City of Rochelle, ILAdverse DiscontinuanceRochelle Railroad Company

[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