak's non- passenger services would produce serious operational and logistical problems at the various cities and towns through which UP/SP operates. In its response, Amtrak asserts that its anticipated expansion of operations will not produce operational problems. Commenters should address these issues. In addition to the operational concerns and the commodity/train length issues raised by UP/SP, commenters should address the legislative intent in enacting the Act, and, in particular, the extent to which Congress intended that Amtrak's express services be ancillary to its passenger services. We must note that we expect all commenters to express their fully developed positions in their opening comments, and not to back-load their filings by reserving their major points to their reply comments. Amtrak has asked us that, while this proceeding is pending, we issue an interim order that will require UP/SP to continue to make its facilities available to Amtrak for handling express traffic so that Amtrak will be able ``to continue to serve shippers for whom it currently transports both carload and other shipments, and for whom it has commitments to do so after October 1.'' Amtrak's objective is to expand its freight business so that it can obtain increased revenues during the pendency of the proceeding. In its application, Amtrak indicates that it wants us to facilitate this objective by preserving the status quo, which, in Amtrak's view, means accepting its position that there are not and have never been any limits on its authority to carry what it determines to be express. In its response, Amtrak indicates that it will accept an interim 18-car train limit on the number of cars in its trains, on the ground that UP/SP has already agreed that 18-car trains are operationally feasible and have been typically operated in the past. In its most recent filing, UP/SP disputes Amtrak's statements about the feasibility of 18-car trains at certain locations, such as Reno, Nevada, and Oakland, California. In support of its argument that the Board must order UP/SP to open its facilities, on an interim basis, to whatever Amtrak decides to characterize as express, Amtrak states that it has already purchased or committed to obtain additional equipment, and has entered into agreements with customers to carry additional freight. The Board notes in this regard that any party that takes action assuming in advance that a difficult legal issue will be resolved in its favor assumes whatever risks are associated with such action. We cannot, in an interim order, direct UP/SP to allow Amtrak access for whatever traffic Amtrak declares is express. The limits on Amtrak's freight traffic authority are precisely what we are being asked to resolve in the case, and that is the issue on which we are now seeking public comment. Typically in these proceedings, we require that the parties maintain the status quo pending our resolution of the matter. However, because of the variety of potential combinations in the Amtrak operations that have been or might have been conducted in the past at each of the numerous stations that Amtrak serves (regarding, for example, train consist issues), an order simply directing the parties to maintain the ``factual'' status quo would likely produce uncertainty and continued litigation. Therefore, we will establish a numerical equipment limitation for the interim that appears to be consistent with the representations of both parties. Except where it is operationally infeasible, UP/SP generally may not limit Amtrak's access to less than 18 cars. Consistent with Amtrak's representation that it does not need to operate more than 600 feet of express cars during the interim period, however, UP/SP may limit Amtrak to 9 express cars per train. Thus, the trains that UP/SP must permit Amtrak to operate over UP/SP's lines may be as long as 18 cars, and may contain as many as 9 express cars. This interim order, we stress, is not intended to prejudge, in any way, the matters on which we have sought comment, but is simply designed as a practical solution while the case is pending. It is ordered: 1. On or after September 30, 1997, UP/SP will preserve on an interim basis the current provisions in the parties' agreement governing express and the practices thereunder as provided in this decision and will provide services, tracks, and facilities to Amtrak in accordance with those provisions and practices. 2. A proceeding is instituted to investigate the extent of UP/SP's obligation under the Act to allow Amtrak to use UP/SP's lines and facilities for the carriage of express. 3. Commenters shall comply with the procedural schedule set out earlier. 4. Amtrak's request for leave to file its response is granted. 5. This decision is effective on its date of service. Decided: September 29, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33408] Gateway Western Railway Company--Lease Exemption--The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company 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 lease by Gateway Western Railway Company of The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company's Coburg Line, extending a distance of 5.45 miles between milepost 0.0 at the Sheffield interlocking and milepost 5.45 near BV Junction, in Kansas City, Jackson County, MO, subject to standard labor protective conditions. DATES: The exemption will be effective November 7, 1997. Decided: September 29, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33460] 4 States Railway Service, Inc., d/b/a West Chester Railroad Co.; Lease and Operation Exemption; Borough of West Chester 4 States Railway Service, Inc., d/b/a West Chester Railroad Co., a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to sublease and operate 6.405 miles of rail line from the Borough of West Chester (Borough) between milepost 27.4 +/-, at Station 1386+06, in West Chester, Chester County, PA, and milepost 20.995+/, at Glen Mills Station, Glen Mills, Delaware County, PA. The owner of the property is Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). On December 31, 1996, SEPTA leased the line to the Borough for tourist railroad operations. The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after September 22, 1997. Decided: September 30, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-487 (Sub-No. 2X)] Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, Inc.--Abandonment Exemption--in Jefferson County, PA On September 18, 1997, Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, Inc. (PSRR), filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon a line of railroad known as the Conifer Branch, extending from milepost 0.00 (milepost 24.29 on the main line of the Shawmut Subdivision), located south of Norman, PA, to milepost 5.08, located at or near Conifer, PA, which traverses U.S. Postal Service ZIP Code 15825, a distance of 5.08 miles, in Jefferson County, PA. The line includes the stations of Stanton, located at milepost 0.04; McGareys, located at milepost 0.06; Conifer, located at milepost 0.08; and End Conifer, located at milepost 0.10. 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 by January 6, 1998. Decided: October 1, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-487 (Sub-No. 4X)] Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, Inc.--Abandonment Exemption--in Armstrong County, PA On September 18, 1997, Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, 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 line of railroad known as the Widnoon Branch, extending from railroad milepost 0.00 (milepost 60.42 on the mainline of the Shawmut Subdivision), located at or near Dee, PA, to milepost 3.14, located at or near Widnoon, PA, which traverses U.S. Postal Service ZIP Codes 16261 and 16259, a distance of 3.14 miles, in Armstrong County, PA. The line includes the station of Widnoon at milepost 0.03. 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 by January 6, 1998. Decided: September 30, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-487 (Sub-No. 1X)] Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, Inc.; Abandonment Exemption; in Jefferson County, PA On September 18, 1997, Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, Inc. (PSRR), filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon its line of railroad known as the Brockway to Brookville Branch, extending from railroad milepost 2.0 located at or near Brockway to milepost 19.0 located at or near Brookville, a distance of 17.0 miles, in Jefferson County, PA. The line traverses U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes 15824, 15825 and 15851, and includes the stations of Beechton, milepost 6; Sugar Hill, milepost 7; Reitz, milepost 9; and Allens Mills, milepost 10. 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 by January 6, 1998. Decided: September 29, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33470] Central Kansas Railway, L.L.C.--Lease Exemption--Union Pacific Railroad Company Central Kansas Railway, L.L.C. (CKR), a Class III rail common carrier, has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease from Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) and operate two rail lines totaling approximately 170.7 miles: (1) Between milepost 747.5, at Towner, CO, and milepost 491.20, at Bridgeport, KS; and (2) Between milepost 530.6, at Lindsborg, KS, and milepost 545.0, at Sid, KS. In conjunction with the lease of these lines, CKR will acquire incidental overhead trackage rights over UP's 6.30-mile rail line between milepost 545.0, at Sid, KS, and milepost 551.30, at Salina, KS. The transaction is expected to be consummated on or after October 3, 1997. Decided: October 1, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33465] CSX Transportation, Inc.--Trackage Rights Exemption--East Tennessee Railway, L.P. East Tennessee Railway, L.P. (ETRY), has agreed to grant overhead trackage rights to CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), over main line trackage of ETRY between turnouts to be constructed at a point approximately 39 feet west of derail located on ETRY's #2 track and a point approximately 80 feet west of the west line of Buffalo Street in Johnson City, TN, a total distance of approximately 1,900 feet, exclusive of turnouts. The transaction is expected to be consummated after completion of the construction of two connection tracks between CSXT and ETRY, but not earlier than October 2, 1997, the effective date of the exemption. CSXT is acquiring overhead trackage rights only and will not be allowed to perform any local freight service of any kind to ETRY's patrons at any point located on the joint trackage. The purpose of the proposed trackage rights is to allow CSXT to rationalize approximately 1,900 feet of its trackage through Cherry Street in downtown Johnson City, TN, which is a high maintenance and high risk area in the City. Decided: October 2, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33388 (Sub-No. 2)] CSX Transportation, Inc.--Construction and Operation Exemption-- Connection Track at Willow Creek, IN ACTION: Notice of exemptions. SUMMARY: The Board, under 49 U.S.C. 10502, conditionally exempts from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 the construction by CSX Transportation, Inc., (CSX), Norfolk and Western Railway Company (NW), and Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) of six connection track projects at Sidney, IL, Willow Creek and Alexandria, IN, and Greenwich, Sidney Junction, and Bucyrus, OH, subject to the results of the Board's environmental review and further decision. Decided: October 1, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-77 (Sub-No. 10X)] Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Company--Abandonment Exemption-- in Aroostook County, ME Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Company (Applicant) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F--Exempt Abandonments to abandon a 5.66-mile line of railroad on the Fort Fairfield Branch from milepost F-13.00 to the end of the branch at milepost F-18.66, in the Town of Fort Fairfield, in Aroostook County, ME. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Code 04742. Applicant has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic moving over the line; (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 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met. Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on November 9, 1997, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), Applicant 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 Applicant's filing of a notice of consummation by October 10, 1998, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire. Decided: October 6, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-290 (Sub-No. 191X)] Interstate Railroad Company--Abandonment Exemption--in Wise County, VA Interstate Railroad Company (Interstate) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F--Exempt Abandonments to abandon a 2.6-mile line of its railroad between milepost D-0.0 at Dorchester Junction and milepost D-2.6 at Dorchester, in Wise County, VA. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Code 24293. Interstate has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic moving over the line; (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 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met. Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance (OFA) has been received, this exemption will be effective on November 9, 1997, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), Interstate 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 Interstate's filing of a notice of consummation by October 10, 1998, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire. Decided: October 6, 1997. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 33302] R.J. Corman Railroad Co./Allentown Lines, Inc.--Acquisition and Operation Exemption--Consolidated Rail Corp. R.J. Corman Railroad Company/Allentown Lines, Inc. (RJCN), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire and operate a total of approximately 2.76 miles of rail line owned by Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), known as Cornwall Industrial Track, between milepost 0.9 and milepost 3.66 in Lebanon County, PA. RJCN will also acquire a 0.6-mile segment of Conrail's Lebanon Industrial Track between approximately milepost 18 and approximately milepost 18.6, which is parallel and adjacent to a portion of the Cornwall Industrial Track. The transaction was expected to be consummated on or soon after September 30, 1997. Decided: October 7, 1997. ================================================================== Comments or questions about this compilation should be directed to Paul Moore at 71367.1057@Compuserve.com. ==================================================================