Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 77409 

1 49 U.S.C. 11325(d)(2) provides that the Board 

must issue its final decision within 45 days of the 

close of the evidentiary record. However, under 

NEPA, the Board may not issue a final decision 

until after the required environmental review is 

complete. In the event the environmental review 

process is not able to be concluded in sufficient 

time for the Board to meet the 45-day provision in 

section 11325(d)(2), the Board will issue a final 

decision as soon as possible after that process is 

complete. 

any Member or Governor has requested 

to be, and is designated as, a Party of 

Record. 

Service of Decisions, Orders, and 

Notices. The Board will serve copies of 

its decisions, orders, and notices on 

those persons who are designated on the 

service list as a Party of Record or NonParty. All other interested persons are 

encouraged to obtain copies of 

decisions, orders, and notices via the 

Board’s website at www.stb.gov. 

Access to Filings. Under the Board’s 

rules, any document filed with the 

Board (including applications, 

pleadings, etc.) shall be promptly 

furnished to interested persons on 

request, unless subject to a protective 

order. 49 CFR 1180.4(a)(3). The 

Application and other filings in this 

proceeding will be furnished to 

interested persons upon request and 

will also be available on the Board’s 

website at www.stb.gov. In addition, the 

Application may be obtained from 

CSXT’s representative at the address 

indicated above. 

This action will not significantly 

affect either the quality of the human 

environment or the conservation of 

energy resources. 

It is ordered: 

1. The Application filed in Docket No. 

FD 36727 and the related verified notice 

of exemption filed in Docket Nos. FD 

36724 are accepted for consideration. 

2. CSXT shall file the supplemental 

information described above by 

November 21, 2023. 

3. The filing in Docket No. AB 1335X 

is accepted to the extent discussed 

above. MNBR may file supplemental 

evidence and argument in support of an 

individual exemption in that docket by 

November 21, 2023. 

4. The parties to this proceeding must 

comply with the procedural schedule 

shown in the Appendix to this decision 

and the procedural requirements 

described in this decision. 

5. NSR’s request to hold this 

proceeding in abeyance is denied. 

6. This decision is effective on 

November 3, 2023. 

Decided: November 3, 2023. 

By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, 

Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and 

Schultz. Board Member Schultz, joined 

by Board Member Fuchs, concurred 

with a separate expression. 

BOARD MEMBER SCHULTZ, with 

whom BOARD MEMBER FUCHS joins, 

concurring: 

I agree that this Proposed Transaction 

should be classified as minor and that 

the record at this stage of the proceeding 

indicates that any anticompetitive 

effects of the Proposed Transaction will 

clearly be outweighed by the Proposed 

Transaction’s anticipated contribution 

to the public interest in meeting 

significant transportation needs. On this 

record, I would not order CSXT to 

submit this extensive amount of 

supplemental information at this stage 

in the proceeding. While the Board has 

the authority to require the filing of 

supplemental information, the better 

course here would have been to assess 

whether any supplemental information 

is necessary after full analysis of all 

comments and requests for conditions 

and again after responses to those 

comments and requests, when the Board 

would benefit from the full views of 

shippers, railroads, and the broader 

public. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

Appendix 

Procedural Schedule 

October 6, 2023—Application filed. 

November 3, 2023—Board notice of 

acceptance of application served. 

November 21, 2023—CSXT’s supplemental 

information due. 

November 27, 2023—Notices of intent to 

participate in this proceeding due. 

December 11, 2023—All comments, 

protests, requests for conditions, and any 

other evidence and argument in opposition to 

the application, including filings of DOJ and 

DOT, due. 

January 8, 2024—Responses to comments, 

protests, requests for conditions, and other 

opposition due. Rebuttal in support of the 

application due. 

TBD—Record closes. 

No later than 45 days after close of the 

record—Date by which a final decision will 

be served.1

30 days after service—Board’s decision 

becomes effective. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24854 Filed 11–8–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

[Docket No. FD 36732] 

Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited 

and The Kansas City Southern Railway 

Company, d/b/a CPKC—Acquisition 

and Operation—Certain Rail Line of 

Meridian & Bigbee Railroad, L.L.C. in 

Lauderdale County, Miss., and 

Choctaw and Marengo Counties, Ala. 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Decision No. 1; notice of 

acceptance of application; notice of 

acceptance of related filings for 

consideration; issuance of procedural 

schedule. 

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation 

Board (Board) is accepting for 

consideration the primary application 

(Application) filed October 6, 2023, by 

Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited 

(CPKCL), a noncarrier, on behalf of itself 

and its wholly owned subsidiary, The 

Kansas City Southern Railway Company 

(KCS) d/b/a CPKC (collectively, 

Applicants). The Application seeks 

Board approval for KCS, a Class I rail 

carrier, to acquire from Meridian & 

Bigbee Railroad, L.L.C. (MNBR), a Class 

III rail carrier, and to operate 

approximately 50.4 route miles of rail 

line between Meridian, Miss., and 

Myrtlewood, Ala. (the Western Line). 

This proposal is referred to as the 

‘‘Proposed Transaction.’’ The Board is 

also accepting for consideration three 

related filings. 

DATES: The effective date of this 

decision is November 3, 2023. 

Applicants are directed to supplement 

their Application as discussed in this 

decision by November 21, 2023. Any 

person who wishes to participate in this 

proceeding as a Party of Record must 

file, no later than November 27, 2023, a 

notice of intent to participate. All 

comments, protests, requests for 

conditions, and any other evidence and 

argument in opposition to the 

Application and related filings, 

including filings by the U.S. Department 

of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT), must be filed 

by December 11, 2023. Responses to 

comments, protests, requests for 

conditions, other opposition, and 

rebuttal in support of the Application 

must be filed by January 8, 2024. See 

Appendix (Procedural Schedule). A 

final decision in this matter will be 

served no later than 45 days after the 

date on which the evidentiary 

proceedings conclude, subject to the 

completion of environmental review. 

Further procedural orders, if any, would 

be issued by the Board. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77410 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 

1This decision embraces the following dockets: 

CSX Transportation, Inc.—Discontinuance of 

Trackage Rights Exemption—in Marengo & 

Choctaw Counties, Ala. & Lauderdale County, Miss., 

Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 814X); Alabama & Gulf 

Coast Railway—Trackage Rights Exemption— 

Kansas City Southern Railway d/b/a Canadian 

Pacific Kansas City, Docket No. FD 36731; and CSX 

Transportation, Inc.—Trackage Rights Exemption— 

Kansas City Southern Railway, Docket No. FD 

36730. 

2MNBR owns the line but leases the underlying 

right of way from CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT). 

(Appl. 21; id., App. 4, V.S. Walsh 2.) Applicants 

note that MNBR’s lease is scheduled to expire in 

November 2023. (Id. at 2.) 

3AGR is also a subsidiary of G&W. (Id. at 4.) 

4The Board is required to accommodate NEPA’s 

requirements in its decision-making. Therefore, the 

Board will not issue a final decision on the merits 

of the Application until the environmental review 

is complete, including preparation of an EA and 

opportunity for public comment and participation 

during the EA process. See Environmental Matters 

section below. 

ADDRESSES: Any filing submitted in this 

proceeding should be filed with the 

Board via e-filing on the Board’s 

website. In addition, one copy of each 

filing must be sent (and may be sent by 

email only if service by email is 

acceptable to the recipient) to each of 

the following: (1) Secretary of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (2) 

Attorney General of the United States, 

c/o Assistant Attorney General, 

Antitrust Division, Room 3109, 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20530; (3) Applicants’ representative, 

David F. Rifkind, Stinson LLP, 1775 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800, 

Washington, DC 20006; and (4) any 

other person designated as a Party of 

Record on the service list. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Valerie Quinn at (202) 740–5567. If you 

require an accommodation under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, please 

call (202) 245–0245. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Applicants seek the Board’s prior 

review and authorization pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 11323–25 and 49 CFR part 1180 

for KCS to acquire from MNBR and 

operate the Western Line, which 

comprises approximately 50.4 route 

miles of rail line between milepost 0.0± 

at Meridian and milepost 50.4± at 

Myrtlewood. (Appl. 1, 21–22.) 

According to the Application, KCS 

would also acquire all operating rail 

property owned by MNBR on the 

Western Line, including yards at 

Meridian; Naheola, Ala.; and 

Myrtlewood; as well as stations at 

Meridian; Whynot, Miss.; Yantley, Ala.; 

Cromwell, Ala.; Jachin, Ala.; Naheola; 

and Myrtlewood. (Id. at 22.) 1

CPKC’s family of operating railroads 

in the United States includes two Class 

I rail carriers (including KCS) and four 

Class II rail carriers. (Id. at 23.) The 

CPKC system also includes operations 

in Canada by the Canadian Pacific 

Railway Company (CPRC) and in 

Mexico by the Kansas City Southern de 

Me ́xico, S.A. de C.V. (KCSM). (Id.) 

Together, these railroad companies 

operate approximately 8,600 miles of 

track in the United States, which 

connects with approximately 7,700 

miles that CPRC operates in Canada and 

approximately 3,800 miles that KCSM 

operates in Mexico. (Id.) KCS currently 

operates or possesses property rights in 

Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. (Id. at 

19.) 

MNBR, a subsidiary of Genesee & 

Wyoming, Inc. (G&W), currently 

operates approximately 168 miles of 

single-track mainline between Meridian 

and Montgomery, Ala. (Id. at 21; id., Ex. 

2 at 1.) MNBR owns and is the sole 

operator on the Western Line, where it 

serves 11 local customers. (Id., App. 2, 

V.S. Clements 6; id., Ex. 15, Operating 

Plan 2; id., Ex. 4, Env’t Info. 37.) In 

addition to the Western Line, MNBR 

operates a rail line known as the Eastern 

Line that connects to the Western Line 

at Myrtlewood and extends east to 

Burkville, Ala.2 (Id. at 21.) MNBR also 

operates between Burkville (the eastern 

end of the Eastern Line) and 

Montgomery pursuant to overhead 

trackage rights. (Id. at 21; id., Ex. 15, 

Operating Plan 2.) On the Western Line, 

MNBR currently interchanges with 

CPKC and Norfolk Southern Railway 

Company (NSR) at Meridian. (Id., Ex. 

15, Operating Plan 3.) On the Eastern 

Line, MNBR currently interchanges with 

Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway LLC 

(AGR) 3 at Linden, Ala., and with NSR 

at Selma, Ala. (Id.) MNBR also 

interchanges with CSXT at Montgomery. 

(Id.) 

Applicants state that KCS is acquiring 

the Western Line to establish a direct 

interchange with CSXT at Myrtlewood, 

and that the Proposed Transaction is 

contingent on CSXT acquiring and 

resuming operations on the Eastern 

Line. (Id. at 2); see also CSX Transp., 

Inc.—Acquis. & Operation—Rail Line of 

Meridian & Bigbee R.R., Docket No. FD 

36727. According to Applicants, CPKC 

trains will handle overhead traffic only 

and will not provide local service. 

(Appl., Ex. 4, Env’t Info. 37.) Applicants 

state that they expect to interchange one 

train pair daily with CSXT, with an 

average volume of 70 cars per train, for 

at least the first five years. (Id. at 13; id., 

Ex. 15, Operating Plan 8.) Applicants 

represent that, while CPKC intends to 

grow the volumes served on this route, 

one train pair daily should provide 

sufficient capacity to accommodate 

much of the growth in the first five to 

ten years. (Id., Ex. 15, Operating Plan 8.) 

According to the Application, MNBR 

would continue to provide local and 

overhead rail service on the Western 

Line post-transaction much as it does 

today, except that it would no longer act 

as an intermediate bridge carrier for 

CPKC–CSXT traffic. (Id., Ex. 4, Env’t 

Info. 37.) Specifically, MNBR would 

retain exclusive trackage rights to 

operate over the Western Line to (1) 

serve existing customers and (2) 

interchange with, and handle freight rail 

traffic to and from, AGR at or near 

Myrtlewood for interchange with CPKC 

and NSR at Meridian. (Id., Ex. 2, 

Retained Trackage Rights Agreement, 

art. 2.1.) MNBR would also retain nonexclusive trackage rights to operate over 

the Western Line to (1) interchange 

with, and handle freight rail traffic to 

and from, CSXT at or near Myrtlewood 

for interchange with NSR at Meridian 

and (2) if requested by CPKC, handle 

CPKC–CSXT overhead freight rail traffic 

between Meridian and Myrtlewood. (Id.) 

The Board finds that the Application 

is complete and that the Proposed 

Transaction is a minor transaction based 

upon the preliminary determination that 

the Proposed Transaction’s anticipated 

contribution to the public interest in 

meeting significant transportation needs 

clearly outweighs any potential 

anticompetitive effects. 49 CFR 

1180.2(b), (c). The Board makes this 

preliminary determination based solely 

on the evidence presented in the 

Application. The Board emphasizes that 

this is not a final determination and 

may be revisited or rebutted by 

subsequent filings and evidence 

submitted into the record for this 

proceeding. The Board also adopts a 

procedural schedule for consideration of 

the Application and directs Applicants 

to file certain supplemental information. 

Finally, an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) will be prepared to 

comply with the Board’s obligations 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4370m–11 

(NEPA), and related environmental 

laws.4

Financial Arrangements. According to 

Applicants, no cash is involved in the 

Proposed Transaction and no new 

securities would be issued in 

connection with the Proposed 

Transaction. (Id. at 14, 16.) Applicants 

state that the only relevant financial 

arrangement is the in-kind 

consideration paid by CPKC as provided 

in the draft purchase agreement 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 77411 

5The Transaction Agreement is attached to the 

Application as Exhibit 2. 

6Applicants state that CPKC is planning an 

extensive track maintenance and rehabilitation 

program to improve the track to support operations 

at a sustained maximum speed of 25 MPH, with the 

potential for additional improvements in the future. 

(Appl. 12.) 

7Applicants further note that CPKC intends to 

embark on a multi-year bridge rehabilitation 

program, which it estimates will cost over $100 

million. (Id. at 12–13.) 

8Also, on September 28, 2023, Applicants filed 

a motion for protective order in Docket No. FD 

36732, which was granted by decision served on 

October 11, 2023. 

(Transaction Agreement).5 (Id.) 

Applicants state that the parties have 

agreed upon a valuation of the property 

rights that KCS would acquire, and as 

consideration, MNBR’s parent company, 

G&W, would receive equivalent value in 

the form of rights with respect to two 

CPKC operating properties in Canada. 

(Id. at 16.) Applicants further state that 

the Transaction Agreement entitles 

G&W to receive additional 

compensation under certain 

circumstances. (Id.) 

Passenger Service Impacts. 

Applicants assert that there would be no 

impact on commuter or other passenger 

service because no commuter or 

passenger service moves on the Western 

Line. (Id., Ex. 15, Operating Plan 12.) 

Discontinuances/Abandonments. 

According to Applicants, CPKC does not 

anticipate seeking authority for any 

discontinuances of service or rail line 

abandonments in relation to the 

Proposed Transaction. (Id., Ex. 15, 

Operating Plan 12.) Applicants state that 

CSXT has agreed to seek authority to 

discontinue its overhead trackage rights 

on the Western Line. (Id.); see also 

CSXT Notice, Oct. 6, 2023, CSX Transp., 

Inc.—Discontinuance of Trackage Rts. 

Exemption—in Marengo & Choctaw 

Cntys., Ala. & Lauderdale Cnty., Miss., 

AB 55 (Sub-No. 814X). Additionally, 

Applicants state that, in conjunction 

with CSXT’s proposed acquisition of the 

Eastern Line, CPKC anticipates that 

MNBR will seek authority to 

discontinue its overhead trackage rights 

between Burkville and Montgomery. 

(Appl., Ex. 15, Operating Plan 12); see 

also MNBR Notice, Oct. 6, 2023, 

Meridian & Bigbee R.R.— 

Discontinuance of Incidental Overhead 

Trackage Rts.—in Lowndes & 

Montgomery, Ala., AB 1335X. 

Public Interest Considerations. 

Applicants assert that the Proposed 

Transaction would enhance competition 

by establishing a direct, efficient 

interchange with CSXT at Myrtlewood, 

thereby creating a new east-west Class I 

freight rail corridor linking CPKC-served 

markets in Mexico and the southwestern 

United States with CSXT-served 

markets in the southeastern United 

States and beyond. (Appl. 2.) Applicants 

state that a direct CPKC–CSXT routing 

would give CPKC and CSXT control 

over the traffic between origin and 

destination, enabling them to deliver ‘‘a 

reliable and consistent premium train 

service.’’ (Id. at 11.) 

According to Applicants, this new 

freight rail corridor would provide a 

shorter and more efficient route for 

existing CPKC–CSXT traffic and a new, 

highly attractive option for new 

customers. (Id.) Applicants state that 

CPKC and CSXT intend to coordinate 

interchange to minimize dwell and 

would operate utilizing run-through 

power. (Id. at 11–12.) Applicants further 

state that a direct CPKC–CSXT routing 

over Myrtlewood would reduce the 

amount of traffic that CPKC currently 

interchanges with intermediate carriers 

and would avoid areas such as New 

Orleans that are difficult to traverse and 

susceptible to seasonal weather 

disruptions. (Id. at 10–11, 14.) As a 

result, CPKC anticipates that the 

Proposed Transaction would reduce the 

number of work events and yard dwell 

time associated with existing CPKC– 

CSXT interline traffic, and in turn 

reduce operational risks. (Id. at 14.) 

Additionally, Applicants contend that 

the Proposed Transaction would 

position CPKC to compete for the new 

traffic that it states will be generated by 

several new automotive plants that are 

planned to open in the southeastern 

United States in the next few years. (Id. 

at 11.) Applicants also note that CPKC 

intends to invest approximately $46 

million to upgrade the infrastructure of 

the Western Line to Class I railroad 

standards 6 and approximately $9 

million on bridge repair and 

improvements, elevating the Western 

Line from a lower-density line to a 

competitive east-west corridor.7 (Id. at 

12–13.) 

Time Schedule for Consummation. 

Applicants state that the Proposed 

Transaction is scheduled to be 

consummated as soon as practicable 

after the Board’s decision approving the 

Application becomes effective and upon 

satisfaction of all other conditions 

precedent to closing set forth in the 

Transaction Agreement. (Id. at 9.) 

Environmental and Historic 

Preservation Impacts. Applicants state 

that they include with the Application 

the information required by 49 CFR 

1180.6(a)(8) and 49 CFR part 1105. 

(Appl. 36.) As discussed below, the 

Proposed Transaction would exceed the 

Board’s thresholds for environmental 

review. Therefore, the Board will 

prepare an EA. Based on the available 

information, no historic review is 

required. 

Labor Impacts. Applicants state that, 

as a result of the Proposed Transaction, 

CPKC anticipates it would hire 12 new, 

full-time employees in 2024, including 

one track inspector, one foreman, one 

machine operator, one trackman, and 

eight Meridian-based train and engine 

service employees. (Appl. 17; id., Ex. 

15, Operating Plan 13.) Applicants state 

that no CPKC employee will be 

adversely affected by the Proposed 

Transaction. (Id. at 17; id., Ex. 15, 

Operating Plan 13.) Applicants note that 

employees adversely affected by the 

Proposed Transaction would be entitled 

to the employee protective conditions 

and other procedures adopted in New 

York Dock Railway—Control—Brooklyn 

Eastern District Terminal, 360 I.C.C. 60 

(1979), aff’d sub nom. New York Dock 

Railway v. United States, 609 F.2d 83 

(2d Cir. 1979), as modified by 

Wilmington Terminal Railroad— 

Purchase & Lease—CSX Transportation 

Inc., 6 I.C.C.2d 799, 814–26 (1990), aff’d 

sub nom. Railway Labor Executives’ 

Association v. Interstate Commerce 

Commission, 930 F.2d 511 (6th Cir. 

1991). (Appl. 16.) 

Related Filings. Three verified notices 

of exemption and an application for 

acquisition and operation authority 

were filed in connection with the 

Proposed Transaction.8

CSXT Acquisition of Trackage Rights. 

In Docket No. FD 36730, CSXT filed a 

verified notice of exemption under 49 

CFR 1180.2(d)(7) to acquire overhead 

trackage rights from KCS over 

approximately two miles of rail line 

between milepost 50.4 and milepost 

48.4 on the Western Line. CSXT states 

that the trackage rights are related to its 

proposed acquisition of the Eastern Line 

between Burkville and Myrtlewood in 

Docket No. FD 36727. CSXT states that 

the overhead trackage rights would 

allow CSXT to access a point on the 

Western Line to interchange traffic with 

AGR and MNBR at Myrtlewood. CSXT 

states that it intends to consummate this 

transaction on or shortly after the date 

it acquires the Eastern Line from MNBR. 

As a condition to use of this exemption, 

CSXT states that any employees 

adversely affected by the transaction 

would be protected by the conditions 

set forth in Norfolk & Western 

Railway—Trackage Rights—Burlington 

Northern, Inc., 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as 

modified in Mendocino Coast Railway— 

Lease & Operate—California Western 

Railroad, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77412 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 

9Applicants state that CPKC would grant AGR 

trackage rights to Naheola Yard in order to give 

AGR the flexibility to interchange with MNBR at 

Naheola Yard instead of Myrtlewood if operating 

conditions warrant, e.g., if for some reason, the 

designated Myrtlewood yard track cannot 

accommodate the volume of MNBR’s and AGR’s 

interchange traffic. (Appl., Ex. 15, Operating Plan 

8.) 

10By decision served November 3, 2023, in 

Docket No. FD 36727, CSXT has been asked to 

confirm the total distance of the Burkville to 

Western Junction segment. See CSX Transp., Inc.— 

Acquis. & Operation—Rail Line of Meridian & 

Bigbee R.R., FD 36727 et al., slip op. at 3 n.3 (STB 

served Nov. 3, 2023). 

11On October 25, 2023, NSR filed a request 

(NSR’s Request) for the Board to consolidate this 

proceeding with the proceeding in Docket No. FD 

36727 regarding the CSXT’s acquisition of the 

Eastern Line (and all of the related filings in both 

dockets) and to hold the consolidated proceeding in 

abeyance, including the Board’s determination of 

whether to designate the transactions as minor or 

significant, until such time that CSXT and CPKC 

provide certain additional information, primarily 

regarding the potential effects of changes in CPKC– 

CSXT traffic flows on other traffic. On October 27, 

2023, Applicants replied in opposition to NSR’s 

request, arguing that the Proposed Transaction 

builds upon but is not part of CSXT’s proposed 

acquisition of the Eastern Line and is properly 

classified as a minor transaction. (CPKC Reply 4– 

6, Oct. 27, 2023.) Applicants further argue that the 

Application appropriately addresses the cumulative 

effects of the Proposed Transaction against the 

backdrop of CSXT’s proposed transaction. (Id. at 6– 

10.) On October 31, 2023, Illinois Central Railroad 

Company filed in support of NSR’s request for 

consolidation, and CPKC responded the same day. 

For the reasons given above, the current record 

supports a minor designation. The Board will not 

order the parties to submit a consolidated 

application at this time, though as discussed below, 

the Board’s Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) 

has determined that it is appropriate to prepare one 

EA to encompass both the Western Line and the 

Eastern Line. The Board may further address the 

consolidation issue in a subsequent decision. 

Additionally, the Board will not hold the 

proceedings in abeyance, as the Board is requiring 

Applicants to supplement the record as discussed 

further in this decision. 

12 In Docket No. FD 36727, the Board accepted for 

consideration CSXT’s application to acquire the 

Eastern Line. See CSX Transp., Inc.—Acquis. & 

Operation, FD 36727 et al., slip op. at 8. 

Additionally, as discussed above, CSXT’s verified 

notice of exemption in Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 

814X) does not qualify for the class exemption 

procedures under which it was filed; however, the 

verified notice will be accepted as evidence bearing 

on consideration of whether to grant CSXT an 

individual exemption on the Board’s own motion. 

AGR Acquisition of Trackage Rights. 

In Docket No. FD 36731, AGR, a Class 

II rail carrier, filed a verified notice of 

exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) to 

acquire overhead trackage rights from 

CPKC over approximately 8.4 miles of 

rail line between milepost 50.4± and 

milepost 42.0±. AGR currently holds 

incidental operating rights from Linden 

to Myrtlewood over the Eastern Line for 

purposes of interchange with MNBR. 

AGR intends to use the overhead 

trackage rights sought in Docket No. FD 

36731 for continued interchange with 

MNBR and to interchange with CSXT at 

Myrtlewood following CSXT’s 

acquisition of the Eastern Line.9 AGR 

states that it intends to consummate the 

agreement and commence operations 

either on the effective date of its notice 

or upon the consummation of CPKC’s 

acquisition of the Western Line, 

whichever is later. As a condition to use 

of this exemption, AGR states that any 

employees adversely affected by the 

transaction would be protected by the 

conditions set forth in Norfolk & 

Western Railway—Trackage Rights, 354 

I.C.C. 605, as modified in Mendocino 

Coast Railway—Lease & Operate, 360 

I.C.C. 653. 

CSXT Discontinuance of Trackage 

Rights. In Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 

814X), CSXT filed a verified notice of 

exemption under the class exemption at 

49 CFR part 1152, subpart F, to 

discontinue overhead trackage rights 

over the entirety of the Western Line, 

including ‘‘head and tail operating 

room’’ at both ends, for a total distance 

of approximately 51 miles. CSXT states 

that it has not moved any traffic over the 

line during the past two years and that 

it intends to consummate its 

discontinuance authority on the same 

day that CPKC consummates its 

proposed acquisition of the Western 

Line. As a condition to the use of this 

exemption, CSXT states that any 

employees adversely affected by the 

transaction would be protected by the 

conditions set forth in Oregon Short 

Line Railroad—Abandonment Portion 

Goshen Branch Between Firth & 

Ammon, in Bingham & Bonneville 

Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). 

CSXT is seeking this discontinuance 

authority under the Board’s two-yearout-of-service class exemption 

procedures, although another carrier, 

MNBR, has been providing local service 

over the same line during that two-year 

period. In Austin Area Terminal 

Railroad—Discontinuance of Service 

Exemption—in Bastrop, Burnet, Lee, 

Llano, Travis, & Williamson Counties, 

Tex., AB 578X (STB served Nov. 3, 

2023), the Board recently reaffirmed that 

to qualify for the two-year-out-of-service 

class exemption a carrier must certify 

that no local traffic has moved over the 

line for two years, not just its own 

traffic. Accordingly, the Board upheld a 

prior decision that rejected a verified 

notice because the required certification 

concerning the absence of local traffic 

on the line was deficient. Id. at 1. The 

Board noted, however, that carriers may 

petition the Board for individual 

exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 10502(a) 

and granted on its own motion an 

individual exemption authorizing the 

discontinuance. Id. at 4–5. 

Although, per Austin Area Terminal 

Railroad, CSXT may not proceed under 

the Board’s two-year-out-of-service class 

exemption procedures, the Board will 

nonetheless consider whether to grant 

an individual exemption for this 

discontinuance authority on its own 

motion as it considers the Proposed 

Transaction. To that end, CSXT may 

supplement the record in Docket No. AB 

55 (Sub-No. 814X) by November 21, 

2023, with any additional information 

and argument it would like the Board to 

consider in determining whether the 

proposed discontinuance meets the 

exemption standard of 49 U.S.C. 

10502(a). 

CSXT Acquisition of the Eastern Line. 

In Docket No. FD 36727, CSXT seeks the 

Board’s prior review and authorization 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11323–25 and 49 

CFR part 1180 to acquire from MNBR 

and to operate the Eastern Line. The 

Eastern Line consists of two segments 

totaling approximately 93.68 miles: (1) 

extending from milepost XXB 189.00 

near Burkville to milepost XXB 222.00 

at Western Junction, a distance of 

approximately 30.22 miles; 10 and (2) 

extending from a connection with the 

first segment at Western Junction, 

milepost OOR 716.25 to milepost ORS 

779.71 near Myrtlewood, a distance of 

approximately 63.46 miles. The Eastern 

Line includes Selma Yard, at Selma, and 

the following stations: Myrtlewood, 

Linden, Thomaston, Safford, Orville, 

Beloit, Selma, Industrial Lead, Tyler, 

Benton, Whitehall, and Burkville. 

Together with the Proposed 

Transaction, CSXT’s proposed 

acquisition of the Eastern Line would 

create a direct CPKC–CSXT interchange 

at Myrtlewood. While CPKC states in 

the Application that the Proposed 

Transaction is contingent on CSXT 

acquiring and resuming operations on 

the Eastern Line, CSXT states in its 

application that its acquisition of the 

Eastern Line could proceed regardless of 

whether the CPKC acquires the Western 

Line.11

Primary Application and Related 

Filings. The Board finds that the 

Proposed Transaction would be a 

‘‘minor transaction’’ under 49 CFR 

1180.2(c), and the Board accepts the 

Application for consideration because it 

is in substantial compliance with the 

applicable regulations governing minor 

transactions. See 49 U.S.C. 11321–26; 49 

CFR part 1180. Additionally, the Board 

is accepting for consideration the 

related filings in Docket Nos. FD 36730 

and FD 36731, which are also in 

compliance with the applicable 

regulations.12 As discussed below, the 

Board will require Applicants to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 77413 

13The Board notes that CPKC states that there is 

not ‘‘some secret overarching agreement between 

CPKC and CSXT that has not been put before the 

Board and that somehow implicates the competitive 

landscape.’’ (CPKC Reply 5–6, Oct. 27, 2023.) 

supplement the record and reserves the 

right to require further supplemental 

information as necessary to complete 

the record. 

When a transaction does not involve 

the merger or control of two or more 

Class I railroads, the Board’s treatment 

differs depending upon whether the 

transaction would have ‘‘regional or 

national transportation significance.’’ 49 

U.S.C. 11325. Under 49 CFR 1180.2, a 

transaction that does not involve two or 

more Class I railroads is to be classified 

as ‘‘minor’’—and thus not having 

regional or national transportation 

significance—if a determination can be 

made that either: (1) the transaction 

clearly will not have any 

anticompetitive effects, or (2) any 

anticompetitive effects of the 

transaction will clearly be outweighed 

by the transaction’s anticipated 

contribution to the public interest in 

meeting significant transportation 

needs. A transaction not involving the 

control or merger of two or more Class 

I railroads is to be classified as 

‘‘significant’’ if neither of these 

determinations can be made. (Id.) 

The Board finds the Proposed 

Transaction to be a ‘‘minor transaction’’ 

because it appears from the face of the 

Application that the efficiency and 

other public interest benefits would 

clearly outweigh the potential 

anticompetitive effects of the 

transaction. The Proposed Transaction, 

in conjunction with CSXT’s acquisition 

of the Eastern Line, would create a new, 

direct Class I to Class I connection that 

could provide potential improvements 

in the efficient movement of existing 

and future intermodal, automotive, and 

other interline traffic between the 

Southeastern United States and the 

Southwestern United States and 

Mexico. (See Appl. 5.) A direct CPKC– 

CSXT route has the potential to offer 

faster transit times and more efficient 

and reliable service, (see id., App. 3, 

V.S. Wahba 6), giving CPKC a new 

ability to compete effectively against 

existing interline routing options. It 

could also reduce the amount of traffic 

that CPKC currently interchanges with 

intermediate carriers—including with 

the MNBR at Meridian—and allow 

certain movements to avoid areas such 

as New Orleans that are difficult to 

traverse and susceptible to seasonal 

weather disruptions. (See id. at 14.) 

Diverting existing traffic to the new 

Myrtlewood gateway from congested 

gateways such as New Orleans could 

improve the efficiency of operations at 

those existing gateways. Moreover, 

adding a new gateway would provide 

redundancy in the national network and 

could reduce the economic impact of 

future outages in other areas (e.g., if rail 

infrastructure in the New Orleans area 

becomes unusable for a prolonged 

period due to flooding). The shorter 

transit times could also benefit shippers 

by lowering equipment costs and 

inventory carrying costs. (See id., App. 

3, V.S. Wahba 2.) 

Applicants represent that there would 

be no two-to-one shippers as a result of 

the Proposed Transaction, i.e., no 

shipper would lose access to a second 

rail carrier. (See id. at 14–15.) They 

further assert that, given MNBR’s 

retained trackage rights (including 

pricing authority) with no limitations on 

interchange, existing shippers on the 

Western Line could receive the same 

rail service and have the same rail 

options currently available. (See id. at 2, 

14; id., Ex. 2, Transaction Agreement, 

§ 2.06(a).) Indeed, it appears that, given 

Applicants’ anticipated investments in 

the Western Line, customers of both 

Applicants and MNBR would benefit 

from more efficient service over 

upgraded and safer facilities. (See id. at 

12–13, 15.) There is a potential that 

traffic currently interchanged with other 

carriers may be diverted to the 

Myrtlewood interchange posttransaction (as discussed in the section 

below), and this has implications for 

competition, including a potential 

increase in competition to the benefit of 

shippers. The Board finds, at least 

preliminarily, that the potential risks of 

anticompetitive effects are clearly 

outweighed by the Proposed 

Transaction’s anticipated benefits. 

For these reasons, based on the 

information provided in the 

Application, the Board finds the 

Proposed Transaction to be a minor 

transaction under 49 CFR 1180.2(c). 

This determination should not be read 

to mean that the Proposed Transaction 

is insignificant or of little importance. 

Indeed, after the record is fully 

developed, the Board will conduct a 

careful review before making a final 

determination as to whether the 

Proposed Transaction would 

substantially lessen competition, create 

a monopoly, or restrain trade, and 

whether any anticompetitive effects 

would be outweighed by the public 

interest. See 49 U.S.C. 11324(d)(1)–(2). 

The Board may also consider imposing 

conditions on the Proposed Transaction. 

Supplemental Information. The Board 

notes that the Proposed Transaction, in 

conjunction with CSXT’s proposed 

acquisition of the Eastern Line, may 

result in shifts to traffic flows, including 

traffic currently interchanged with a 

third-party carrier. For example, posttransaction, CPKC anticipates being able 

to use the new connection at 

Myrtlewood to interchange directly with 

CSXT automotive traffic moving 

between KCSM-served locations in 

Mexico and CSXT-served locations on 

the East Coast, (see id., App. 3, V.S. 

Wahba 5–7), whereas today, KCSM 

interchanges that traffic with a bridge 

carrier at Laredo, Tex., which carries the 

traffic to/from CSXT interchanges at 

East St. Louis, Memphis, and New 

Orleans, (id., App. 3, V.S. Wahba 5 

(‘‘The available direct links between the 

CPKC and CSXT networks generally do 

not provide competitive options for this 

traffic category . . . .’’)). In order to 

assist the Board in its consideration of 

the Application and in making the 

determination of what—if any— 

conditions might be warranted, 

Applicants will be directed to 

supplement the Application by 

November 21, 2023, with certain 

additional information. See 49 CFR 

1180.4(c)(2)(v) (‘‘The applicant shall 

submit such additional information to 

support its application as the Board may 

require.’’). 

In CPKC’s reply to NSR’s Request, 

CPKC maintains that it is ‘‘bound by 

KCSR’s 2004 commitment not to close 

the Laredo gateway,’’ and hence that 

‘‘UP will continue to have the 

opportunity to compete to participate in 

flows of traffic between Mexico and 

CSXT destinations in the U.S. Southeast 

via Laredo and New Orleans.’’ (CPKC 

Reply 5 n.3, Oct. 27, 2023.) CPKC also 

states, ‘‘[t]he newly invigorated rail 

service that CPKC is pursuing via this 

transaction is an outgrowth of the 

Board’s approval of the CP/KCS 

transaction, which for example enabled 

the combined CPKC system to offer 

improved transportation solutions—and 

thereby to compete more effectively 

against its much larger rivals—for traffic 

of automotive manufacturers and parts 

suppliers.’’ (Id. at 2–3.) In making its 

preliminary determination here, the 

Board recognizes the effects of the 

conditions it imposed on the merger 

between Canadian Pacific Railway and 

Kansas City Southern Railway regarding 

gateways and related data reporting 

requirements. See Can. Pac. Ry.— 

Control—Kan. City S. (CPKC Approval 

Decision), FD 36500 et al, slip op. at 12– 

13 (STB served Mar. 15, 2023). These 

conditions decrease the likelihood of 

any substantial lessening of 

competition.13 Nonetheless, in a 

supplemental filing, CPKC will be 

directed to describe in detail the scope 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77414 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 

14Origination/destination areas may be as broad 

as a state or group of states. CPKC shall provide a 

justification for whatever grouping metric it uses for 

its analysis and shall specify the gateway(s) used by 

traffic for the origination or destination areas. 

15 Information should include the total count of 

cars interchanged, categorized by two-digit 

Standard Transportation Commodity Code and 

broken out by interchange partner. 

16Applicants propose a round of briefs due on the 

same day that the evidentiary record is statutorily 

required to close. (Appl. 8); see also 49 U.S.C. 

11325(d)(2). But they provide no explanation as to 

the intent or necessity of these additional briefs, 

which are not contemplated by the governing 

statute or the Board’s regulations. See 49 U.S.C. 

11325(d)(2); 49 CFR 1180.4(e)(2). Accordingly, the 

Board has not included the proposed briefs in the 

procedural schedule adopted here. 

17This notice will be published in the Federal 

Register on November 9, 2023, and all subsequent 

deadlines will be calculated from this date. 

Deadlines for filings are calculated in accordance 

with 49 CFR 1104.7(a). 

of ‘‘KCSR’s 2004 commitment not to 

close the Laredo gateway,’’ the 

intersection between the 2004 

commitment and the conditions 

imposed in CPKC Approval Decision, 

FD 36500 et al., and the commitment’s 

potential implications on the Board’s 

final analysis of the competitive effects 

of the Proposed Transaction. 

Additionally, in its supplement, to 

further inform the Board’s analysis, 

CPKC additionally shall provide a list of 

all origination/destination areas,14

including gateways, for the projected 

diverted and new traffic; identify any 

interchange partners participating in 

current movements of this traffic as well 

as projected diverted and new 

movements (if applicable); 15 and 

provide the associated volumes by 

origination/destination areas for 

projected diverted and new traffic. The 

Board recognizes that CPKC was 

recently required to produce substantial 

information about its network and the 

markets it serves in Canadian Pacific 

Railway—Control—Kansas City 

Southern, Docket No. FD 36500 et al. 

Some of the work involved with that 

production may be relevant to the 

Proposed Transaction, potentially 

lowering the burden on CPKC of 

producing the information requested 

here, which the Board recognizes goes 

beyond what is generally required for a 

minor transaction under 49 CFR 1180.4 

(and therefore, not necessarily 

applicable to future minor transactions). 

To assist the Board in evaluating the 

Proposed Transaction, in conjunction 

with CSXT’s proposed acquisition of the 

Eastern Line, the Applicants will be 

directed to provide additional 

operational information. As NSR notes, 

the Application does not include an 

analysis of the potential operational 

impacts to shippers or Amtrak 

passengers on rail segments outside the 

Eastern Line and Western Line. (NSR 

Reply 12–13.) Accordingly, the Board 

directs Applicants to detail any impacts 

anticipated on other rail operations, 

including (1) potential impacts on any 

passenger rail operations that involve 

crossing the Western Line and (2) delays 

that may be occasioned because a line 

is scheduled to handle increased traffic 

due to route consolidations or traffic 

diversions. Applicants also shall 

provide a description of the effect of any 

deferred maintenance or delayed capital 

improvements on the subject lines and 

associated equipment. This should 

include the schedule for eliminating 

such deferrals, details of general system 

rehabilitation (including rehabilitation 

relating to the transaction, such as 

proposed yard and terminal 

modifications), and how these activities 

will lead to service improvements or 

operating economies anticipated from 

the transaction. 

Procedural Schedule. Applicants are 

directed to supplement their 

Application as discussed in this 

decision by November 21, 2023. Any 

person who wishes to participate in this 

proceeding as a Party of Record must 

file a notice of intent to participate no 

later than November 27, 2023; all 

comments, protests, requests for 

conditions, and any other evidence and 

argument in opposition to the 

Application, including filings by DOJ 

and DOT, must be filed by December 11, 

2023; and responses to comments, 

protests, requests for conditions, and 

other opposition on the transportation 

merits of the Proposed Transaction must 

be filed by January 8, 2024.16 The Board 

is required to issue ‘‘a final decision by 

the 45th day after the date on which it 

concludes the evidentiary proceedings,’’ 

49 U.S.C. 11325(d)(2), and will do so 

here, subject to the completion of 

environmental review.17 The Board 

reserves the right to adjust the schedule 

as circumstances may warrant. The 

adopted procedural schedule is in the 

Appendix to this decision. 

Notice of Intent To Participate. Any 

person who wishes to participate in this 

proceeding as a Party of Record must 

file with the Board, no later than 

November 27, 2023, a notice of intent to 

participate, accompanied by a certificate 

of service indicating that the notice has 

been properly served on the Secretary of 

Transportation, the Attorney General of 

the United States, and Applicants’ 

representative. 

If a request is made in the notice of 

intent to participate to have more than 

one name added to the service list as a 

Party of Record representing a particular 

entity, the extra name(s) will be added 

to the service list as a ‘‘Non-Party.’’ Any 

person designated as a Non-Party will 

receive copies of Board decisions, 

orders, and notices but not copies of 

official filings. Persons seeking to 

change their status must accompany 

that request with a written certification 

that they have complied with the 

service requirements set forth at 49 CFR 

1180.4 and any other requirements set 

forth in this decision. 

Discovery. Discovery may begin 

immediately. The parties are 

encouraged to resolve all discovery 

matters expeditiously and amicably. 

Service on Parties of Record. Each 

Party of Record will be required to serve 

upon all other Parties of Record, within 

10 days of the service date of this 

decision, copies of all filings previously 

submitted by that party (to the extent 

such filings have not previously been 

served upon such other parties). Each 

Party of Record will also be required to 

file with the Board, within 10 days of 

the service date of this decision, a 

certificate of service indicating that the 

service required by the preceding 

sentence has been accomplished. Every 

filing made by a Party of Record after 

the service date of this decision must 

have its own certificate of service 

indicating that all Parties of Record on 

the service list have been served with a 

copy of the filing. Members of the 

United States Congress and Governors 

are not Parties of Record and need not 

be served with copies of filings, unless 

any Member or Governor has requested 

to be, and is designated as, a Party of 

Record. 

Environmental Matters. NEPA 

requires that the Board take 

environmental considerations into 

account in its decision-making. Under 

the Board’s environmental regulations, 

an acquisition under 49 U.S.C. 11323 

generally requires the preparation of an 

EA where certain thresholds would be 

exceeded. See 49 CFR 1105.6(b)(4). The 

thresholds for assessing environmental 

impacts from increased rail traffic on 

rail lines in acquisitions are an increase 

in rail traffic of at least 100% (measured 

in gross ton miles annually) or an 

increase of at least eight trains per day. 

49 CFR 1105.7(e)(5). For air quality 

impacts, rail lines located in areas 

classified as being in ‘‘nonattainment’’ 

areas under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

7401–7671q) are also assessed if they 

would experience an increase in rail 

traffic of at least 50% (measured in gross 

ton miles annually) or an increase of at 

least three trains per day. 49 CFR 

1105.7(e)(5)(ii). 

In the Application, Applicants 

submitted environmental information, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 77415 

18The Board’s general practice has been to 

mitigate only impacts resulting directly from a 

proposed transaction, and not to require mitigation 

for existing conditions and existing railroad 

operations. See 49 CFR 1180.1(f)(1). 

including estimated volume increases 

on the Western Line by track segment 

(Exhibit 4). The estimated volume for 

each segment includes transactionrelated projections for five years 

(through 2029), as well as no-action 

projections (traffic including increases 

that would occur without the Proposed 

Transaction). CPKC states that there 

would be a transaction-related increase 

of one train a day in each direction on 

the Western Line, an overall addition of 

two trains per day, which would result 

in an increase in gross-ton miles in 

excess of 100%. (Appl., Ex. 4, Env’t 

Info. 41–42.) According to Applicants, 

the Proposed Transaction would not 

result in traffic being diverted to other 

transportation systems or modes. (Appl., 

Ex. 4, Env’t Info. 40.) 

The NEPA Process. OEA has reviewed 

the data provided by Applicants, 

including their traffic projections 

through 2029. Based on the current 

record, neither the 8-trains-per-day nor 

the 3-trains-per-day thresholds for 

environmental review will be exceeded 

as a result of the Proposed Transaction. 

However, because there will be an 

increase in gross-ton miles in excess of 

100% on the line segments involved in 

the Proposed Transaction, the gross-ton 

mile threshold will be exceeded and 

therefore, OEA will prepare an EA. See 

49 CFR 1105.7(e)(5)(i); 1105.10(b). For 

expediency and efficiency, OEA has 

determined that it is appropriate to 

prepare one EA to encompass both the 

Western Line and the Eastern Line 

(including the Burkeville-Montgomery 

segment) because these transactions 

involve contiguous segments of the 

same rail line; indeed, CPKC’s 

acquisition of the Western Line is 

contingent on CSXT’s acquisition of the 

Eastern Line, and both CPKC and CSXT 

provided volume forecasts showing 

exceedance of the gross-ton mile 

thresholds based on each transaction 

being authorized and implemented. 

(Appl., Ex. 4, Env’t Info. 38); see also 

CSXT Appl., Ex. 4, Env’t Info. 6–7, Oct. 

6, 2023, CSX Transp., Inc.—Acquis. & 

Operation—Rail Line of Meridian & 

Bigbee R.R., FD 36727. In addition, the 

environmental impacts from both 

transactions are expected to be very 

similar and both applications were filed 

at the same time, allowing 

environmental review of the two 

transactions to proceed simultaneously. 

The EA process will address potential 

environmental impacts of activities 

associated with both the Western Line 

and the Eastern Line, including changes 

in rail line traffic and rail yard activity. 

OEA will prepare a Draft EA and issue 

it for public comment. Following the 

close of the comment period, OEA will 

prepare a Final EA. The Final EA will 

address the comments received on the 

Draft EA, present OEA’s final 

conclusions regarding the potential 

environmental impacts of the 

transactions, and set forth OEA’s final 

recommendations to the Board, 

including recommended environmental 

mitigation measures.18 The Board then 

will consider the entire record, 

including the record on the 

transportation merits, the Draft EA, the 

Final EA, and all public comments 

received. In its final decision, the Board 

will decide whether the Proposed 

Transaction should be authorized and, if 

so, what conditions, including 

environmental mitigation conditions, to 

impose. 

Historic Review. The Board’s 

regulations provide that historic review 

normally is not required for acquisitions 

where there would be no significant 

change in operations and properties 50 

years old and older would not be 

affected. See 49 CFR 1105.8. Based on 

the current record, no historic review is 

required. 

Service of Decisions, Orders, and 

Notices. The Board will serve copies of 

its decisions, orders, and notices on 

those persons who are designated on the 

service list as a Party of Record or NonParty. All other interested persons are 

encouraged to obtain copies of 

decisions, orders, and notices via the 

Board’s website at www.stb.gov. 

Access to Filings. Under the Board’s 

rules, any document filed with the 

Board (including applications, 

pleadings, etc.) shall be promptly 

furnished to interested persons on 

request, unless subject to a protective 

order. 49 CFR 1180.4(a)(3). The 

Application and other filings in this 

proceeding will be furnished to 

interested persons upon request and 

will also be available on the Board’s 

website at www.stb.gov. In addition, the 

Application may be obtained from 

Applicants’ representative at the 

address indicated above. 

It is ordered: 

1. The Application filed in Docket No. 

FD 36732 and the related filings in 

Docket Nos. FD 36730 and FD 36731 are 

accepted for consideration. 

2. Applicants shall file the 

supplemental information described 

above by November 21, 2023. 

3. The filing in Docket No. AB 55 

(Sub-No. 814X) is accepted to the extent 

discussed above. CSXT may file 

supplemental evidence and argument in 

support of an individual exemption in 

that docket by November 21, 2023. 

4. The parties to this proceeding must 

comply with the procedural schedule 

shown in the Appendix to this decision 

and the procedural requirements 

described in this decision. 

5. NSR’s request to hold this 

proceeding in abeyance in denied. 

6. This decision is effective on 

November 3, 2023. 

Decided: November 3, 2023. 

By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, 

Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and 

Schultz. Board Member Schultz, joined 

by Board Member Fuchs, concurred 

with a separate expression. 

Board Member Schultz, with whom 

Board Member Fuchs joins, concurring: 

I agree that the Proposed Transaction 

should be classified as minor and that 

the record at this stage of the proceeding 

indicates that any anticompetitive 

effects of the Proposed Transaction will 

clearly be outweighed by the Proposed 

Transaction’s anticipated contribution 

to the public interest in meeting 

significant transportation needs. On this 

record, I would not order Applicants to 

submit this extensive amount of 

supplemental information at this stage 

in the proceeding. While the Board has 

the authority to require the filing of 

supplemental information, the better 

course here would have been to assess 

whether any supplemental information 

is necessary after full analysis of all 

comments and requests for conditions 

and again after responses to those 

comments and requests, when the Board 

would benefit from the full views of 

shippers, railroads, and the broader 

public. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77416 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 

Appendix 

PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE

October 6, 2023 ................. Application filed. 

November 3, 2023 .............. Board notice of acceptance of application served. 

November 21, 2023 ............ Applicants’ supplemental information due. 

November 27, 2023 ............ Notices of intent to participate in this proceeding due. 

December 11, 2023 ............ All comments, protests, requests for conditions, and any other evidence and argument in opposition to the application, including filings of DOJ and DOT, due. 

January 8, 2024 ................. Responses to comments, protests, requests for conditions, and other opposition due. Rebuttal in support of the 

application due. 

TBD .................................... Record closes. 

No later than 45 days after 

close of the record.

Date by which a final decision will be served.1

30 days after service .......... Board’s decision becomes effective. 

1 Under 49 U.S.C. 11325(d)(2), the Board must issue its final decision within 45 days of the close of the evidentiary record. However, under 

NEPA, the Board may not issue a final decision until after the required environmental review is complete. In the event the environmental review 

process is not able to be concluded in sufficient time for the Board to meet the 45-day provision in section 11325(d)(2), the Board will issue a 

final decision as soon as possible after that process is complete. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24818 Filed 11–8–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m. CT on 

November 9, 2023. 

PLACE: Cadence Bank Center, 375 E 

Main Street, Tupelo, Mississippi. 

STATUS: Open. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Meeting No. 23–04 

The TVA Board of Directors will hold 

a public meeting on November 9, 2023, 

at the Cadence Bank Center, 375 E Main 

Street, Tupelo, Mississippi. 

The meeting will be called to order at 

9:00 a.m. CT to consider the agenda 

items listed below. TVA management 

will answer questions from the news 

media following the Board meeting. 

On November 8, at the Cadence Bank 

Center, the public may comment on any 

agenda item or subject at a board-hosted 

public listening session which begins at 

2:00 p.m. CT and will last until 4:00 

p.m. Preregistration is required to 

address the Board. 

Agenda 

1. Approval of minutes of the August 

24, 2023 Board Meeting 

2. Resolution Honoring the Late Barbara 

Haskew 

3. Report of the Audit, Finance, Risk, 

and Cybersecurity Committee 

A. TVA’s Insider Trading Policy 

B. Recovery Policy 

4. Report of the Operations and Nuclear 

Oversight Committee 

5. Report of the People and Governance 

Committee 

A. FY 2023 and FY 2024 Performance 

and Compensation 

6. Report of the External Stakeholders 

and Regulation Committee 

A. Determination on PURPA 

Standards 

7. Report from President and CEO 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For more information: Please call 

Ashton Davies, TVA Media Relations at 

(865) 632–6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. 

Anyone who wishes to comment on any 

of the agenda in writing may send their 

comments to: TVA Board of Directors, 

Board Agenda Comments, 400 West 

Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, 

Tennessee 37902. 

Dated: November 2, 2023. 

Edward C. Meade, 

Agency Liaison. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24979 Filed 11–7–23; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8120–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

[Docket No. FHWA–2023–0047] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Notice of Request for 

Extension of Currently Approved 

Information Collection 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of request for extension 

of currently approved information 

collection. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA invites public 

comments about our intention to request 

the Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) approval for renewal of an 

existing information collection that is 

summarized below under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. We are 

required to publish this notice in the 

Federal Register by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Please submit comments by 

January 8, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT Docket ID Number 

0047 by any of the following methods: 

Website: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. 

Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wendy McAbee, 202–366–5658, Office 

of Bridge and Structures, Federal 

Highway Administration, Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 

between 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Highway Bridge and National 

Bridge Inspection Programs (National 

Bridge Inspection Standards). 

OMB Control #: 2125–0501. 

Background: The Federal-aid 

Highway Program provides for the 

reimbursement to States for expenditure 

of State funds for eligible Federal-aid 

highway projects. The Voucher for Work 

Performed under Provisions of the 

Federal Aid and Federal Highway Acts 

as amended (Form PR–20) is utilized by 

the States to provide project financial 

data regarding the expenditure of State 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1