Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 77403 

1The Board notes that, for the Burkville-Western 

Junction segment, the difference between the 

milepost numbers is 33 but the claimed distance of 

the segment is 30.22 miles. CSXT is directed to 

confirm that 30.22 miles is the correct distance of 

this segment or to provide a correction. CSXT shall 

submit this information by November 21, 2023 

when it submits the supplemental information 

discussed below. 

2AGR and MNBR are both controlled by Genesee 

& Wyoming Inc. (GWI). See Genesee & Wyo. Inc.— 

Control—RailAmerica, Inc., FD 35654, slip op. at 3 

n.7 (STB served Dec. 20, 2012). 

3 GWI acquired control of M&B in 2005 and later 

changed its name to MNBR. See Genesee & Wyo. 

Inc.—Control Exemption—Rail Partners, L.P., FD 

34708 (STB served June 24, 2005). 

4The Transaction Agreement is attached to the 

Application as Exhibit 2. 

43. Describe any government efforts to 

prevent or end child soldier recruitment 

or use, including efforts to disarm, 

demobilize, and reintegrate former child 

soldiers. (i.e., enacting any laws or 

regulations, implementing a United 

Nations Action Plan or Roadmap, 

specialized training for officials, 

procedures for age verification, etc.) 

Cynthia D. Dyer, 

Ambassador-at-Large, Office to Monitor and 

Combat Trafficking in Persons, Department 

of State. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24781 Filed 11–8–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–11–P 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

[Docket No. FD 36727] 

CSX Transportation, Inc.—Acquisition 

and Operation—Rail Line of Meridian & 

Bigbee Railroad, L.L.C. 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Decision No. 1; Notice of 

acceptance of primary application; 

Notice of acceptance of related filings 

for consideration; Issuance of 

procedural schedule. 

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation 

Board (Board) is accepting the primary 

application (Application) filed October 

6, 2023, by CSX Transportation Inc. 

(CSXT), and accepting for consideration 

two related filings. The Application 

seeks Board approval for CSXT to 

acquire and operate the assets 

comprising the rail line of Meridian & 

Bigbee Railroad, L.L.C. (MNBR) that 

runs approximately 93.68 miles between 

the cities of Burkville, Ala., and 

Myrtlewood, Ala., in Lowndes, Dallas, 

Wilcox and Marengo Counties (the 

Eastern Line). This proposal is referred 

to as the ‘‘Proposed Transaction.’’ The 

related filings are notices of exemption 

seeking Board approval of transactions 

involving trackage rights of other 

carriers (Related Transactions). 

DATES: The effective date of this 

decision is November 3, 2023. CSXT is 

directed to supplement its 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 or related filings must 

be filed by January 8, 2023. 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. 

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) 

CSXT’s representative, Peter W. Denton, 

Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 

Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20036; (4) AGR’s and MNBR’s 

representative, Justin J. Marks, Clark 

Hill PLC, 1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 

Suite 1300 South, Washington, DC 

20004; and (5) any other person 

designated as a Party of Record on the 

service list. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathon Binet at (202) 245–0368. If you 

require an accommodation under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, please 

call (202) 245–0245. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 operate the 

Eastern Line. (Appl. 1.) 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 about 

30.22 miles; 1 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 about 63.46 

miles. (Id.) The Eastern Line includes 

Selma Yard, at Selma, Ala., and the 

following stations: Myrtlewood, Linden, 

Thomaston, Safford, Orville, Beloit, 

Selma, Industrial Lead, Tyler, Benton, 

Whitehall, and Burkville. (Id.) Two 

other carriers, Alabama Gulf Coast 

Railway LLC (AGR) and Norfolk 

Southern Railway (NSR) connect with 

the Eastern Line. AGR’s line connects to 

the Eastern Line at Linden, Ala. (Id. at 

5.) AGR operates over an approximately 

10-mile portion of the Eastern Line 

between Linden and Myrtlewood to 

interchange traffic with MNBR.2 (Id.) 

NSR connects to the Eastern Line at 

Selma, where it interchanges traffic with 

MNBR. (Id. at 12.) 

Prior to 2003, CSXT and its 

predecessors owned and operated the 

Eastern Line. (Id. at 2.) In 2003, CSXT 

entered into a Land Lease Agreement 

(2003 Agreement) with M&B Railroad, 

L.L.C. (M&B), which was later renamed 

MNBR,3 whereby CSXT: (1) sold to M&B 

the tracks, rails, ties, ballast, other track 

materials, switches, crossings, bridges, 

culverts, crossing warning devices and 

any and all improvements or fixtures 

affixed to the Eastern Line (Assets); (2) 

leased to M&B for a 20-year term the 

real property underlying the Eastern 

Line; and (3) granted M&B incidental 

overhead trackage rights over 

approximately 14 miles of CSXT 

trackage between the eastern end of the 

Eastern Line at Burkville and 

Montgomery, Ala., to effectuate 

interchange between M&B and CSXT at 

CSXT’s S and N Yard and Chester Yard 

at Montgomery. (Id.) The 2003 

Agreement will expire at the end of its 

20-year term, on November 14, 2023, 

thereby ending MNBR’s leasehold 

interest. (Id.) The 2003 Agreement 

provides that CSXT may reacquire the 

Assets from MNBR upon expiration of 

MNBR’s leasehold interest. (Id.) The 

parties have entered an agreement for 

CSXT to reacquire the Assets from 

MNBR (Transaction Agreement).4 (Id. at 

2–3.) Because MNBR’s lease is set to 

expire during this proceeding, CSXT 

and MNBR have agreed to extend the 

2003 Agreement until the first to occur 

of: (1) the closing date of the 

transactions contemplated under the 

Transaction Agreement; or (2) the ‘‘Drop 

Dead Date,’’ as defined in the 

Transaction Agreement. (Id.) 

In Docket No. AB 1335X, MNBR filed 

a verified notice of exemption under the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77404 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 

5This decision embraces the following dockets: 

Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway—Trackage Rights 

Exemption—CSX Transportation, Inc., Docket No. 

FD 36724; Meridian & Bigbee Railroad— 

Discontinuance of Incidental Overhead Trackage 

Rights—in Lowndes & Montgomery Counties, Ala., 

Docket No. AB 1335X. 

6The Board is required to accommodate the 

requirements of NEPA 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. 

7As noted above, MNBR operates between 

Burkville (the eastern end of the Eastern Line) and 

Montgomery pursuant to overhead trackage rights. 

class exemption at 49 CFR part 1152, 

subpart F, to discontinue overhead 

trackage rights along an approximately 

14-mile rail line extending between 

milepost XXB189 near Burkville, Ala., 

and Montgomery Yard in Montgomery, 

Ala. In Docket No. FD 36724, Alabama 

Gulf Coast Railway LLC (AGR) filed a 

verified notice of exemption to acquire 

overhead trackage rights from CSXT 

over approximately 9.5 miles of the 

Eastern Line running between milepost 

59.9 at Linden, Ala., and milepost 50.4 

near Myrtlewood.5

The Board finds that the Application 

is complete and that the 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 CSXT 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.6

CPKC Transaction. In addition to the 

Eastern Line, MNBR owns and operates 

a rail line that connects to the Eastern 

Line at Myrtlewood and extends west to 

Meridian, Miss. (Western Line), where it 

connects with Canadian Pacific Railway 

Company (CPKC). (Id. at 3.) CPKC has 

filed an application seeking Board 

authority to acquire and operate over 

the Western Line (CPKC Transaction). 

CPKC Appl. 2, Oct. 6, 2023, Canadian 

Pac. Kan. City Ltd.—Acquis. & 

Operation—Certain Rail Line of 

Meridian & Bigbee R.R. in Lauderdale 

Cnty., Miss., & Choctaw & Marengo 

Cntys., Ala., FD 36732 et al. MNBR 

serves local traffic on the Eastern Line 

and the Western Line and operates over 

the two rail lines to move overhead 

traffic between CSXT at Montgomery 7

and CPKC at Meridian. (Appl. at 3.) The 

Proposed Transaction contemplates 

CSXT taking over MNBR’s operations on 

the Eastern Line and MNBR ceasing all 

operations on the Eastern Line. (Id.) The 

CPKC Transaction contemplates CPKC 

acquiring and operating over the 

Western Line but MNBR continuing to 

provide local service on the Western 

Line. CPKC Appl., Ex. 2, Retained 

Trackage Rights Agreement, art. 2.1, 

Oct. 6, 2023, Canadian Pac. Kan. City 

Ltd., FD 36732 et al. If both the 

Proposed Transaction and the CPKC 

Transaction are consummated, overhead 

traffic between Meridian and 

Montgomery will be directly 

interchanged between CSXT and CPKC 

at Myrtlewood, eliminating MNBR as an 

intermediate carrier for this overhead 

traffic. (Appl. at 13.) 

CSXT states that the Proposed 

Transaction and the CPKC Transaction 

are not contingent on each other ‘‘in that 

the [Proposed] Transaction could 

proceed regardless of whether the CPKC 

Transaction is consummated.’’ (Id. at 6.) 

According to CPKC, the CPKC 

Transaction is contingent on CSXT 

acquiring and resuming operations on 

the Eastern Line. CPKC Appl. 2, Oct. 6, 

2023, Canadian Pac. Kan. City Ltd., FD 

36732 et al. CSXT asks that the Board 

examine the Proposed Transaction 

independently of the CPKC Transaction. 

(Id. at 8.) The Board declines to do so 

for purposes of this decision. CSXT 

states only that the Proposed 

Transaction ‘‘could proceed’’ if the 

CPKC Transaction is not consummated, 

not that it necessarily will do so. Thus, 

it is not clear that the Proposed 

Transaction is in fact independent of the 

CPKC Transaction. Moreover, because 

the CPKC Transaction is specifically 

dependent upon consummation of the 

Proposed Transaction, the CPKC 

Transaction, and the effects that flow 

from it, would themselves be effects of 

the Proposed Transaction and must 

therefore be considered in determining 

whether the Proposed Transaction is 

minor or significant under 49 CFR 

1180.2. 

Financial Arrangements. According to 

CSXT, no new securities would be 

issued in connection with the Proposed 

Transaction. (Id. at 22.) CSXT states that 

the purchase price would be paid from 

cash on hand. (Id.) 

Passenger Service Impacts. CSXT 

states that there are no current 

passenger or commuter operations on 

the Eastern Line and there would be no 

impact on commuter or other passenger 

service. (Id., 22–A, V.S. Adams 15.) 

Discontinuances/Abandonments. 

CSXT states that it does not anticipate 

abandoning any rail lines as a result of 

the Proposed Transaction. (Id., Ex. 15, 

Operating Plan 17.) As noted above, 

MNBR seeks Board authority to 

discontinue trackage rights over CSXT’s 

line between Burkville and Montgomery 

if the Proposed Transaction is approved. 

Public Interest Considerations. CSXT 

asserts that if the Board approves the 

Proposed Transaction and the CPKC 

Transaction, it will create a direct 

CSXT–CPKC interchange at 

Myrtlewood, which will result in more 

efficient movement of existing CSXT– 

CPKC interchange traffic between the 

Eastern United States (CSXT) and the 

Western U.S. and Mexico (CPKC) 

without any reduction in competition. 

(Appl. 13.) CSXT claims the Proposed 

Transaction is an end-to-end transaction 

that will not result in any loss of 

competitive options available to MNBRserved shippers. (Id. at 11–12.) 

According to CSXT, the largest traffic 

group on the Eastern Line is overhead 

traffic to or from CSXT on which MNBR 

functions as a bridge carrier and that the 

Proposed Transaction will simply shift 

the interchange point for this traffic 

from Montgomery to Myrtlewood. (Id. at 

13, Ex. 22–B, Reishus V.S. 11.) CSXT 

further states that most local traffic on 

MNBR today moves to CSXT and such 

movements will be unaffected by the 

CSXT Transaction. (Id., Ex. 22–A, V.S. 

Adams 13.) In addition, CSXT states 

that the short line carriers that connect 

to the Eastern Line (MNBR and AGR) 

will not lose a connecting alternative. 

(Id. at 11.) It contends that the CSXT 

network fails to reach locations or 

regions served by AGR or reached 

through CPKC at Meridian (or involving 

Western Line shippers) and cannot 

plausibly provide competing single-line 

service for existing interline traffic with 

these carriers; hence, it has no incentive 

to foreclose those shippers’ use of AGR 

and CPKC for interchange service. (Id., 

Ex. 22–B, V.S. Reishus 13.) CSXT notes 

that local shippers today have the 

ability to move on MNBR to interchange 

with NSR at Selma and that NSR and 

CSXT compete at a variety of locations 

across the eastern United States. (Id., Ex. 

22–A, V.S. Adams 11, Ex. 22–B, V.S. 

Reishus 13.) However, CSXT states that 

MNBR’s shippers use this option only 

for a small volume of traffic and CSXT 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 77405 

8Also, on October 6, 2023, CSXT filed a motion 

for protective order in Docket No. FD 36727, which 

was granted by decision served on October 11, 

2023. 

is committing to keeping the gateway 

with NSR at Selma open on 

commercially reasonable terms and 

asking the Board to impose this 

commitment as a condition to approval 

of Proposed Transaction. (Id., Ex. 22–A, 

V.S. Adams 13.) CSXT further states that 

one MNBR shipper currently moves 

traffic both to NSR at Selma and to 

CSXT at Montgomery. (Id.) According to 

CSXT, it will commit to that customer 

to continue to provide service to NSR at 

Selma at current rates, subject to 

reasonable cost escalation, for five years 

and on commercially reasonable terms 

thereafter. (Id., Ex. 22–A, V.S. Adams 

13–14.) 

CSXT claims that the Proposed 

Transaction will have public benefits 

that are ‘‘large, important, and obvious.’’ 

(Appl. 14–15.) CSXT states that for the 

traffic that currently moves to or from 

CSXT, eliminating MNBR as an 

intermediate carrier will reduce costs 

and streamline the movement of traffic. 

(Id., Ex. 22–A, V.S. Adams 4.) In 

addition, CSXT states that certain 

CSXT–CPKC traffic is interchanged at 

less efficient gateways—such as New 

Orleans, La., Brookwood, Ala., and East 

St. Louis, Mo.—and that it projects that 

a portion of this traffic will be diverted 

to the new CSXT–CPKC Myrtlewood 

gateway if both the Proposed 

Transaction and the CPKC Transaction 

are approved. (Id. at 13.) CSXT further 

claims that establishing a new, more 

efficient gateway between CSXT and 

CPKC at Myrtlewood will allow each 

carrier to compete more effectively with 

other carriers and modes in the region 

and create redundancy in the southern 

portion of CSXT’s network that will give 

CSXT a greater ability to respond to 

unexpected network problems. (Id. at 

13, 16.) 

Additionally, CSXT states that once 

the transaction is consummated, it will 

make significant investments in the 

track, roadbed, bridges, warning 

devices, and wayside detectors on the 

Eastern Line, which will increase safety, 

reliability, and train speeds. (Id. at 15.) 

In addition, CSXT claims that 

acquisition of the Eastern Line will 

support CSXT’s ongoing efforts to attract 

new industrial development to its rail 

network and will give CSXT’s shippers 

expanded transportation options, which 

CSXT hopes will lead to further rail 

traffic growth. (Id.) 

Time Schedule for Consummation. 

CSXT seeks to consummate the 

Proposed Transaction on or soon after 

the effective date of a Board decision 

authorizing the Proposed Transaction, 

subject to the completion of any 

required labor implementing 

agreements. (Id. at 20.) CSXT anticipates 

that the Related Transactions will be 

consummated concurrently with the 

Proposed Transaction. (Id.) 

Environmental Impacts. According to 

CSXT, the Proposed Transaction will 

have no adverse impacts on the 

environment. (Id., Ex. 4, Env’t Info. 8.) 

CSXT projects that if the Proposed 

Transaction and the CPKC Transaction 

are both consummated, there will be 

increases in gross ton miles and yard 

activity that exceed the Board’s 

thresholds for environmental review on 

the Eastern Line and on the BurkvilleMontgomery segment, but that there 

will be no additional trains as a result 

of the transactions in the next five years. 

(Id., Ex. 4, Env’t Info. 6–7, Ex. 22–A, 

V.S. Adams 14.) CSXT asserts that 

improvements in train speeds will 

counteract any effect of increases in 

train length. (Id. at Ex. 22–A, V.S. 

Adams 14.) CSXT also claims that the 

Proposed Transaction will have 

environmental benefits because the 

planned infrastructure improvements 

will result in increasing safety, 

reliability, and train speeds and will 

remove truck traffic from congested 

highways. (Id., Ex. 4, Env’t Info. 9.) For 

the reasons discussed below, an EA will 

be prepared because the Board’s 

thresholds for environmental review 

will be exceeded if the Proposed 

Transaction and the CPKC Transaction 

are both consummated. See 

Environmental Matters section. 

Historic Preservation Impacts. 

According to CSXT, under 49 CFR 

1105.8(b)(1), the Proposed Transaction 

and the Related Transactions are exempt 

from historic preservation reporting 

requirements. CSXT states that rail 

operations will continue on the Eastern 

Line and the Burkville-Montgomery 

segment, and that further approval will 

be required to abandon any service. 

CSXT further states that there are no 

plans to dispose of or alter properties 

subject to Board jurisdiction that are 

fifty years old or older. Therefore, based 

on the current record, no historic review 

is required. 

Labor Impacts. CSXT asserts that the 

Proposed Transaction will not have any 

adverse impact on labor. (Id., Ex. 22–A, 

V.S. Adams 15.) CSXT states that it will 

be employing more people on the 

Eastern Line as a result of the Proposed 

Transaction. (Id., Ex. 22–A, V.S. Adams 

16.) According to CSXT, CSXT, and 

MNBR will not integrate any of their 

forces and CSXT employees will assume 

the responsibility for maintaining, 

dispatching, and operating CSXT trains 

over the Eastern Line. (Id. at 25.) CSXT 

further states that it understands that 

MNBR intends to abolish seven 

transportation positions, four 

engineering positions, and one 

mechanical position as a result of the 

Proposed Transaction. (Id. at 26.) 

According to CSXT, in addition to 

possible employment with CSXT, 

MNBR, or other GWI-controlled carriers 

may have other positions for employees 

who currently occupy these positions. 

(Id.) In addition, CSXT states that AGR 

employees will continue to operate AGR 

trains over the Eastern Line between 

Linden and Myrtlewood as they do 

today pursuant to a new trackage rights 

agreement with CSXT. (Id.) 

CSXT is requesting that the employee 

protective conditions established in 

New York Dock Railway—Control— 

Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 360 

I.C.C. 60, aff’d 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), be imposed on 

the Proposed Transaction to address any 

adverse impact to current employees. 

(Appl. at 26.) 

Related Filings. In connection with 

the Related Transactions, MNBR, and 

AGR each filed a notice of exemption.8

MNBR Discontinuance: In Docket No. 

AB 1335X, MNBR filed a verified notice 

of exemption under the class exemption 

at 49 CFR part 1152, subpart F, to 

discontinue overhead trackage rights 

along an approximately 14-mile rail line 

extending between milepost XXB189 

near Burkville and Montgomery Yard in 

Montgomery. MNBR states that it does 

not intend to consummate its 

discontinuance authority unless and 

until CSXT consummates the Proposed 

Transaction. If consummated, MNBR 

and CSXT will interchange traffic at 

Myrtlewood, rather than at 

Montgomery. According to MNBR, its 

proposed discontinuance qualifies for 

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

exemption procedures because it seeks 

to discontinue overhead trackage rights 

and has not provided any local service 

within the past two years. However, 

another carrier, CSXT, 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, 

and Williamson Counties, Tex., AB 

578X (STB served Nov. 3, 2023), the 

Board recently reaffirmed that to qualify 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77406 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 

9Additionally, as discussed above, MNBR’s 

verified notice of exemption in Docket No. AB 

1335X 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 MNBR an 

individual exemption on the Board’s own motion. 

10CSXT has broadly represented that ‘‘no 

gateways would be closed’’ to shippers as a result 

of the transactions. (CSXT Reply 7, Oct. 27, 2023 

(replying to a request filed by NSR, discussed 

below).) CSXT states that there are no commercial 

agreements between CSXT and CPKC that would 

force a rerouting of traffic and that the creation of 

the new Myrtlewood gateway would simply give 

shippers a new competitive option to route traffic 

through Myrtlewood instead of moving through 

other congested locations. (Id.) It also states that 

‘‘[t]hose gateways would remain fully open, but 

shippers would now have an efficient alternative to 

them.’’ (Id.) 

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, MNBR may not proceed under 

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

exemption procedures, during 

consideration of the broader Proposed 

Transaction, the Board will nonetheless 

consider whether to grant an individual 

exemption for this discontinuance 

authority on its own motion. To that 

end, MNBR may supplement the record 

in Docket No. AB 1335X 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). Any 

supplement filed by MNBR in Docket 

No. AB 1335X will be due by November 

21, 2023. 

AGR Trackage Rights. In Docket No. 

FD 36724, AGR filed a verified notice of 

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

acquire overhead trackage rights from 

CSXT over approximately 9.5 miles of 

rail line running between milepost 59.9 

at Linden, and milepost 50.4 near 

Myrtlewood. AGR states that it intends 

to consummate the transaction either on 

the effective date of its notice or upon 

the consummation of the Proposed 

Transaction, whichever occurs later. 

AGR intends to use its overhead 

trackage rights for the interchange of 

traffic with MNBR, CSXT, and other 

carriers at Myrtlewood. 

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 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 also accepting for consideration the 

related verified notice of exemption 

filed in Docket No. FD 36724,9 which is 

also in compliance with the applicable 

regulations. As discussed below, the 

Board will require CSXT to 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, its classification will 

differ 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 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. 

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. Shippers that are currently 

served by MNBR would be served by 

CSXT post-transaction and this service 

could become more efficient due to the 

elimination of MNBR as an intermediate 

carrier and the upgrades to the line 

planned by CSXT. These upgrades 

could also improve the safety of 

operations over the Eastern Line. In 

addition, CSXT has committed to 

keeping the Selma gateway open for 

interchange with NSR on commercially 

reasonable terms and, for the one 

shipper on the Eastern Line that 

currently connects to both CSXT and 

NSR, CSXT has committed to keep 

current rates in place for five years. The 

Proposed Transaction, in combination 

with the CPKC Transaction, would 

create a direct connection between 

CSXT and CPKC at Myrtlewood. This 

new East-West Class I connection, along 

with the infrastructure upgrades 

planned by CSXT and CPKC, could 

provide a more efficient route for 

existing and future traffic moving 

between the eastern and southeastern 

United States and the southwestern 

United States and Mexico, potentially 

providing both economic and 

environmental benefits. Diverting 

existing traffic to the new Myrtlewood 

gateway from congested gateways such 

as New Orleans could also improve the 

efficiency of operations at those existing 

gateways.10 Moreover, adding a new 

East-West Class I gateway will 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). There is a 

potential that traffic currently 

interchanged with other carriers may be 

diverted to the Myrtlewood interchange 

post-transaction (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 the CPKC’s 

Transaction, may result in shifts to 

traffic flows, including traffic currently 

interchanged with a third-party carrier. 

(See e.g., Appl., Ex. 22–A, V.S. Adams 

6 (‘‘[I]f CPKC also acquires the Western 

Line and upgrades it, the substantially 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 77407 

11On October 25, 2023, NSR filed a request 

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

proceeding with the proceeding regarding the CPKC 

Transaction and 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, CSXT filed a reply. CSXT does not oppose 

embracing the two cases in one proceeding but 

argues the Board should not require the parties to 

file a consolidated application. (CSXT Reply 6 n.3, 

Oct. 27, 2023.) CSXT further argues that its 

application is complete and that the issues raised 

by NSR can be addressed through the comment 

process required by the procedural schedule. (Id. at 

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

Company filed in support of NSR’s request for 

consolidation. 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 CSXT to supplement the record 

as discussed further in this decision. 

12The 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, FD 36732, Oct. 27, 

2023.) 

13Origination/destination areas may be as broad 

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

justification for its definition of the state or region 

whatever grouping metric it uses for its analysis, 

and it shall specify the gateway(s) used by traffic 

for the origination or destination areas. 

14 Information should include the total count of 

cars interchanged categorized by two-digit Standard 

Transportation Commodity Code and broken out by 

interchange partner. 

15CSXT proposes a round of briefs due on the 

same day that the evidentiary record is statutorily 

required to close. (Appl. 26); see also 49 U.S.C. 

11325(d)(2). CSXT however provides 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. 

improved efficiency of the line between 

Meridian and Montgomery . . . is 

expected to significantly increase the 

amount of traffic that can be diverted to 

the Eastern Line in overhead traffic.’’); 

CPKC Appl., App. 3, Wahba V.S. 5–7, 

Oct. 6, 2023, Canadian Pac. Kan. City 

Ltd., FD 36732 et al. (describing 

potential diversion of premium 

automotive traffic moving between 

KCSM-served locations in Mexico and 

CSXT-served locations on the East 

Coast, but interchanged with a bridge 

carrier at Laredo and at East St. Louis, 

Memphis, and New Orleans, to direct 

CPKC–CSXT interchange at 

Myrtlewood).) To assist the Board in its 

consideration of the Proposed 

Transaction and in making the 

determination of what—if any— 

conditions might be warranted, CSXT 

will be directed to supplement its 

Application with certain additional 

information by November 21, 2023. See 

49 CFR 1180.4(c)(2)(v) (‘‘The applicant 

shall submit such additional 

information to support its application as 

the Board may require.’’).11

Specifically, in its reply to NSR’s 

Request, CSXT broadly claims that ‘‘[n]o 

gateways would be closed as a result of 

either transaction’’ and that previouslyused gateways ‘‘would remain fully 

open.’’ (CSXT Reply, 7, Oct. 27, 2023; 

see also supra note 9.) Moreover, CPKC 

specifically argues that ‘‘[f]or traffic 

from CSXT origins that might use the 

new Myrtlewood routing, CSXT would 

not be obtaining a longer haul than it 

could realize via other gateways like 

New Orleans, Memphis, or East St. 

Louis, and thus there is no conceivably 

applicable theory of foreclosure.’’ (CPKC 

Reply 5 n.3, FD 36732, Oct. 27, 2023.) 

The Board appreciates these statements. 

Nevertheless, CSXT will be directed to 

more fully explain its position that no 

gateway ‘‘would be closed,’’ and 

describe in detail what it means when 

it says that all previously-used gateways 

will ‘‘remain fully open.’’ 12 In addition, 

to help the Board evaluate the argument 

made by CPKC regarding certain CSXT 

gateways, CSXT should also address 

whether, and to what extent, the 

Proposed Transaction will give it the 

ability and incentive to avoid existing 

interline routing arrangements with 

carriers other than CPKC, and which 

may require interchange at New 

Orleans, Memphis, or East St. Louis (as 

well as Chicago or any other interchange 

location) for traffic from certain CSXT 

origin areas, so that it may move that 

traffic via a longer haul through the 

CPKC–CSXT interchange at 

Myrtlewood. See, e.g., https://

www.up.com/customers/shortline/ 

interline_agree/index.htm. 

Additionally, in its supplement, to 

further inform the Board’s analysis, 

CSXT shall provide a list of all 

origination/destination areas,13

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); 14 and 

provide the associated volumes by 

origination/destination areas for 

projected diverted and new traffic. The 

Board recognizes that CSXT was 

recently involved in a transaction that 

required the production of substantial 

information about its network and the 

markets it serves. Some of the work 

involved with that production may be 

relevant to the Proposed Transaction, 

potentially lowering the burden on 

CSXT 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 CPKC’s proposed acquisition of the 

Western Line, CSXT 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 CSXT to detail any impacts 

anticipated on other rail operations, 

including (1) potential impacts on any 

passenger rail operations that involve 

crossing the Eastern Line, and (2) delays 

that may be occasioned because a line 

is scheduled to handle increased traffic 

due to route consolidations or traffic 

diversions. Additionally, CSXT 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. CSXT is 

directed to supplement its 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 Transaction 

must be filed by January 8, 2024.15 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
77408 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 216 / Thursday, November 9, 2023 / Notices 

16This 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 49CFR 1104.7(a). 

17The 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). 

completion of environmental review.16

The Board reserves the right to adjust 

the schedule as circumstances may 

warrant. The adopted procedural 

schedule is in 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 CSXT’s 

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. 

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 its Application, CSXT submitted 

environmental information, including 

estimated volume increases on the 

Eastern Line by track segment (Exhibit 

4). The estimated volume for each 

segment includes transaction-related 

projections for five years (through 2029), 

as well as no-action projections (traffic 

including increases that would occur 

without the Proposed Transaction). 

CSXT presented two scenarios for its 

traffic projections. The first scenario 

assumes that the Proposed Transaction 

would occur without the CPKC 

Transaction. CSXT expects that this 

scenario would not produce significant 

changes to the existing traffic because 

the same number of trains currently 

operated by MNBR and CSXT over the 

Eastern Line would be operated by 

CSXT post-transaction. In the second 

scenario, CSXT assumes that both the 

Proposed Transaction and the CPKC 

Transaction would occur at the same 

time. CSXT states that the second 

scenario would result in an increase in 

gross-ton miles of 100%. (Appl., Ex. 4, 

Env’t Info. 7.) According to CSXT, the 

Proposed Transaction would result in 

improved efficiency and potential traffic 

diversions from truck to more 

environmentally favorable rail. (Appl., 

Ex. 4, Env’t Info. 9.) 

The NEPA Process. OEA has reviewed 

the data provided by CSXT, including 

its traffic projections through 2029. 

Based on the current record, neither the 

8-trains-per-day nor 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 under CSXT’s second 

scenario, 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 will 

prepare one EA to encompass both the 

Eastern Line (including the BurkvilleMontgomery segment) and the Western 

Line because these transactions involve 

contiguous sections of the same rail 

line; indeed, both CPKC and CSXT 

(under scenario two) 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. 

6–7; see also CPKC Appl., Ex. 4, Env’t 

Info. 38, Oct. 6, 2023, Canadian Pac. 

Kan. City Ltd., FD 36732 et al.) In 

addition, the environmental impacts 

from both transactions are expected to 

be very similar and both applications 

were filed at the same time, allowing the 

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 

changes. 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.17

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. CSXT 

states that rail operations would 

continue on the Eastern Line and that 

there are no plans to dispose of or alter 

properties that are fifty years old or 

older. (Appl., Ex. 4, Env’t Info. 1.) 

Therefore, based on the current record, 

no historic review is required. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
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