United States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.; Public Comments and Response on Proposed Final Judgment

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