City of Oakland, Cal.-Acquisition Exemption-Former Oakland Army Base, Alameda County, Cal., 57803 [2019-23512]

Download as PDF khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 208 / Monday, October 28, 2019 / Notices the Line includes parallel tracks running within the rail right-of-way. OBOT states that the Line does not have milepost designations. According to OBOT, on February 16, 2016, the City leased to OBOT an existing railroad right-of-way located at the OAB, a portion of which includes the Line. Oakland Global Rail Enterprise, LLC (OGRE), an affiliate of OBOT, then subleased the railroad rightof-way from OBOT with the intent to rehabilitate the rail line within that right-of-way in order to provide rail service to the rail-to-ship bulk commodity marine terminal OBOT plans to build at the OAB. OBOT states that OGRE will be the operator of the Line. OBOT certifies that the projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed the amount that would qualify OBOT as a Class III railroad, and that the projected annual revenue for the Line will not exceed $5 million. OBOT also states that its agreement with the City does not contain any provision that would prohibit, restrict, or otherwise limit future interchange with any third-party carrier. This exemption will become effective on November 11, 2019. 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. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than November 4, 2019 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective). All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36302, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on OBOT’s representative, Kathryn Kusske Floyd, Venable LLP, 600 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001. According to OBOT, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b). Board decisions and notices are available at www.stb.gov. Decided: October 23, 2019. the publication of this notice, the Board is serving a decision denying a petition by the City to reject or revoke OBOT’s verified notice and making the exemption effective on November 11, 2019. See Oakland Glob. Rail Enter.—Acquis. Exemption— Rail Line in Alameda Cty., Cal., FD 36301 et al. (STB served October 28, 2019). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:58 Oct 25, 2019 Jkt 250001 By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings. Raina Contee, Clearance Clerk. [FR Doc. 2019–23513 Filed 10–25–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD [Docket No. FD 36303] City of Oakland, Cal.—Acquisition Exemption—Former Oakland Army Base, Alameda County, Cal. The City of Oakland, Cal. (the City), has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 for authority after-the-fact to acquire from the U.S. Army approximately 15,000 feet of track situated within City-owned areas of the former Oakland Army Base (OAB) in the City of Oakland, Alameda County, Cal. (the Line).1 The City states that it is not aware that the Line has milepost numbers. According to the City, it acquired the Line, through its predecessors-ininterest Oakland Base Reuse Authority and Oakland Redevelopment Agency, in a series of fee and easement transactions between 2003 and 2012. The City states that, at the time of the acquisition, it was not aware that the OAB contained trackage subject to the jurisdiction of the Board and did not seek Board authority to acquire the Line. The City states that it previously had entered into an agreement with Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC (OBOT) permitting OBOT to conduct ‘‘rail activities,’’ and that OBOT in turn ‘‘subleased rail activities to [Oakland Global Rail Enterprise, LLC].’’ According to the City, however, both agreements were terminated effective November 23, 2018. The City states that it will contract with a third-party operator for the Line ‘‘once there is demonstrated demand and funding for rail service.’’ 2 1 As explained more fully in previous decisions in this docket, the City filed its verified notice in response to the Board’s decision in Oakland Global Rail Enterprise—Petition for Declaratory Order, FD 36168 (STB served Mar. 15, 2019), and thereafter, the effective date of the exemption was postponed pending further order of the Board. Concurrent with the publication of this notice, the Board is serving a decision making the exemption effective on November 11, 2019. See Oakland Glob. Rail Enter.—Acquis. Exemption—Rail Line in Alameda Cty., Cal., FD 36301 et al. (STB served October 28, 2019). 2 The City states that it never has had any intention of holding itself out as a common carrier by rail or providing rail service itself on the Line. In general, however, acquiring a rail line imposes a common carrier obligation to provide service upon reasonable request. See, e.g., Groome & Assoc., Inc. v. Greenville Cty. Econ. Dev. Corp., PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 57803 The City certifies that its revenues from freight operations will not result in the creation of a Class I or Class II carrier. The City also states that no interchange agreements are involved in the subject transaction. This exemption will become effective on November 11, 2019. 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. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than November 4, 2019 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective). All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36303, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423–0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on the City’s representative, Charles A. Spitulnik, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP, 1634 I (Eye) Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006. According to the City, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b). Board decisions and notices are available at www.stb.gov. Decided: October 23, 2019. By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings. Raina Contee, Clearance Clerk. [FR Doc. 2019–23512 Filed 10–25–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Notice of Product Exclusions: China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Notice of product exclusions. AGENCY: In September 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed additional duties on goods of China with an annual trade value of approximately $200 billion as part of the action in the Section 301 investigation of China’s acts, policies, and practices related to technology SUMMARY: NOR 42087, slip op. at 10 (STB served July 27, 2005). E:\FR\FM\28OCN1.SGM 28OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 57803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23512]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. FD 36303]


City of Oakland, Cal.--Acquisition Exemption--Former Oakland Army 
Base, Alameda County, Cal.

    The City of Oakland, Cal. (the City), has filed a verified notice 
of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 for authority after-the-fact to 
acquire from the U.S. Army approximately 15,000 feet of track situated 
within City-owned areas of the former Oakland Army Base (OAB) in the 
City of Oakland, Alameda County, Cal. (the Line).\1\ The City states 
that it is not aware that the Line has milepost numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As explained more fully in previous decisions in this 
docket, the City filed its verified notice in response to the 
Board's decision in Oakland Global Rail Enterprise--Petition for 
Declaratory Order, FD 36168 (STB served Mar. 15, 2019), and 
thereafter, the effective date of the exemption was postponed 
pending further order of the Board. Concurrent with the publication 
of this notice, the Board is serving a decision making the exemption 
effective on November 11, 2019. See Oakland Glob. Rail Enter.--
Acquis. Exemption--Rail Line in Alameda Cty., Cal., FD 36301 et al. 
(STB served October 28, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the City, it acquired the Line, through its 
predecessors-in-interest Oakland Base Reuse Authority and Oakland 
Redevelopment Agency, in a series of fee and easement transactions 
between 2003 and 2012. The City states that, at the time of the 
acquisition, it was not aware that the OAB contained trackage subject 
to the jurisdiction of the Board and did not seek Board authority to 
acquire the Line. The City states that it previously had entered into 
an agreement with Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC (OBOT) 
permitting OBOT to conduct ``rail activities,'' and that OBOT in turn 
``subleased rail activities to [Oakland Global Rail Enterprise, LLC].'' 
According to the City, however, both agreements were terminated 
effective November 23, 2018. The City states that it will contract with 
a third-party operator for the Line ``once there is demonstrated demand 
and funding for rail service.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The City states that it never has had any intention of 
holding itself out as a common carrier by rail or providing rail 
service itself on the Line. In general, however, acquiring a rail 
line imposes a common carrier obligation to provide service upon 
reasonable request. See, e.g., Groome & Assoc., Inc. v. Greenville 
Cty. Econ. Dev. Corp., NOR 42087, slip op. at 10 (STB served July 
27, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The City certifies that its revenues from freight operations will 
not result in the creation of a Class I or Class II carrier. The City 
also states that no interchange agreements are involved in the subject 
transaction.
    This exemption will become effective on November 11, 2019.
    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. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than November 4, 
2019 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
    All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36303, must be filed with 
the Surface Transportation Board either via e-filing or in writing 
addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a 
copy of each pleading must be served on the City's representative, 
Charles A. Spitulnik, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP, 1634 I (Eye) Street 
NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006.
    According to the City, this action is categorically excluded from 
environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic reporting 
requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
    Board decisions and notices are available at www.stb.gov.

    Decided: October 23, 2019.

    By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Raina Contee,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2019-23512 Filed 10-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4915-01-P