A&R Terminal Railroad Company-Acquisition and Operation Exemption-A&R Logistics, Inc., 65831 [E9-29495]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 237 / Friday, December 11, 2009 / Notices
Existing Bridge and in the way traffic is
processed for interchange at that border
crossing. UP and KCSM have made
significant capital investments to increase
capacity—UP at its Port Laredo yard
approximately eight miles north of Laredo
and KCSM at its Sanchez Yard in Nuevo
Laredo. Both KCSM and UP have added the
Centralized Traffic Control (‘‘CTC’’) system
and additional sidings on their main lines on
their respective sides of the border. This
addition of yard capacity, CTC, and sidings
allows our trains to more quickly proceed to
and from the border crossing, thereby
reducing congestion at the crossing and
increasing the Existing Bridge’s capacity.
Process improvements made include the
implementation of the dispacho previo
system (a system providing for a more fluid
and faster operation by clearing cars to cross
from the U.S. into Mexico prior to their
arrival at the border) and the Automated
Manifest System with US Customs, the
installation of VACIS machines on both sides
of the border, the increased use of ‘‘runthrough’’ trains (including locomotives), and
improved customs processes. These
improvements have expedited movements
over the Existing Bridge and substantially
increased its capacity.
The diminished current need for the New
Bridge, or for any other bridge that would
replace the Existing Bridge, has also resulted
from declining traffic levels caused by the
recent downturn in the general economy and
by the rerouting by customers of certain
trains from the Laredo/Nuevo Laredo
crossing to the crossing at Eagle Pass, Texas/
Piedras Negras, Coahuila. In addition, the
failure of anticipated movements originating
from the Port of Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico, to
materialize has reduced projected traffic
volumes.
The result is that current traffic over the
Existing Bridge consumes approximately
50% of its capacity. For this reason, we do
not believe that the New Bridge, nor any
other new rail bridge at the Laredo/Nuevo
Laredo crossing, is required at this time. But
we are confident that traffic levels will
increase and that a new bridge will be
required in the future. Operating and other
considerations dictate that any such new rail
bridge should take the form of the Flecha
Lane project, including the New Bridge.
Continuation of the Permit would allow
construction of the New Bridge to begin
quickly when increases in traffic levels tax
the capacity of the Existing Bridge.
We are aware of two other proposals for
international railroad bridges at Laredo/
Nuevo Laredo. Unfortunately, neither of
these proposals, as presently planned, would
meet UP’s needs. We understand that KCS
intends to apply for a Presidential Permit to
construct and operate a new international
bridge at Laredo/Nuevo Laredo
approximately 12 miles southeast of the
Existing Bridge (the ‘‘East Loop By-Pass
Project’’). The East Loop By-Pass Project
would involve the construction of
approximately 51 miles of trackage in an
eastern loop around Laredo/Nuevo Laredo.
UP opposes the East Loop By-Pass Project
because it would present significant
operating problems and expense to UP and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:33 Dec 10, 2009
Jkt 220001
would add approximately 24 miles of
circuity to UP movements interchanged with
KCSM. At a minimum, any Presidential
Permit for the East Loop Project should be
made contingent upon agreement between
KCS and UP for UP’s use of the bridge and
access trackage, including compensation
terms. To date, KCS has declined UP’s
requests to discuss this important matter.
The other proposed project would involve
the construction of a new railroad bridge
approximately 19 miles west of the Existing
Bridge (the ‘‘Columbia River Project’’) which
would connect with trackage on the U.S. side
constructed alongside the existing toll road at
approximately mile post 27. The Columbia
River Project is supported more by the
governmental entities that have proposed it
than by the railroads that would actually use
it. UP opposes the Columbia River Project
since it would, if implemented, present
significant operational problems for UP. We
doubt the project will ever be undertaken due
to its high cost and the opposition of various
affected parties, including KCS.
I would very much appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you further about
UP’s position on this very important matter.
Sincerely, Robert Naro, Vice President for
Mexico Operations, Union Pacific Railroad
Company
End Text
Dated: December 4, 2009.
Alex Lee,
Director, Office of Mexican Affairs,
Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9–29335 Filed 12–10–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 35329]
A&R Terminal Railroad Company—
Acquisition and Operation
Exemption—A&R Logistics, Inc.
A&R Terminal Railroad Company
(ARTR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified
notice of exemption under 49 CFR
1150.31 to acquire, by lease, and to
operate A&R Logistics, Inc.’s (A&R)
Morris Transload Facility and
approximately 6.25 miles of right-ofway and trackage located in the
transload facility, in Morris, IL.1
ARTR states that the rail line to be
acquired and operated by ARTR
constitutes a line of railroad for which
an exemption from the Board is required
because it is ARTR’s initial rail
acquisition and operation,
notwithstanding that it might otherwise
be considered to be spur, industrial,
and/or switching track exempt from the
1 The Morris Transload Facility trackage is not
described by milepost numbers.
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65831
Board’s acquisition and operation
authority under 49 U.S.C. 10906.2
The earliest this transaction may be
consummated is December 25, 2009, the
effective date of the exemption (30 days
after the verified notice of exemption
was filed).
ARTR certifies that its projected
revenues as a result of the transaction
will not exceed those that would qualify
it as a Class III rail carrier.
Pursuant to the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law
110–161, § 193, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007),
nothing in this decision authorizes the
following activities at any solid waste
rail transfer facility: Collecting, storing,
or transferring solid waste outside of its
original shipping container; or
separating or processing solid waste
(including baling, crushing, compacting,
and shredding). The term ‘‘solid waste’’
is defined in section 1004 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6903.
If ARTR’s verified notice contains
false or misleading information, the
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C.
10502(d) may be filed at any time. The
filing of a petition to revoke will not
automatically stay the effectiveness of
the exemption. Stay petitions must be
filed no later than December 18, 2009 (at
least 7 days before the exemption
becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all
pleadings, referring to STB Finance
Docket No. 35329, must be filed with
the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–
0001. In addition, one copy of each
pleading must be served on David C.
Dillon, Dillon & Nash, Ltd., 111 West
Washington Street, Suite 719, Chicago,
IL 60602.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at https://
www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: December 7, 2009.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Kulunie L. Cannon,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9–29495 Filed 12–10–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
2 See Effingham RR Co.—Pet. for Declaratory
Order, 2 S.T.B. 606 (1997), aff’d sub nom. United
Transp. Union—Ill. Legislative Bd. v. Surface
Transp. Bd., 183 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 1999); see also
Bulkmatic RR.—Acquire and Operate—Bulkmatic
Transport, 6 S.T.B. 481 (2002).
E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM
11DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 237 (Friday, December 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 65831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29495]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 35329]
A&R Terminal Railroad Company--Acquisition and Operation
Exemption--A&R Logistics, Inc.
A&R Terminal Railroad Company (ARTR), a noncarrier, has filed a
verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire, by lease,
and to operate A&R Logistics, Inc.'s (A&R) Morris Transload Facility
and approximately 6.25 miles of right-of-way and trackage located in
the transload facility, in Morris, IL.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Morris Transload Facility trackage is not described by
milepost numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTR states that the rail line to be acquired and operated by ARTR
constitutes a line of railroad for which an exemption from the Board is
required because it is ARTR's initial rail acquisition and operation,
notwithstanding that it might otherwise be considered to be spur,
industrial, and/or switching track exempt from the Board's acquisition
and operation authority under 49 U.S.C. 10906.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Effingham RR Co.--Pet. for Declaratory Order, 2 S.T.B.
606 (1997), aff'd sub nom. United Transp. Union--Ill. Legislative
Bd. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 183 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 1999); see also
Bulkmatic RR.--Acquire and Operate--Bulkmatic Transport, 6 S.T.B.
481 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The earliest this transaction may be consummated is December 25,
2009, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified
notice of exemption was filed).
ARTR certifies that its projected revenues as a result of the
transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III
rail carrier.
Pursuant to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law
110-161, Sec. 193, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007), nothing in this decision
authorizes the following activities at any solid waste rail transfer
facility: Collecting, storing, or transferring solid waste outside of
its original shipping container; or separating or processing solid
waste (including baling, crushing, compacting, and shredding). The term
``solid waste'' is defined in section 1004 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, 42 U.S.C. 6903.
If ARTR's verified notice contains false or misleading information,
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the
exemption. Stay petitions must be filed no later than December 18, 2009
(at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB
Finance Docket No. 35329, must be filed with the Surface Transportation
Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one
copy of each pleading must be served on David C. Dillon, Dillon & Nash,
Ltd., 111 West Washington Street, Suite 719, Chicago, IL 60602.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at https://www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: December 7, 2009.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of
Proceedings.
Kulunie L. Cannon,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9-29495 Filed 12-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
