[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 44 (Monday, March 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11084-11085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5582]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Docket No. AB-549]
City of Rochelle, IL--Adverse Discontinuance--Rochelle Railroad
Company
On February 16, 1999, the City of Rochelle, IL (City), filed an
adverse application under 49 U.S.C. 10903 requesting that the Surface
Transportation Board (Board) authorize the discontinuance by the
Rochelle Railroad Company (RRC) of service over 2.06 miles of track
that the City owns in an industrial park. The line was not further
described in the application, but a map included with the filing
indicates that the line begins at a switch near the intersection of
Caron Road and Creston Road and ends in a stub east of Gredco Drive.
The line has no stations and traverses United States Postal Service ZIP
Code 61068.
In early 1998, the City terminated a contract with RRC to operate
the line, but RRC continued to operate over the line. The City has also
been operating the line under a Notice of Exemption in City of
Rochelle, Illinois--Notice of Exemption--Commencement of Rail Common
Carrier Operations, STB Finance Docket No. 33587 (STB served and
published (63 FR 30036) June 2, 1998).
In a decision served in this proceeding on June 5, 1998, the City
was granted a waiver of filing requirements in 49 CFR 1152 and was
given permission to file an adverse discontinuance application
containing the following information: (1) The name and address of the
applicant; (2) the name and address of counsel; (3) a detailed map of
the facilities involved; (4) the total carloads broken out for each of
the shippers currently using the line
[[Page 11085]]
(asserted to be three); (5) a summary of the principal commodities
handled, if available; (6) a summary operating plan for operations of
the substitute carrier; (7) certification that the City's current, or
proposed, operations comply, or will comply, with all federal and state
safety requirements; (8) an opinion of counsel that the prior lease
with RRC was terminated in accordance with its terms; (9) documentation
from the City that authorizes the operations of the substituted
service; (10) a statement from the City Manager of the reasons for the
application and the benefits that will be obtained if the application
is approved; and (11) supporting statements from shippers. The City was
also granted a waiver of all notice and publication requirements but
was required to serve a copy of its application on the shippers on the
line, RRC, connecting ``trunk carriers'' and the Illinois Commerce
Commission (Commission).
The City states that, under a Mediation Agreement dated November
12, 1998, RRC ceased serving the line on November 13, 1998, and agreed
not to oppose the City's adverse discontinuance application. The City
suggests that an adverse discontinuance proceeding is unnecessary
because RRC has ceased operations and will not oppose the application
and the City is currently providing service. As an alternative to
consideration of the discontinuance application, the City requests that
the adverse discontinuance proceeding be dismissed. The City asserts
that, if the application is dismissed, RRC will be deemed to be
relieved of its common carrier obligation.
In light of the settlement and the need for a formal end to RRC's
common carrier obligation, the application for adverse discontinuance
will not be dismissed. No other pleading is before the Board that would
provide an opportunity for the Board to authorize discontinuance of
RRC's operations. Thus, while the situation here is unusual, the Board
can proceed to resolve the remaining issues in the context of an
adverse discontinuance proceeding.
The City further states that, if the Board accepts the
discontinuance application, much of the information it was required to
submit by the June 5, 1998 decision is now unnecessary because the
adverse discontinuance application will likely be unopposed. Moreover,
the City states that, because it is the only operator of the line,
information about total carloads, a summary of the principal
commodities, a summary operating plan, the benefits to be received from
the application, the documentation from the City authorizing the
service and supporting statements from shippers is no longer relevant.
As a result, the City requests that the Board waive submission of that
information. The City says that it has provided the remainder of the
information called for in the June 5, 1998 decision and has served
copies of its application on shippers, RRC, connecting carriers and the
Commission.
A ruling on the City's waiver request will be deferred. While RRC
has agreed not to oppose the adverse application, there are other
interested parties who have participated in previous proceedings
involving the City and RRC who may want to participate in this
proceeding. The information sought to be waived might at some point be
needed to address issues raised by other parties. The City will
therefore be expected to supplement the record if necessary. On the
other hand, if the application is unopposed, the decision on the merits
of the application will be based on the existing record.
There is no indication that the line contains any federally granted
right-of-way. Any documentation in the City's possession will be made
available promptly to those requesting it. The applicant's entire case
for discontinuance of service was filed with the application.
The interest of affected railroad employees will be protected by
the conditions set forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--
Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979).
Any interested person may file written comments concerning the
proposed discontinuance or protests (including the protestant's entire
opposition case), by April 2, 1999. Because this is a discontinuance
proceeding, and not an abandonment, trail use/rail banking, and public
use requests are not appropriate. Also, offers of financial assistance
will not be entertained in this proceeding. Any offer here would be
limited to subsidization of RRC's services. Given the settlement
agreement, RRC's cessation of operations, and the City's provision of
continued rail service, the public interest does not require the
consideration of offers of financial assistance.
Persons opposing the proposed adverse discontinuance who wish to
participate actively and fully in the process should file a protest by
April 2, 1999. Persons who may oppose the discontinuance but who do not
wish to participate fully in the process by submitting verified
statements of witnesses containing detailed evidence should file
comments by April 2, 1999. Parties seeking information concerning the
filing of protests should refer to section 1152.25. The due date for
applicant's reply is April 17, 1999.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No.
AB-549 and must be sent to (1) Surface Transportation Board, Office of
the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20423-0001 and (2) John M. Robinson, 9616 Old Spring Road, Kensington,
MD 20895. The original and 10 copies of all comments or protests shall
be filed with the Board with a certificate of service. Except as
otherwise set forth in part 1152, every document filed with the Board
must be served on all parties to the discontinuance proceeding. 49 CFR
1104.12(a).
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment and
discontinuance procedures may contact the Board or refer to the full
abandonment regulations at 49 CFR part 1152.
The June 5 decision waived compliance with environmental
regulations because the City is a substitute operator of the line.
Accordingly, no environmental assessment will be prepared in this
proceeding.
Decided: March 2, 1999.
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of
Proceedings.
Vernon A Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-5582 Filed 3-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
