Decision Provided Notice that An Oral Argument Will be Held on October 26, 2010, to Address Docket No. 42104.

The Surface Transportation Board will hold oral argument on Tuesday, October 26, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in the Board’s hearing room at the Board’s headquarters located at 395 E Street, S.W., Washington, DC. The argument will address Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Entergy Services, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad and Missouri & Northern Arkansas Railroad and BNSF Railway, NOR 42104. The oral argument will be open for public observation, but only counsel for the parties will be permitted to present argument.

Entergy Arkansas, Inc., and Entergy Services, Inc. (jointly, Entergy) have filed a complaint asking the Board to prescribe an alternative through route for the movement of coal from origins in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin to a generating plant near Newark, Ark., that is owned jointly by Entergy and intervener Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC) and is directly served by the Missouri & Northern Arkansas Railroad Company, Inc. (MNA). The alternative through route sought by Entergy would involve the movement of Powder River Basin coal that would originate on mines served by the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) and be interchanged from BNSF to MNA (or from BNSF to the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) should UP subsequently replace MNA as the carrier directly serving Entergy’s plant) at either Lamar or Aurora, Mo. Entergy’s current service involves the through movement of coal that originates at Powder River Basin mines served by UP and is interchanged from UP to MNA at Diaz Junction, Ark, for an 8-mile movement to Entergy’s plant. The relief sought by Entergy is opposed by UP, MNA, and BNSF.[1]

By motion filed on July 20, 2010, UP asked the Board to schedule oral argument in this case. In their joint reply filed on July 21, 2010, Entergy and intervener AECC argue UP is improperly seeking an opportunity to introduce new evidence after the record had closed, but they state that they would not object to an oral argument if it were properly limited to the current record in this proceeding. The Board is granting UP’s request for oral argument in order to clarify the record and the issues in this complex proceeding. During the oral argument, the parties may address any relevant issues arising from the record in the proceeding. The Board is particularly interested in the parties’ views concerning the applicability of statutory provisions bearing on through routes between railroads and how those provisions relate to each other. The argument, however, will be restricted to discussion of the current record; the parties may not submit or discuss new evidence.