[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5027-5031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2663]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
United States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.; Public Comments and
Response on Proposed Final Judgment
Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C.
(b)-(h), the United States publishes below the comments received on the
proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 95-1852 (RCL), United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, together with the response of the United States
to the comments.
Copies of the response and the public comments are available on
request for inspection and copying in room 215 of the U.S. Department
of Justice, Antitrust Division, 325 7th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20530, telephone: (202) 514-2481, and for inspection at the Office of
the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, United States Courthouse, Third Street and Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Copies of these materials may be
obtained upon request and payment of a copying fee.
Rebecca P. Dick,
Deputy Director, Office of Operations, Antitrust Division.
In The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
In the matter of: United States of America, Plaintiff, vs.
Greyhound Lines, Inc., Defendant. Civil Action No. 95-1852 (RCL).
United States' Response to Public Comments
Pursuant to section 2(d) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties
Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(d), the United States files this response to public
comments on the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry in this
civil antitrust proceeding.
This action began on September 28, 1995, when the United States
filed a Complaint charging the defendant, Greyhound Lines, Inc., with
violations of the antitrust laws. The Complaint alleges that a standard
provision in Greyhound's terminal leases unreasonably restricts the
ability of tenant bus companies to compete with Greyhound. The
provision, known as the ``25-mile rule,'' prohibits tenants from
selling tickets anywhere else within a 25-mile radius of the Greyhound
terminal or from accepting the tickets of any other bus company sold in
that area. The effect of the rule is to prevent tenant carriers from
serving other terminals within that area and from providing service
from non-terminal locations such as airports or college campuses. In
addition, because it prohibits tenants from accepting the tickets of
other carriers sold within 25 miles, the clause restricts interlining.
Simultaneously with the filing of the Complaint, the United States
filed a proposed Final Judgment, a Competitive Impact Statement, and a
stipulation signed by Greyhound for entry of the proposed Final
Judgment. The proposed Final Judgment would require Greyhound to remove
the 25-mile rule from its terminal leases within 60 days after entry.
In addition, the proposed Final Judgment enjoins other conduct by
Greyhound that would have the same effect as the 25-mile rule.
The APPA provides for a 60-day public comment period on the
proposed Final Judgment. The 60-day comment
[[Page 5028]]
period commenced on October 12, 1995 and expired on December 11, 1995.
The United States received only one comment on the proposed Final
Judgment, from Valley Transit Company, a small bus company operating
primarily in Texas. As required by 15 U.S.C. 16(b), Valley Transit's
comment is being filed with this response. (Exhibit A).
Valley Transit's comment cites Greyhound tariffs that provide that
Greyhound will not honor Valley Transit tickets sold at various Texas
locations, in particular a new Valley Transit terminal in Austin. As a
result of these tariffs, Valley cannot sell passengers through tickets
on routes where Valley connects with Greyhound. For example, a
passenger going from Austin to Laredo (Austin-San Antonio on Valley and
San Antonio-Laredo on Greyhound) must buy a separate ticket in San
Antonio for the second leg of the trip. Valley argues that Greyhound's
refusal to honor its tickets makes it difficult for Valley to compete
with Greyhound and that it is an attempt to achieve the effects of the
25-mile rule by another means.
The Complaint in this case alleges that the 25-mile rule is an
unlawful agreement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because it
unreasonably restricts the ability of tenant bus companies to operate
outside the Greyhound terminal or interline with other carriers that
operate outside the Greyhound terminal. The conduct at issue in this
case involves agreements between Greyhound and its tenants that
interfere with the tenant bus companies' ability to interline with
other carriers.
As a general rule, companies, even those with large market shares,
are free to do business with whomever they chose, and are not normally
required to do business with their competitors. The Complaint does not
allege that a refusal by Greyhound to interline with or honor tickets
issued by another bus company violates the antitrust laws. Indeed, the
proposed Final Judgment explicitly states that it does not affect
Greyhound's unilateral right to refuse to interline with another
carrier. Section IV(C)(8). The Greyhound conduct cited by Valley
Transit is thus outside the scope of the Complaint.
Valley Transit also alleges that some of Greyhound's tenant bus
companies have also refused to accept Valley tickets based on an
agreement with Greyhound. As Valley notes, however, it appears that the
proposed Final Judgment, which enjoins Greyhound from conditioning
terminal access on an agreement not to honor the tickets of other
carriers sold outside the Greyhound terminal (Section IV(B)), fully
addresses this concern.
The United States has carefully considered Valley Transit's
comment. Nothing in Valley's comment has altered the United States'
conclusion that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The proposed Final Judgment provides all the relief requested in the
Complaint against Greyhound, without the substantial expense of a
trial. The relief provided in the decree would eliminate the 25-mile
rule and prevent Greyhound from achieving the same anticompetitive
result by other means. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment is in the
public interest.
Dated: December 18, 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael D. Billiel,
DC Bar #394377
Michele B. Felasco,
Attorneys, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 555 Fourth
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 307-6666.
December 4, 1995.
Roger W. Fones,
Chief, Transportation and Energy Section, Room 9104, 555 4th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001
Re: United States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Case No. 1:95CV01852
Dear Mr. Fones: In announcing the filing of the suit against
Greyhound Lines, Inc. (``Greyhound''), the Department of Justice
issued a press release in which it was stated that the ``25-mile
rule limited other bus companies from competing effectively against
Greyhound. It resulted in less bus service and less convenience for
consumers.'' Press Release dated September 29, 1995 at 2. The
Release further states that:
Greyhound's 25-mile rule made it harder for bus companies to
offer full service to other locations near Greyhound terminals, such
as competing bus terminals, college campuses, train stations, and
airports. It limited competition in the distribution of bus tickets
in many cities, making it difficult for any bus tickets to be sold
except in a Greyhound terminal.
Finally, it made it harder for smaller bus companies to connect
with each other to form alternative routes, in competition with
Greyhound, in intercity bus service.
Under the agreement, Greyhound would drop the 25-mile rule from
all of its lease agreements and would not impose any similar rule in
the future. The agreement also prevents Greyhound from using leasing
in other ways to limit bus companies from selling tickets outside
Greyhound terminals.
Emphasis added.
It is respectfully requested that consideration be given to
including a provision in the proposed judgment which would prevent
Greyhound from employing tariff filings to achieve the same
objective as the 25-mile rule in its Bus Terminal License Agreement.
In seeking this modification, I respectfully request that you
consider certain actions which Greyhound has taken since signing the
consent decree which are causing the identical problems which you
identified in your press release of September 28, 1995. If these
activities are not covered by the consent decree, they will create a
loophole through which one could literally drive a bus.
On November 2, 1995, Valley Transit Company opened a new
terminal in Austin, Texas in response to the request for service
from small towns in southeast Texas, such as Yoakum, Shiner,
Gonzales, Lockhart, Luling, Mendoza, Nursery, Thomaston and Cuero,
all of which are located between Victoria and Austin. These small
communities had recently lost all bus service when Kerrville Bus
Lines discontinued service between those points. It should be noted
that Greyhound did not seek to institute its own service replacing
Kerrville Bus Lines.
When Valley Transit decided to respond to the public need, it
approached Greyhound and requested that Valley Transit be allowed to
operate into Greyhound's Austin terminal, as Kerrville had done.
Valley Transit's request was summarily denied. As a result, Valley
Transit was forced to establish its own terminal facility in Austin.
Recognizing that its main source of passengers would be from the
central portion of Austin near both the University of Texas and the
heart of the Hispanic community, Valley Transit spent a considerable
amount of time and resources in finding such a location.
Valley Transit also recognized that in order to make the route
work, it would be necessary to coordinate its Austin schedules with
its existing operations between the Rio Grande Valley and San
Antonio. Thus, it initiated three daily schedules which link Austin
to its existing operations via San Antonio where Valley Transit
interlines with Greyhound and other bus companies at the Greyhound
terminal. Valley Transit is currently operating in the Greyhound
terminal at San Antonio pursuant to a stay order entered by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in
September 1992. The stay order was entered pending the outcome of an
antitrust lawsuit which Valley Transit was forced to file when
Greyhound attempted to evict Valley Transit from the Greyhound
terminals in Houston, San Antonio and Corpus Christi, Texas--Valley
Transit Company, Inc. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. C.A. No. B-92-153.
Although Greyhound had previously assured Valley Transit that it
would not retaliate against Valley Transit for opening the Austin
terminal, Greyhound, with no prior notice, issued a tariff on
October 31, 1995, effective November 1, in which it announced that
it would not honor any ticket which Valley Transit sold in Austin.
See Attachment 1. As Greyhound explained in a letter dated November
3, 1995, ``Greyhound will not honor at Austin, TX or San Antonio,
TX, any Valley ticket that is issued at Austin, TX for
transportation to points beyond Austin, TX or San Antonio, TX.''
Letter to Robert R. Farris from Gregory Alexander, dated November 3,
1995 (Attachment 2).
Subsequently, on November 21, 1995, Greyhound issued another
tariff which is
[[Page 5029]]
even more restrictive. See Attachment 3. As Greyhound explained in a
further letter, ``Greyhound will not honor at Austin, TX, or San
Antonio, TX, any Valley ticket that is issued at Austin, TX, San
Marcos, TX, New Braunfels, TX or Seguin, TX, which provides for
transportation to points beyond Austin, TX or San Antonio, TX. See
Letter to Robert R. Farris from Gregory Alexander, dated November
21, 1995 (Attachment 4). Because these letters show copies going to
Jack Haugsland, Greyhound's Vice President of Operations, and Mark
Southerst, Greyhound's Vice President, it is evident that these
actions are being taken with the acquiescence of some top Greyhound
management.
What may not be evident is the impact that the Greyhound tariff
provisions are having on Valley Transits' passengers who have chosen
to travel via Valley Transit's conveniently located terminal in
central Austin. If a passenger buys a ticket at Austin with a
destination at Laredo, Valley Transit can take the passenger from
Austin as far as San Antonio. Because Valley Transit does not
operate between San Antonio and Laredo, it must interline with
Greyhound at San Antonio. However, at San Antonio, Greyhound will
not accept the passenger's ticket. Nor will Greyhound honor the
ticket on the return trip from Laredo to Austin. Instead, Greyhound
forces the passenger to purchase a new ticket at San Antonio to
travel to Laredo and back, without regard to the passenger's ability
to advance funds for the additional ticket until a refund can be
obtained from Valley Transit.
Also, if Valley Transit sells a round-trip ticket to Dallas at
New Braunfels, the passenger will travel to Austin via Valley
Transit. However, because Valley Transit does not operate into
Dallas, it must interline with Greyhound at Austin. Because
Greyhound will not allow Valley Transit access to its Austin
terminal, Valley Transit is required to drop the passenger at
curbside outside the Greyhound terminal. Of course, when the
passenger enters the Greyhound terminal at Austin, Greyhound will
not accept the Valley Transit ticket because it was issued at an
``intermediate'' point between Austin and San Antonio.
The message to the passenger is clear. If you deal with Valley
Transit at Austin, you will be harassed and inconvenienced by
Greyhound!
This has been done even though Greyhound's existing Bus Terminal
License Agreement with Valley Transit contains the following
provision:
[Greyhound] shall furnish impartial information as to the
routes, schedules and fare charged, and impartially give out, upon
request, such other general information as is available.
Prospective passengers destined for competitive points on or
beyond the lines of more than one of the carriers operating from the
Terminal shall, when the fare, distance and time of arrival and
departure are substantially equal, be given the option of selecting
the schedule on which they will travel. Otherwise, tickets to
competitive points shall be sold on the next bus out or according to
passenger preference.
As is obvious, Greyhound has not felt constrained by this
language in issuing the tariff restriction against optional honoring
of tickets sold in Valley Transit's Austin terminal.
Furthermore, because of Greyhound's monopolistic position in the
industry which flows from its control of the only nationwide network
of bus terminals, these tariffs have also had an impact on other bus
companies. Valley Transit's agent in Austin has been advised by
Arrow Trailways that, if Valley Transit were to bring passengers to
it at Greyhound's Austin terminal, Arrow Trailways will accept
Valley Transit's tickets at the Greyhound terminal, even if the
passenger is traveling to a point which is not served by Greyhound.
Although Valley Transit has requested Arrow Trailways to stop at
Valley Transit's Austin terminal to interline with Valley Transit,
as of this date Arrow Trailways has not accepted the invitation. In
addition, Valley Transit's agent has been information that Kerrville
Bus Lines cannot come to Valley Transit's Austin terminal to offer
service because of an agreement with Greyhound. If these activities
are not ceased, Valley Transit will have no choice but to withdraw
from the Austin market, even though it has responded to a public
demand by providing bus service when no other service was available.
I would also like to invite your attention to the most recent
draft of the Bus Terminal License Agreement which Greyhound has
forwarded to Valley Transit. Section 15(C) of that Agreement
provides an alternative dispute resolution (``ADR'') process.
However, as states therein, ``Disputes regarding optional honoring
of tickets shall not subject to this Section 15(C).'' One can but
wonder why this particular item has been singled out for disparate
treatment.
I have been forced to conclude that Greyhound has determined
that tariffs cancelling optional honoring of tickets can be
effectively substituted for the ``25-mile'' rule, which is banned in
the proposed Consent Decree, and utilized to restrain competition
from other bus companies which must interline through Greyhound
terminals. As reflected by the ongoing attempt to drive Valley
Transit out of the Austin market, this use of tariffs, instead of
the Bus Terminal License Agreements, is as insidious an antitrust
practice as the 25-mile rule which the Department of Justice has
condemned. While Greyhound will not institute new service to meet a
demonstrated public need, it will endlessly harass a smaller
competitor which is trying to respond to that need. Furthermore,
unless called to terms on the matter at this time, Greyhound will
likely use the consent decree as a defense. Thus, if sued, Greyhound
will claim that if the Department of Justice had viewed such actions
as being violative of the Sherman Act, the Department would have
specifically condemned them in this case.
In light of the above, I suggest that certain minor
modifications be made to the proposed Final Judgment which the
Department of Justice has negotiated with Greyhound. In Section
IV(B)(1), Greyhound is restrained and enjoined from:
conditioning access to its terminals, directly or indirectly, upon a
tenant carrier agreeing not to: (i) sell its tickets or busbills at
locations other than the Greyhound terminal, or (ii) honor the
tickets or busbills of another carrier sold at such other locations.
While it may be that this language would address the problem of
other tenants refusing to honor tickets of another tenant carrier,
it does not address the problem of Greyhound refusing to honor a
ticket which is sold at a non-Greyhound terminal. Thus, while Arrow
Trailways' agreement with Greyhound, which is said to preclude and
restrain Arrow Trailways from accepting a Valley Transit ticket at a
Greyhound terminal, would be covered by the Final Judgment,
Greyhound's activities are not. Indeed, based on its recent
activities, it appears that Greyhound does not feel constrained by
this language.
In order to cure the problem associated with Greyhound's use of
its tariffs, rather than its Bus Terminal License Agreements to
restrain competition, it is suggested that a new paragraph be added
under the heading ``IV PROHIBITED CONDUCT,'' which would read as
follows:
5. refusing by any means, direct or indirect, to honor the
tickets or busbills of a tenant carrier which are sold at locations
other than a Greyhound terminal.
Similarly, the language in subparagraph (3) seems to be less
precise than is necessary to bring this particular monopolist to
heel. As provided therein, Greyhound is restrained and enjoined
from:
discriminating against any tenant carrier in the terms or conditions
of any BTL Agreement or other agreement governing the lease of space
in a bus terminal, where the purpose or effect of such
discrimination is to (a) prohibit a tenant carrier from (i) selling
its tickets or busbills at locations, other than the Greyhound
terminal, for transportation services using that Greyhound terminal
or a terminal or facility that is competitive with such Greyhound
terminal, or (ii) honoring the tickets or busbills of another
carrier sold at such other locations, or (b) prohibit or
substantially limit the tenant from interlining any of its traffic
with another carrier at another terminal.
Emphasis added. If the phase ``or by tariff provision,'' is
inserted after the words ``or other agreement governing the lease of
space in a bus terminal,'' the forbidden discrimination would
address the situation which Valley Transit is facing.
Unfortunately, if the Final Judgment is not modified to
explicitly prohibit the anticompetitive activities which Greyhound
is using with respect to Valley Transit's Austin terminal, Greyhound
will consider itself free to employ those same tactics against any
other bus company which opens a terminal which may be competitive
with a Greyhound terminal. If that is allowed to happen, the Final
Judgment will be practically useless in bringing a halt to
Greyhound's anticompetitive activities to the detriment of the
traveling public which is dependent upon bus service as most small
bus companies lack the financial ability to battle Greyhound.
Very truly yours,
Richard H. Streeter
Greyhound Lines, Inc.
[[Page 5030]]
Special Honoring Arrangements Tariff (ICC GL 722) Naming Rules and
Regulations Governing Optional Honoring of Tickets Applicable
Between Austin, Texas and San Antonio, Texas Including All
Intermediate Points As Named Herein
Issued: October 31, 1995.
Effective: November 1, 1995.
Issued on one (1) day's notice under authority of the Interstate
Commerce Commission in Ex Parte No. MG 176. The provisions published
herein, if effective, will not result in an effect on the quality of
the Human Environment.
Issued By: G. Alexander, Director--Traffic, P.O. Box 660362,
Dallas, Texas 75266-0362.
SECTION A
Rules No. and Regulations
1. Application of Fares
The provisions of this tariff apply to the optional honoring of
any ticket issued by Greyhound Lines, Inc. which includes travel
between Austin, Texas and San Antonio, Texas including all
intermediate parties.
2. Optional Honoring Arrangements
In lieu of Rule No. 3, ``Routes'', Paragraph 8 ``Change of
Routing or Destination'', subparagraph (1) National Passenger
Tariff, ICC MSTA 1000, amendments thereto or reissues thereof,
issued by National Bus Traffic Association, Inc., Agent, any ticket
issued by Greyhound Lines, Inc. which includes travel between
Austin, Texas and San Antonio, Texas and all intermediate points
will be honored by Greyhound Lines, Inc. only unless the ticket, is
properly ``closed'' to the other carrier or a valid diversion
sticker is affixed thereon.
In addition, Greyhound will not honor at San Antonio, Texas or
Austin, Texas, any ticket issued by a foreign carrier which provides
for transportation, in whole or in part, San Antonio, Texas and
Austin, Texas via the lines of a foreign line carrier.
3. Other Rules and Regulations
Except or otherwise provided herein, Rules and Regulations
governing this Tariff are as published in National Passenger Tariff,
ICC MSTA 1000, amendments thereto or reissues thereof, issued by
National Bus Traffic Association, Inc., Agent.
Greyhound Lines, Inc.
P.O. Box 660362
Dallas, TX 75266-0362
November 3, 1995
Mr. Robert R. Farris
Senior Vice President
VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY, INC.
P.O. Box 530010
Harlingen, TX 78553
Via Facsimile (210) 423-4888 and U.S. Mail
SUBJECT: OPTIONAL HONORING OF TICKETS
Dear Bobby: Enclosed for your information is a copy of Special
Honoring Arrangements Tariff, ICC GL 722, effective November 1,
1995, which states in pertinent part that tickets issued by
Greyhound Lines, Inc. which include travel between San Antonio, TX
and Austin, TX or intermediate points, may be honored by Greyhound
only unless the ticket is properly ``closed'' to another company or
a valid diversion sticker is affixed thereto. The tariff
additionally provides that Greyhound will not honor at San Antonio,
TX or Austin, TX, any ticket issued by a foreign line carrier which
provides for transportation, in whole or in part, between San
Antonio, TX and Austin, TX via the lines of a foreign line carrier.
The provisions contained in that tariff imply the following:
(1) Valley Transit may not honor any Greyhound ticket for
transportation, in whole or in part, between San Antonio, TX and
Austin, TX.
(2) Greyhound will not honor any Valley ticket for
transportation, in whole or in part, between San Antonio, TX and
Austin, TX, when the origin or destination of the ticket is Austin,
TX.
(3) Greyhound will not honor at Austin, TX or San Antonio, TX,
any Valley ticket that is issued at Austin, TX for transportation to
points beyond Austin, TX or San Antonio, TX.
Please inform you personnel of the above so that they will not
honor tickets which will have no reclaim value to your company and
so that they will not issue tickets that Greyhound will not honor.
Very truly yours,
Gregory Alexander,
Director--Industry Relations.
Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Special Honoring Arrangements Tariff (ICC 722-1) Cancels Special
Honoring Arrangements Tariff (ICC 722) Naming Rules and Regulations
Governing Optional Honoring of Tickets Applicable Between Austin,
Texas and San Antonio, Texas Including All Intermediate Points And
* Points Beyond Austin, Texas or San Antonio, Texas As Named Herein
Issued November 21, 1995.
Effective: November 22, 1995.
Issued on one (1) day's notice under authority of the Interstate
Commerce Commission in Ex Parte No. MC 176. The provisions published
herein, if effective, will not result in an effect on the quality of
the Human Environment.
* Denotes Addition SW-190-A Cancels SW-190
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued By: G. Alexander, Director--Industry Relations, P.O. Box
6606362, Dallas, Texas 752-22-0362.
Section A
Rule No.
1. Application of Fares
* The provisions of this tariff apply to the optional honoring
by a foreign line carrier of tickets issued by Greyhound Lines, Inc.
and the optional honoring of foreign line tickets by Greyhound
Lines, Inc., which include travel between Austin, Texas and San
Antonio, Texas, including all intermediate points, or travel beyond
Austin, Texas or San Antonio, Texas.
* Denotes Addition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Optional Honoring Arrangements
In lieu of Rule No. 3, ``Routes'', Paragraph 8 ``Change of
Routing or Destination'', subparagraph (1) of National Passenger
Tariff, ICC MSTA 1000, amendments thereto or reissues thereof,
issued by National Bus Traffic Association, Inc. Agent, any ticket
issued by Greyhound Lines, Inc. which includes travel between
Austin, Texas and San Antonio, Texas or intermediate points will be
honored by Greyhound Lines, Inc. only unless the ticket is properly
``closed'' to another carrier or a valid diversion sticker is
affixed thereon.
Greyhound will not honor at San Antonio, Texas or
Austin, Texas, or intermediate points, any ticket issued at Austin,
Texas or San Antonio, Texas, or intermediate points, by a foreign
carrier which provides for transportation, in whole or in part,
between San Antonio, Texas and Austin, Texas or intermediate points
via the lines of a foreign line carrier.
Denotes Change
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greyhound will not honor at Austin, Texas or San
Antonio, Texas, or intermediate points, any ticket issued by a
foreign line carrier at Austin, Texas, or at Intermediate points
between Austin, Texas, or at Intermediate points between Austin,
Texas and San Antonio, Texas, which provides for transportation to
points beyond Austin Texas or San Antonio, Texas.
3. Other Rules and Regulations
Except as otherwise provided herein, Rules and Regulations
governing this Tariff are as published in National Passenger Tariff,
ICC MSTA 1000, amendments thereto or reissued by National Bus
Traffic Association, Inc. Agent.
Greyhound Lines, Inc.
P.O. Box 660362
Dallas, TX 75266-0362
November 21, 1995
Mr. Robert R. Farris
Senior Vice President
VALLEY TRANSIT COMPANY, INC.
P.O. Box 530010
Harlingen, TX 78553
Via Facsimile (210) 423-4888 and U.S. Mail
SUBJECT: OPTIONAL HONORING OF TICKETS
Dear Bobby: Enclosed for your information is a copy of Special
Honoring Arrangements Tariff, ICC GL 722-A, effective November 21,
1995, which cancels Special Honoring Arrangements Tariff, ICC GL
722. Special Honoring Arrangements Tariff, ICC GL 722-A states in
pertinent part that tickets issued by Greyhound Lines, Inc. which
include travel between San Antonio, TX and Austin, TX or
intermediate points, may be honored by Greyhound only unless the
ticket is properly ``closed'' to another company or a valid
diversion sticker is affixed thereto. The tariff additionally
provides that Greyhound will not honor at San Antonio, TX, or
intermediate points by a foreign line carrier which provides for
transportation, in whole or in part, between San Antonio, TX and
Austin, TX, or intermediate points via the lines of a foreign line
carrier. Finally, the tariff provides that Greyhound will not honor
at Austin, TX or San Antonio, TX, or intermediate points, any ticket
issued by a foreign line carrier at Austin, TX, or
[[Page 5031]]
intermediate points between Austin, TX and San Antonio, TX which
provides for transportation to points beyond Austin, TX or San
Antonio, TX.
The provisions contained in that tariff imply the following:
(1) Valley Transit may not honor any Greyhound ticket for
transportation, in whole or in part, between San Antonio, TX and
Austin, TX or intermediate points.
(2) Greyhound will not honor any Valley ticket for
transportation, in whole or in part, between San Antonio, TX and
Austin, TX, or intermediate points when the origin of the ticket is
Austin, TX, San Antonio, TX or intermediate points.
(3) Greyhound will not honor at Austin, TX, or San Antonio, TX,
any Valley ticket that is issued at Austin, TX, San Marcos, TX, New
Braunfels, TX, or Seguin, TX, which provides for transportation to
points beyond Austin, TX or San Antonio, TX.
Please inform your personnel of the above so that they will not
honor tickets which will have no reclaim value to your company and
so that they will not issue tickets that Greyhound will not honor.
Very truly yours,
Gregory Alexander,
Director--Industry Relations.
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that I have caused a copy of the foregoing
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS to be served on counsel
for defendant in this matter in the manner set forth below:
By facsimile and first class mail: Mark F. Horning, Esquire,
Steptoe & Johnson, 1330 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036-1795, for defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Dated: December 18, 1995.
Michael D. Billiel,
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 555 Fourth Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 307-6666.
[FR Doc. 96-2663 Filed 2-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M