SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT
    Decision Information

Docket Number:  
FD_30186_3

Case Title:  
TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, INC.--CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION--WESTERN ALIGNMENT

Decision Type:  
Decision

Deciding Body:  
Director Of Proceedings

    Decision Summary

Decision Notes:  
DECISION GRANTED NORTHERN PLAINS RESOURCE COUNCIL'S AND MARK FIX'S PETITION TO EXTEND THE DUE DATE TO FILE A PETITION OF RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION SERVED ON JUNE 15, 2011 IN THIS PROCEEDING.

    Decision Attachments

10 KB
17 KB

Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 13 Seconds

Note:
If you do not have Acrobat Reader, or if you have problems reading our files with your current version of Acrobat Reader, the latest version of Acrobat Reader is available free at www.adobe.com.

    Full Text of Decision

41746                         SERVICE DATE – LATE RELEASE JULY 1, 2011

DO

 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

 

DECISION

 

Docket No. FD 30186 (Sub-No. 3)[1]

 

TONGUE RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, INC.—CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION—WESTERN ALIGNMENT

 

Decided:  July 1, 2011

 

In a decision served on October 9, 2007 (Tongue River III), the Board granted the

application of Tongue River Railroad Company, Inc. (TRRC) to construct and operate a

17.3-mile rail line known as the Western Alignment.  TRRC wishes to use this line in lieu

of the southernmost section of a 41-mile line between Ashland and Decker, Mont., known as the Four Mile Creek Alternative.  The Four Mile Creek Alternative, which was authorized in Tongue River II,[2]  is an extension of an 89-mile line from Miles City to Ashland, Mont., that was authorized in Tongue River I.[3]  The decision in Tongue River III also revised and supplemented the conditions previously imposed on the prior approval of the construction and operation of the Tongue River I and Tongue River II lines.[4]

 

            On July 26, 2010, the Northern Plains Resource Council and Mr. Mark Fix (collectively, NPRC) jointly filed a petition requesting that the Board reopen Tongue River I, Tongue River II, and Tongue River III, prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and reconsider the grant of authority to construct and operate the Tongue River lines.  In a decision served on June 15, 2011, the Board denied NPRC’s petition.

 

            On June 29, 2011, NPRC filed a petition asking that the Board extend the date by which it must file for reconsideration of the June 15 decision.  Petitions for reconsideration are currently due on July 5, 2011, and NPRC requests that its petition be made due 20 days thereafter.  In support of its request, NPRC explains that the Board’s decision is complex and that counsel is already preparing for a July oral argument in court regarding the pending petitions for review.[5]

 

            NPRC’s request is granted.  Accordingly, NPRC’s petition for reconsideration is due on July 25, 2011. 

            It is ordered:

            1.  NPRC’s petition is granted, and its petition is due on July 25, 2011.

            2.  This decision is effective on its date of service.

            By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.



[1]  This decision also embraces Tongue River Railroad—Rail Construction and Operation—in Custer, Powder River and Rosebud Counties, Montana, FD 30186 (Tongue River I), and Tongue River Railroad—Rail Construction and Operation—Ashland to Decker, Montana, FD 30186 (Sub-No. 2)(Tongue River II). 

 

[2]  Tongue River R.R.—Rail Constr. & Oper.—Ashland to Decker, Mont., 1 S.T.B. 809 (1996), pet. for reconsid. denied (STB served Dec. 31, 1996).

 

[3]  Tongue River R.R.—Rail Constr. & Oper.—In Custer, Powder River &

Rosebud Counties, Mont, FD No. 30186 (Sub-No. 1) (ICC served Sept. 4, 1985), modified

(ICC served May 9, 1986), pet. for judicial review dismissed, N. Plains Res. Council v. ICC, 817 F.2d 758 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 484 U.S. 976 (1987).

 

[4]  The Board’s decisions in Tongue River II and Tongue River III are currently under judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

[5]  See n.4, supra.