Progressive Rail, Incorporated-Lease and Operation Exemption-Rail Line of Union Pacific Railroad Company, 26604-26605 [2012-10813]

Download as PDF 26604 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices If the 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. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than May 11, 2012 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective). An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35616, 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 Michael J. Barron, Jr., Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at ‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’ By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings. Decided: April 30, 2012. Jeffrey Herzig, Clearance Clerk. [FR Doc. 2012–10820 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [Docket No. FD 35617] erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Progressive Rail, Incorporated—Lease and Operation Exemption—Rail Line of Union Pacific Railroad Company Under 49 CFR 1011.7(a)(2)(x)(A), the Director of the Office of Proceedings (Director) is delegated the authority to determine whether to issue notices of exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for lease and operation transactions under 49 U.S.C. 10902. However, the Board reserves to itself the consideration and disposition of all matters involving issues of general transportation importance. 49 CFR 1011.2(a)(6). Accordingly, the Board revokes the delegation to the Director with respect to issuance of the notice of exemption for lease and operation of the rail line at issue in this case. The Board determines that this notice of exemption should be issued, and does so here. Progressive Rail, Incorporated (PGR), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease from Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) and operate a 37.3-mile line of railroad between milepost 49.00 at or near Cameron and milepost 11.70 at or near Norma, in Barron and Chippewa Counties, Wis. (the Line). According to PGR, PGR and VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 UP have entered into a new Lease Agreement (Agreement) for PGR to lease the Line from UP.1 The term of the lease is 30 years. As required at 49 CFR 1150.43(h), PGR has disclosed that the Agreement contains an interchange commitment in the form of an adjustment in the amount of rent payable in each year, depending on the percentage of total traffic transported over the Line that is interchanged with UP in that year.2 Attached to PGR’s notice of exemption is the verified statement of David Fellon, President of PGR. PGR states that a relatively high percentage of traffic interchanged with UP would result in a relatively low amount of rent, and vice versa. According to PGR, it believes that it can substantially grow its outbound traffic if it is able to make significant improvements to the Line. PGR states that the interchange commitment will enable it to make ‘‘major renewals of main tracks, sidetracks, and bridges, and to construct a number of new sidings and yard tracks to enable staging of railcars for loading and to achieve efficiencies in railcar switching,’’ to the benefit of the shipping public. PGR also states that (1) although there is a Canadian National Railway Company (CN) line at Cameron, the CN line is officially out of service and would require extensive rehabilitation to be made operable, and (2) there is a CN line at Chippewa Falls, but the Line does not extend to Chippewa Falls. PGR certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in PGR becoming a Class I or Class II rail carrier. PGR further certifies that its projected annual revenues will not exceed $5 million. The earliest the transaction can be consummated is May 18, 2012, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was filed). If the 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 May 11, 2012 (at least 1 PGR previously obtained an exemption in 2004 to lease and operate the Line. See Progressive Rail, Inc.—Lease & Operation Exemption—Rail Line of Union Pac. R.R., FD 34597 (STB served Oct. 29, 2004). The new lease for which an exemption is sought in this proceeding will replace the lease for which the prior exemption was obtained. 2 Concurrently with its verified notice of exemption, PGR has filed under seal, pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.43(h)(1)(ii), a confidential, complete version of the Agreement. PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7 days before the exemption becomes effective). An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 35617, 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 Thomas F. McFarland, Thomas F. McFarland, P.C., 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1890, Chicago, IL 60604–1112. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at ‘‘www.stb.dot.gov.’’ It is ordered: 1. The delegation of authority to the Director of the Office of Proceedings under 49 CFR 1011.7(a)(2)(x)(A) to determine whether to issue a notice of exemption in this proceeding is revoked. 2. This decision is effective on the date of service. Decided: May 1, 2012. By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner Begeman. Vice Chairman Mulvey dissented with a separate expression. Vice Chairman Mulvey, dissenting: I disagree with the Board’s decision to allow a transaction containing a significant interchange commitment to be processed under the Board’s class exemption procedures at 49 CFR part 1150. In general, the Board should be carefully scrutinizing transactions that include interchange commitments before deciding whether to permit them to go into effect. The notice in this particular case does not allow me to conclude summarily— without any examination—that the lease is consistent with the public interest. 49 U.S.C. 10902(c). The notice asserts that there really are no competitive interchange options for PGR because the CN line that connects to the Line is not operational. Yet, disregarding this claimed reality, the lease nonetheless contains an interchange commitment with substantial economic rewards for PGR if it interchanges with UP. One has to wonder why such an economic incentive is necessary if there is little chance that PGR would interchange with CN in any event. The lease term is 30 years, which is far longer than some other recent transactions involving paper barriers. See e.g., Middletown & New Jersey R.R.—Lease & Operation Exemption—Norfolk S. Ry., FD 35412 (STB served Sept. 23, 2011) (10-year lease term). Moreover, we do not know how many shippers will be affected, what volume of traffic will be affected, or whether CN has plans to rehabilitate its connecting line. Nor do we know whether the 2004 lease that PGR and UP E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices are currently operating under also included an interchange commitment and, if it did not, why such a provision became necessary eight years later. The Board needs to take a close look at long-term leases that have the potential to control the competitive environment for shippers—thus affecting rates and service—for years to come. At a time of far different economic circumstances in the railroad industry, our predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, approved long-term leases and sales involving interchange commitments with little or no analysis. Years later, the Board is still grappling with the economic and competitive consequences of those transactions. Jeffrey Herzig, Clearance Clerk. [FR Doc. 2012–10813 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P Title: Request for Payment of Federal Benefit by Check, EFT Waiver Form. Abstract: 31 CFR part 208 requires that all Federal non-tax payments be made by electronic funds transfer (EFT). This form is used to collect information from individuals requesting a waiver from the EFT requirement because of a mental impairment and/or who live in a remote geographic location that does not support the use of EFT. These individuals may continue to receive payment by check. However, 31 CFR part 208 requires individuals requesting one of these waiver conditions to submit a written justification that is notarized by a notary public. In order to assist individuals with this submission, Treasury is preparing a waiver form so that all necessary information is collected. Affected Public: Individuals or Households. Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3,000. [FR Doc. 2012–10792 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–35–P Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES May 1, 2012. The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the date of publication of this notice. DATES: Comments should be received on or before June 4, 2012 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing the burden to the (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV and the (2) Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 11020, Washington, DC 20220, or online at www.PRAComment.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 927–5331, email at PRA@treasury.gov, or the entire information collection request may be found at www.reginfo.gov. Financial Management Service (FMS) OMB Number: 1510–XXXX. Type of Review: New Collection. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:20 May 03, 2012 Jkt 226001 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comment. AGENCY: The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning its information collection titled, ‘‘Procedures to Enhance the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies under Section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACT Act).’’ DATES: Comments must be received by July 3, 2012. ADDRESSES: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Public Information Room, Mailstop 2–3, Attention: 1557–0238, SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (202) 874–5274, or by electronic mail to regs.comments@occ.treas.gov. You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 874–4700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and to submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments. Additionally, you should send a copy of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, 1557–0238, by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725, 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503, or by fax to (202) 395–6974. You can request additional information or a copy of the collection from Mary H. Gottlieb, OCC Clearance Officer, (202) 874–5090, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Dahl, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 26605 The OCC is requesting extension of OMB approval for this information collection titled, ‘‘Procedures to Enhance the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies under Section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACT Act).’’ There have been no changes to the requirements of the regulations; however, the regulations have been transferred to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) pursuant to title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 2036, July 21, 2010 (DoddFrank Act), and republished as CFPB regulations (76 FR 79308 (December 21, 2011)). The burden estimates have been revised to remove the burden for OCCregulated institutions with over $10 billion in assets, now carried by CFPB pursuant to section 1025 of the DoddFrank Act, and to remove the initial start-up burden. The OCC retains enforcement authority for its institutions with $10 billion in total assets or less. Title: Procedures to Enhance the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies under Section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACT Act). OMB Number: 1557–0238. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26604-26605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10813]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. FD 35617]


Progressive Rail, Incorporated--Lease and Operation Exemption--
Rail Line of Union Pacific Railroad Company

    Under 49 CFR 1011.7(a)(2)(x)(A), the Director of the Office of 
Proceedings (Director) is delegated the authority to determine whether 
to issue notices of exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for lease and 
operation transactions under 49 U.S.C. 10902. However, the Board 
reserves to itself the consideration and disposition of all matters 
involving issues of general transportation importance. 49 CFR 
1011.2(a)(6). Accordingly, the Board revokes the delegation to the 
Director with respect to issuance of the notice of exemption for lease 
and operation of the rail line at issue in this case. The Board 
determines that this notice of exemption should be issued, and does so 
here.
    Progressive Rail, Incorporated (PGR), a Class III rail carrier, has 
filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to lease from 
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) and operate a 37.3-mile line of 
railroad between milepost 49.00 at or near Cameron and milepost 11.70 
at or near Norma, in Barron and Chippewa Counties, Wis. (the Line). 
According to PGR, PGR and UP have entered into a new Lease Agreement 
(Agreement) for PGR to lease the Line from UP.\1\ The term of the lease 
is 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PGR previously obtained an exemption in 2004 to lease and 
operate the Line. See Progressive Rail, Inc.--Lease & Operation 
Exemption--Rail Line of Union Pac. R.R., FD 34597 (STB served Oct. 
29, 2004). The new lease for which an exemption is sought in this 
proceeding will replace the lease for which the prior exemption was 
obtained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required at 49 CFR 1150.43(h), PGR has disclosed that the 
Agreement contains an interchange commitment in the form of an 
adjustment in the amount of rent payable in each year, depending on the 
percentage of total traffic transported over the Line that is 
interchanged with UP in that year.\2\ Attached to PGR's notice of 
exemption is the verified statement of David Fellon, President of PGR. 
PGR states that a relatively high percentage of traffic interchanged 
with UP would result in a relatively low amount of rent, and vice 
versa. According to PGR, it believes that it can substantially grow its 
outbound traffic if it is able to make significant improvements to the 
Line. PGR states that the interchange commitment will enable it to make 
``major renewals of main tracks, sidetracks, and bridges, and to 
construct a number of new sidings and yard tracks to enable staging of 
railcars for loading and to achieve efficiencies in railcar 
switching,'' to the benefit of the shipping public. PGR also states 
that (1) although there is a Canadian National Railway Company (CN) 
line at Cameron, the CN line is officially out of service and would 
require extensive rehabilitation to be made operable, and (2) there is 
a CN line at Chippewa Falls, but the Line does not extend to Chippewa 
Falls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Concurrently with its verified notice of exemption, PGR has 
filed under seal, pursuant to 49 CFR 1150.43(h)(1)(ii), a 
confidential, complete version of the Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PGR certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of 
this transaction will not result in PGR becoming a Class I or Class II 
rail carrier. PGR further certifies that its projected annual revenues 
will not exceed $5 million.
    The earliest the transaction can be consummated is May 18, 2012, 
the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was 
filed).
    If the 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 May 11, 2012 (at 
least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective).
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. 
FD 35617, 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 Thomas F. McFarland, Thomas F. McFarland, 
P.C., 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1890, Chicago, IL 60604-1112.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at 
``www.stb.dot.gov.''
    It is ordered:
    1. The delegation of authority to the Director of the Office of 
Proceedings under 49 CFR 1011.7(a)(2)(x)(A) to determine whether to 
issue a notice of exemption in this proceeding is revoked.
    2. This decision is effective on the date of service.
    Decided: May 1, 2012.
    By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and 
Commissioner Begeman. Vice Chairman Mulvey dissented with a separate 
expression.
Vice Chairman Mulvey, dissenting:
    I disagree with the Board's decision to allow a transaction 
containing a significant interchange commitment to be processed under 
the Board's class exemption procedures at 49 CFR part 1150. In general, 
the Board should be carefully scrutinizing transactions that include 
interchange commitments before deciding whether to permit them to go 
into effect.
    The notice in this particular case does not allow me to conclude 
summarily--without any examination--that the lease is consistent with 
the public interest. 49 U.S.C. 10902(c). The notice asserts that there 
really are no competitive interchange options for PGR because the CN 
line that connects to the Line is not operational. Yet, disregarding 
this claimed reality, the lease nonetheless contains an interchange 
commitment with substantial economic rewards for PGR if it interchanges 
with UP. One has to wonder why such an economic incentive is necessary 
if there is little chance that PGR would interchange with CN in any 
event. The lease term is 30 years, which is far longer than some other 
recent transactions involving paper barriers. See e.g., Middletown & 
New Jersey R.R.--Lease & Operation Exemption--Norfolk S. Ry., FD 35412 
(STB served Sept. 23, 2011) (10-year lease term). Moreover, we do not 
know how many shippers will be affected, what volume of traffic will be 
affected, or whether CN has plans to rehabilitate its connecting line. 
Nor do we know whether the 2004 lease that PGR and UP

[[Page 26605]]

are currently operating under also included an interchange commitment 
and, if it did not, why such a provision became necessary eight years 
later.
    The Board needs to take a close look at long-term leases that have 
the potential to control the competitive environment for shippers--thus 
affecting rates and service--for years to come. At a time of far 
different economic circumstances in the railroad industry, our 
predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, approved long-
term leases and sales involving interchange commitments with little or 
no analysis. Years later, the Board is still grappling with the 
economic and competitive consequences of those transactions.

Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2012-10813 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P