Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Notices 23757

1CNR, GTC, and Merger Sub are referred to

collectively as CN.

2WCTC, WCL, FVW, SSMB, and WCLL are

referred to collectively as WC. CN and WC are

referred to collectively as applicants.

3Merger Sub, an indirect wholly owned

subsidiary of CNR, will be merged into WCTC,

whereupon the separate existence of Merger Sub

will cease.

primarily in charter and special

operations.

Laidlaw indirectly controls Victoria

through Laidlaw Transit Ltd. (Laidlaw

Ltd.), which is authorized to transport

passengers, in charter and special

operations, pursuant to authority in

MC–102189. Victoria conducts charter

and special passenger carrier operations

within Canada, and it has filed an

application with the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Administration, for authority to

conduct similar operations within the

United States. Laidlaw seeks authority

from the Board to continue in indirect

control of Victoria, through Laidlaw

Ltd., upon Victoria’s becoming a

regulated U.S. carrier.

Laidlaw asserts that Victoria will be

able to offer its passengers tour and

sightseeing services over an expanded

area. The affiliation of Victoria with the

Laidlaw family of regulated carriers will

ensure that Victoria will have an

adequate number of buses to meet the

travel needs of its passengers.

Conversely, whenever its buses are

underutilized, Victoria will be able to

make them available to its Laidlaw

affiliates. Laidlaw maintains that such

arrangements will improve the

performance of Victoria, which will

inure to the benefit of the public.

Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), we must

approve and authorize a transaction we

find consistent with the public interest,

taking into consideration at least: (1)

The effect of the transaction on the

adequacy of transportation to the public;

(2) the total fixed charges that result;

and (3) the interest of affected carrier

employees.

Applicant has submitted the

information required by 49 CFR 1182.2,

including information to demonstrate

that the proposed transaction is

consistent with the public interest

under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b). Specifically,

applicant has stated that the proposed

transaction will have a positive effect on

the adequacy of transportation to the

public and will result in no increase in

fixed charges and no changes in

employment. See 49 CFR 1182.2(a)(7).

Additional information, including a

copy of the application, may be

obtained from applicant’s

representative.

On the basis of the application, we

find that the proposed transaction is

consistent with the public interest and

should be authorized. If any opposing

comments are timely filed, this finding

will be deemed vacated and, unless a

final decision can be made on the record

as developed, a procedural schedule

will be adopted to reconsider the

application. See 49 CFR 1182.6(c). If no

opposing comments are filed by the

expiration of the comment period, this

decision will take effect automatically

and will be the final Board action.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

www.stb.dot.gov.

This decision will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources.

It is ordered:

1. The proposed continuance in

control is approved and authorized,

subject to the filing of opposing

comments.

2. If timely opposing comments are

filed, the findings made in this decision

will be deemed vacated.

3. This decision will be effective on

June 25, 2001, unless timely opposing

comments are filed.

4. A copy of this notice will be served

on: (1) The U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Administration—MC–RI, 400

Virginia Avenue, SW., Suite 600,

Washington, DC 20024; (2) the U.S.

Department of Justice, Antitrust

Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530;

and (3) the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Office of the General

Counsel, 400 7th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590.

Decided: May 2, 2001.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice

Chairman Clyburn, and Commissioner

Burkes.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–11526 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34000]

Canadian National Railway Company,

Grand Trunk Corporation, and WC

Merger Sub, Inc.—Control—Wisconsin

Central Transportation Corporation,

Wisconsin Central Ltd., Fox Valley &

Western Ltd., Sault Ste. Marie Bridge

Company, and Wisconsin Chicago

Link Ltd.

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board,

DOT.

ACTION: Decision No. 2 in STB Finance

Docket No. 34000; Notice of Acceptance

of Application; Issuance of Procedural

Schedule.

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation

Board (Board) is accepting for

consideration the application filed April

9, 2001, by Canadian National Railway

Company (CNR), Grand Trunk

Corporation (GTC), and WC Merger Sub,

Inc. (Merger Sub),1 and by Wisconsin

Central Transportation Corporation

(WCTC), Wisconsin Central Ltd. (WCL),

Fox Valley & Western Ltd. (FVW), Sault

Ste. Marie Bridge Company (SSMB), and

Wisconsin Chicago Link Ltd. (WCLL).2

The application seeks Board approval

and authorization under 49 U.S.C.

11321–26 for the acquisition of control

by CNR and GTC of WCTC and through

it of WCTC’s rail carrier subsidiaries

WCL, FVW, SSMB, and WCLL.3 As a

result of the transaction, WCTC and its

rail carrier subsidiaries would become

indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of

CN. The Board further finds that this is

a ‘‘minor transaction’’ under 49 CFR

1180.2(c).

The Board has considered applicants’’

petition for scheduling order, filed April

9, 2001. With a modification to provide

additional time for public comments,

the Board is adopting the procedural

schedule applicants have proposed

(which, as modified, would result in a

decision being issued some 28 days

prior to the statutory deadline, assuming

as explained later on that no oral

argument is held and no unanticipated

environmental review is required). The

Board’s schedule provides for the

issuance of a final decision no later than

45 days after the close of the record.

DATES: The effective date of this

decision is May 9, 2001. Applicants

must submit their Safety Integration

Plan (SIP) to the Board by May 9, 2001.

Applicants also must distribute their

Environmental Appendix and SIP to the

public and initiate publication of

newspaper notices by May 14, 2001.

Any person who wishes to participate in

this proceeding as a party of record

must file, no later than May 25, 2001,

a notice of intent to participate. All

comments on applicants Environmental

Appendix and SIP must be filed no later

than June 13, 2001. All comments,

protests, requests for conditions, and

any other evidence and argument in

opposition to the application, including

filings by the U.S. Department of Justice

(DOJ) and U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT) must be filed by

June 25, 2001. Response to comments,

protests, requested conditions, and

other opposition, response to comments

23758 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Notices

4 In order for a document to be considered a

formal filing, the Board must receive an original

and 25 copies of the document, which must show

that it has been properly served. Documents

transmitted by facsimile (FAX) will not be

considered formal filings and are not encouraged

because they will result in unnecessarily

burdensome, duplicative processing. In addition,

each formal filing must be accompanied by an

electronic submission per our requirements as

discussed in detail in this decision. As an exception

to these requirements, parties filing comments to

environmental documents should follow

procedures as provided with such documents.

5Parties must clearly label each formal filing with

an identification acronym and number. See 49 CFR

1180.4(a)(2). Each disk or CD should be clearly

labeled with the identification acronym and

number of the corresponding paper document, and

labeled as containing confidential or redacted

materials. These electronic filing requirements do

not apply to filings addressing environmental

documents.

6Absent a waiver for good cause, we require

submissions to be in WordPerfect format so that

they can be quickly and accurately disseminated

electronically to Board staff.

7We will not specify a particular naming and

linking convention. It is incumbent upon the

submitter to use generic naming and linking

conventions that will permit the spreadsheets to

operate on desktop computers or from a network

server. Questions concerning naming and linking

matters and/or compatibility with our computers

can be addressed to William Washburn, Office of

Economics, Environmental Analysis, and

Administration, at (202) 565–1550.

8ODBC is a Windows technology that allows a

data base software package, such as Microsoft

Access, to import data from a data base created

using a different software package. All data bases

must be supported with adequate documentation on

data attributes, SQL queries, programmed reports,

etc.

9On April 27, 2001, applicants filed a list of

errata (CN/WC–4) to their CN/WC–2 application.

10 In proceedings not involving the merger or

control of at least two Class I railroads, a transaction

is minor if a determination can be made either (1)

that the transaction clearly will not have any

anticompetitive effects, or (2) that 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. 49 CFR

1180.2(b).

11A 2-to-1 shipper would be a shipper served by

both CN and WC, but by no other railroad, and a

3-to-2 shipper would be a shipper served by CN,

WC, and a third railroad. As a result of a merger

between applicants into one railroad entity, a 2-to1 shipper would have only one serving railroad and

a 3-to-2 shipper would have two serving railroads.

While applicants state there are no such shippers

on the CN/WC system, applicants note that Oba,

Ontario, is technically a 2-to-1 location, but that

there are no industries served by either of the two

railroads at that point and therefore no adverse

effect on competition for rail service there.

12We also have received correspondence asking

us to find that the proposed transaction is

significant, and not minor.

of DOJ and DOT, and rebuttal in support

of the application must be filed by July

25, 2001. For further information

respecting dates, see Appendix A

(Procedural Schedule).

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 25

copies of all pleadings referring to STB

Finance Docket No. 34000 to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001.4 In addition, one copy of all

documents in this proceeding must be

sent to: (1) Secretary of the United

States Department of Transportation,

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20590; (2) Attorney General of the

United States, c/o Assistant Attorney

General, Antitrust Division, Room 3645,

Department of Justice, Washington, DC

20530; (3) Paul A. Cunningham, Esq.,

Harkins Cunningham, 801 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Suite 600, Washington,

DC 20004–2664; and (4) William C.

Sippel, Esq., Fletcher & Sippel LLC,

Two Prudential Plaza, 180 North

Stetson Avenue, Chicago, IL 60601–

6721.

In addition to submitting an original

and 25 copies of all paper documents

filed with the Board, parties also must

submit, on 3.5-inch IBM-compatible

floppy diskettes (disks) or on compact

discs (CDs),5 copies of all textual

materials, electronic workpapers, data

bases and spreadsheets used to develop

quantitative evidence. Textual materials

must be in WordPerfect 9.0 or

compatible with this version of

WordPerfect.6 Electronic spreadsheets

must be in Lotus 1–2–3 Release 9 or

Microsoft Excel 97 or compatible with

these versions of the software. In the

past, the Board has encountered

problems with the ‘‘links’’ in

spreadsheets functioning properly when

the spreadsheets are installed on

desktop computers or network servers.

To avoid such problems, naming and

linking conventions should be used that

will permit the spreadsheets to operate

on the Board’s computers.7 Electronic

data bases should be compatible with

the Microsoft Open Database

Connectivity (ODBC) standard.8 The

Board currently uses Microsoft Access

97, and data bases submitted should be

either in this format or another ODBC

compatible format. Otherwise,

submitters should explain why it is not

possible to submit the data base in this

format and seek a determination as to

whether it is feasible for us to accept the

data base in another format. A copy of

each disk or CD submitted to the Board

should be provided to any other party

upon request. Further details are

discussed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia

M. Farr, (202) 565–1613. [TDD for the

hearing impaired: 1–800–877–8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicants are seeking approval of a

proposed transaction set forth in their

application (CN/WC–2) filed on April 9,

2001.9 The proposed transaction

involves the acquisition of control by

CNR and GTC of WCTC and through it

of WCTC’s rail carrier subsidiaries WCL,

FVW, SSMB, and WCLL. As a result of

the transaction, WCTC and its rail

carrier subsidiaries would become

indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of

CN.

Applicants state that, because the

proposed transaction does not involve

the merger or control of two or more

Class I railroads, their application is

subject to 49 U.S.C. 11324(d).

Applicants also assert that this is a

‘‘minor transaction’’ as defined in 49

CFR part 1180.10

Applicants argue that the proposed

transaction would have no

anticompetitive effects, noting that it

would result in the end-to-end

connection of two railroad systems that

do not overlap. Applicants also state

that there would be no 2-to-1 or 3-to-2

shippers on the CN/WC system,11 no

reduction in geographic or product

competition and no increase in market

power. According to applicants, the

transaction will enhance competition

and provide significant benefits to the

shipping public.

On April 9, 2001, applicants also filed

a petition for a scheduling order, as

discussed below, that would provide for

a more expedited processing of the

application than the maximum time

allotted for consideration of minor

transaction applications. On May 1,

2001, Great Lakes Transportation, LLC

(Great Lakes), late-filed a reply in

opposition to the applicants’ expedited

scheduling petition, requesting also that

the Board find that the proposed

transaction is significant and dismiss

the application as incomplete or require

supplemental information.12 Great

Lakes also sought leave to file its reply

one day late. Given our statutory

deadline for publishing notice of

acceptance of the application in the

Federal Register, it is difficult to

understand why Great Lakes waited so

long to make this filing in connection

with the much-publicized transaction.

Nevertheless, the filing will be accepted.

Great Lakes indirectly controls: (1)

USS Great Lakes Fleet, Inc. (USS Fleet),

a water carrier that operates on the Great

Lakes; (2) The Duluth, Missabe & Iron

Range Railway Company (DM&IR), a

Class II railroad; (3) The Bessemer &

Lake Erie Railroad Company (B&LE),

also a Class II railroad; and (4) The

Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Company

(P&C Dock), a dock company that is also

a Class III rail carrier. Great Lakes,

entirely owned by the Blackstone Group

and the management team at Great

Lakes, is primarily concerned about the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Notices 23759

13CN indirectly controls two Class I railroads—

Grand Trunk Western Railroad Incorporated and

Illinois Central Railroad Company—and several

non-Class I railroads operating in the United States.

14WC consists of three Class II railroads (WCL,

FVW, and SSMB), one Class III railroad (WCLL),

and a Canadian carrier (Algoma Central Railway

Inc. (ACRI)). WCTC is a noncarrier holding

company.

15Applicants stated that all monetary amounts

listed in the application are stated in U.S. dollars,

unless otherwise noted.

16See CN/WC–2, Vol. 1, at 410–13.

effects of the CN/WC transaction on the

transportation of taconite pellets from

Northeastern Minnesota to steel plants

in the Midwest. According to Great

Lakes, DM&IR moves taconite from

taconite plants in Minnesota to dock

facilities at Duluth and Two Harbors,

MN, where it is loaded onto USS Fleet

boats for movement on the Great Lakes.

Great Lakes indicates that some of the

taconite is then unloaded at P&C Dock

and loaded onto B&LE trains for

movement to U.S. Steel’s Edgar

Thomson steel mill in Pittsburgh, PA.

Great Lakes maintains that the CN/WC’s

possible diversion of this taconite traffic

to all-rail movements threatens to

undermine the economics of water

transportation service on the lakes and

to eliminate essential rail and water

services now provided by Great Lakes’

affiliated carriers, as well as

employment on those carriers. Great

Lakes also asserts that all-rail

movements would be less efficient and

less safe than transportation that

includes water movements across the

Great Lakes. Because of the expressed

concerns about the possible effects of

the transaction on its companies, and

potentially on users of their services,

Great Lakes asserts that the applicants

have not demonstrated that the

proposed transaction is minor, and thus

that the Board should find it to be

significant and the application

incomplete. Great Lakes also argues that

we should require applicants to submit

more detailed environmental

information.

The applicants filed a reply to Great

Lakes’ filing on May 2, 2001. The

applicants oppose Great Lakes’ request

for a finding that the transaction should

be deemed ‘‘significant’’ and its request

that the application be dismissed.

On April 27, 2001, The National

Industrial Transportation League (NITL)

filed a statement in support of approval

of the application and in support of

finding that it involves a minor

transaction. NITL states that it has

entered into an agreement with CN, by

which CN has agreed to provide certain

protections for rail shippers.

The Applicants

CN is a major Canadian railroad 13

that operates a rail network consisting of

3,912 route miles in 14 states in the

United States, and 11,620 route miles in

eight Canadian provinces. CN has

principal routes (1) to every major

metropolitan area in Canada; (2) to the

major U.S. cities of Buffalo, NY; Detroit,

MI; Duluth, MN/Superior, WI; and

Chicago, IL; (3) north-south between

Chicago and the Gulf of Mexico,

reaching every major metropolitan area

on the Mississippi River, including

Chicago, IL, East St. Louis, IL/St. Louis,

MO, Memphis, TN, and New Orleans,

LA; and (4) east-west between Chicago

and Nebraska and Iowa, extending from

Sioux City, IA, and Omaha, NE/Council

Bluffs, IA, in the West to Chicago in the

East. The eastern terminus of CN’s

network is Halifax, Nova Scotia; the

western termini are Vancouver and

Prince Rupert, British Columbia; and

the southern terminus is New Orleans.

CN’s traffic, between Duluth/Superior

and Chicago, is carried under haulage

agreements over the lines of WC.

WC14 operates over 2,464 route miles

in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northeastern

Illinois, and the Upper Peninsula of

Michigan, and over 296 route miles in

the Province of Ontario. WC’s main

route extends from outside Chicago

north through the Fox River Valley

region of Wisconsin through Fond du

Lac to Neenah and then northwestward

through Stevens Point to Superior, WI.

Another main route diverges from this

line and extends to Withrow, MN, via

trackage rights over CP to Minneapolis/

St. Paul, MN. Other WC lines extend to

Green Bay, Milwaukee, Wausau,

Wisconsin Rapids, Ashland, and East

Winona, WI; to Sault Ste. Marie, MI; and

between the iron ore ranges around

Ishpeming, MI, and the lake docks at

Escanaba, MI. WC, through its ACRI

subsidiary, also operates 296 miles of

rail line in Canada between Sault Ste.

Marie and Hearst, ON. WC’s principal

yard terminals and shop facilities are

located at Fond du Lac and Stevens

Point, WI, and Sault Ste. Marie, ON.

Major interchange locations on WC’s

routes are Chicago, Superior,

Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Sault Ste.

Marie, ON.

The principal routes of the combined

CN/WC rail system would be identical

to those of the individual railroads, with

the addition of through routes where

interchange or haulage is now required.

Applicants state that no track

redundancies would be created by the

transaction, and no abandonments

would result from the combination of

the two systems.

CN/WC Agreement

According to the applicants, on

January 29, 2001, CNR, Merger Sub, and

WCTC entered into an Agreement and

Plan of Merger (Agreement). Subject to

the Board’s authorization and other

conditions, Merger Sub (a Delaware

corporation and an indirect wholly

owned subsidiary of CN) will be merged

into WCTC in accordance with

Delaware law, whereupon the separate

existence of Merger Sub will cease, and

WCTC will be an indirect wholly owned

subsidiary of CNR. The Agreement

provides that, upon the merger of

Merger Sub into WCTC, each share of

WCTC that was outstanding

immediately before the merger will be

converted into the right to receive

$17.15 in cash.15 On April 4, 2001,

approximately 79% of WCTC’s

outstanding shares were voted on the

proposal, and 99% of those shares voted

were in favor of the Agreement.

Public Interest

Applicants assert that the transaction

will further the public interest by

improving the quality of rail

transportation service to the public with

an extended unified network, offering

more efficient single-line routings

linking markets in the United States and

Canada, improving or eliminating

interchanges, and improving equipment

utilization, which will reduce operating

costs and reduce terminal dwell time

and overall cycle times for both cars and

locomotives. Applicants claim that

quantified public benefits arising from

efficiencies of the transaction would be

approximately $52 million per year.

Labor Impact

Applicants have submitted one Labor

Impact Statement which shows the

projected effects of the CN/WC merger

on all categories of employment,

including both agreement and

nonagreement personnel of the

combined CN/WC system. The Labor

Impact Statement is organized by

location and, for each location, reflects

job classification(s) that will be created,

eliminated, or transferred. Also

indicated are the number of positions

affected at each location by

classification and the year in which

positions will be moved to another

location, abolished, or added. If a

position is to be relocated, the Labor

Impact Statement identifies the new

location.

As explained in the Operating Plan,16

the transaction will have a relatively

small impact on CN/WC’s employment

levels. The applicants foresee that

23760 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Notices

17Applicants expect that improved productivity

of the locomotive and car fleets will allow CN/WC

to eliminate most locomotive repair work at Stevens

Point, relying instead on Fond du Lac, and to

reduce the need for car repair work at Stevens Point

and Fond du Lac. Applicants state that they do not

currently plan any major changes in the day-to-day

maintenance of way and signal maintenance

operations as a result of the transaction. CN/WC–

2, Vol. 1, at 403–04.

throughout the implementation period

the major mechanical shops in Stevens

Point and Fond du Lac will remain in

place, as will the Stevens Point

customer service, train dispatching,

crew management and clearance bureau

operations.17 As new systems are

implemented, applicants will focus

significantly on training to ensure that

all present employees acquire the

necessary skills to continue operating

safely and efficiently in their new

environments.

Applicants anticipate that the merger

will likely affect employment levels in

three primary areas. First, duplicative

administrative activities will be

streamlined, which primarily will affect

executive and senior management

personnel in WC’s Rosemont corporate

headquarters. Second, the transaction

will give rise to significant

improvements in equipment utilization

and maintenance activities, which will

reduce the need for mechanical shop

employees. Third, the greater

maintenance-of-way resources of the

larger system can support meaningful

maintenance-of-way efficiencies,

thereby reducing that work force, which

mostly will affect temporary and

seasonal employees across the WC

service territory. Applicants believe that

some of these expected employment

reductions will be accomplished

through normal attrition.

Applicants acknowledge that, if we

approve the transaction proposed in the

application, the transaction would be

subject to the employee protective

conditions and other procedures

adopted in New York Dock—Control—

Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 360

I.C.C. 60, aff’d sub nom. New York Dock

Ry. v. United States, 609 F.2d 83 (2d

Cir. 1979).

Acceptance of Application

Under 49 CFR part 1180, the Board

must determine whether a proposed

transaction is major, significant, or

minor. Great Lakes opposes the

designation of the transaction as minor,

based on the alleged impact on taconite

traffic that it handles in combined railwater service. Great Lakes’ own

submission appears to show that this

taconite traffic can already move in allrail service, whether or not the

application is approved. Great Lakes’

filing does not make enough of a

showing that the proposed transaction,

as described, has regional or national

transportation significance as referenced

in 49 U.S.C. 11325 or that there would

be anticompetitive effects that would

outweigh the transaction’s anticipated

contribution to the public interest in

meeting significant transportation needs

pursuant to 49 CFR 1180.2(b)(2). But

Great Lakes’ concerns (including

environmental concerns) can be fully

addressed in the submissions of all

interested parties and considered by the

Board within the schedule we are

establishing for this proceeding.

Accordingly, we will treat the proposal

as a minor transaction under 49 CFR

1180.2(c) subject to the procedural

provisions of 49 U.S.C. 11325(a)(3) and

11325(d). Because the application

complies with the applicable

regulations governing minor

transactions, we accept the application

for consideration.

Public Inspection

The application, including various

accompanying exhibits, are available for

inspection in the Docket File Reading

Room (Room 755) at the offices of the

Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K

Street, NW., in Washington, DC. In

addition, they may be obtained from

applicants’ representatives named

above.

Procedural Schedule

In their petition for a scheduling

order, applicants request that we issue

a final decision in this proceeding

within 180 days from the filing of the

application. Applicants propose that all

comments, protests, and requests for

conditions, and any other evidence or

argument in opposition to the

application by all parties be due June 8,

2001 (30 days after publication of the

Federal Register notice accepting the

application), and that applicants’

rebuttal or other responses to those

filings be due July 9, 2001 (30 days

later). According to applicants, this

schedule leaves ample time for the

Board to schedule an oral argument if

warranted and to render a decision

within the statutory deadline. As noted

above, Great Lakes opposes the

applicants’ proposed schedule.

We will adopt a procedural schedule

that provides some additional time to

that proposed by applicants for

comments on their application, but still

provides for less total time than that

provided by the deadlines set forth at 49

U.S.C. 11325(d), to ensure proper

review of the transaction, including

consideration of the position of Great

Lakes. The statute allows for 6 months

for the processing of minor

consolidation proceedings. Under 49

U.S.C. 11325(d)(2), the Board must

conclude the evidentiary stage of the

proceeding by the 105th day after

publication of the Federal Register

notice accepting the application, and

must issue the final decision by the 45th

day after the conclusion of the

evidentiary stage.

Accordingly, all comments, protests,

and requests for conditions, and any

other evidence or argument in

opposition to the application by all

parties will be due 45 days after

publication of the Federal Register

notice accepting the application, which

will be on June 25, 2001. As suggested

by applicants, applicants’ rebuttal and

other responses to those filings will be

due 30 days later, on July 25, 2001. The

final written decision addressing the

application will be issued within 45

days thereafter. If we determine that an

Environmental Assessment or

Environmental Impact Statement is

required, we will adjust the procedural

schedule as necessary. Also, if oral

argument is held, then the final decision

will be issued within 45 days after the

argument. Other relevant due dates are

discussed in detail under our discussion

of filing due dates.

Notice of Intent to Participate

Any person who wishes to participate

in this proceeding as a party of record

(POR) must file with the Secretary of the

Board, no later than May 25, 2001, an

original and 25 copies of a notice of

intent to participate, accompanied by a

certificate of service indicating that the

notice has been properly served on the

Secretary of the United States

Department of Transportation, Attorney

General of the United States, and on

applicants’ representatives. In addition,

as previously noted, parties must submit

one electronic copy of each document

filed with the Board. Further details

respecting such electronic submissions

are provided below.

We will serve, as soon as practicable,

a notice containing the official service

list (the service list notice). Each party

of record will be required to serve upon

all other parties of record, within 10

days of the service date of the service

list notice, 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 also will

be required to file with the Secretary of

the Board, within 10 days of the service

date of the service list notice, an original

plus 10 copies of a certificate of service,

along with an electronic copy,

indicating that the service required by

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Notices 23761

18An interested person does not need to be on the

service list to obtain a copy of the application or

any other filing made in this proceeding. Our

Railroad Consolidation Procedures provide: ‘‘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.’’ See 49 CFR

1180.4(a)(3), as recently amended in Railroad

Consolidation Procedures-Modification of Fee

Policy, STB Ex Parte No. 556, 62 FR 9714, 9717

(Mar. 4, 1997) (interim rules), 62 FR 28375 (May 23,

1997) (final rules). The application and other filings

in this proceeding also will be available on the

Board’s website at ‘‘www.stb.dot.gov’’ under

‘‘Filings.’’ Furthermore, Da ̄-to-Da ̄ Office Solutions

will provide, for a charge, copies of the application

or any other filing made in this proceeding, except

to the extent any such filing is subject to the

protective order entered heretofore in this

proceeding.

the preceding sentence has been

accomplished. Every filing made by a

party of record after the service date of

the service list notice must have its own

certificate of service indicating that all

PORs on the service list have been

served with a copy of the filing.

Members of the United States Congress

(MOCs) and Governors (GOVs) are not

parties of record (PORs), and therefore,

need not be served with copies of

filings, unless any such Member or

Governor has requested to be, and is

designated as, a POR.

We will serve copies of our decisions,

orders, and notices only on those

persons who are designated on the

official service list as either POR, MOC,

or GOV. All other interested persons are

encouraged to make advance

arrangements with the Board’s copy

contractor, Da ̄-to-Da ̄ Office Solutions, to

receive copies of Board decisions,

orders, and notices served in this

proceeding. Da ̄-to-Da ̄ Office Solutions

will handle the collection of charges

and the mailing and/or faxing of

decisions, orders, and notices to persons

who request this service. The telephone

number for Da ̄-to-Da ̄ Office Solutions is:

(202) 756–1649.18

Comments, Protests, Requests for

Conditions, and Other Opposition

Evidence and Argument, Including

Filings by DOJ and DOT

Any interested persons, including the

U.S. Attorney General and the U.S.

Secretary of Transportation, may file

written comments, protests, requests for

conditions, and any other opposition

evidence and argument no later than

June 25, 2001. This deadline applies to

comments, etc., addressing the

application.

Parties addressing the application,

filing comments, protests, requests for

conditions, and any other opposition

evidence and argument (including

filings by DOJ and DOT) must submit an

original and 25 copies of such

documents, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 34000 (lead docket). All

submissions must be filed with the

Surface Transportation Board, Office of

the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, as previously noted,

parties must submit one electronic copy

of each document filed with the Board.

Further details respecting such

electronic submissions are provided

below.

Written comments, etc., must be

concurrently served by first class mail

on the U.S. Attorney General and the

U.S. Secretary of Transportation,

applicants’ representatives, and all other

parties of record.

Consistent with 49 CFR

1180.4(d)(1)(iii), written comments, etc.,

must include:

(A) The docket number and title of the

proceeding;

(B) The name, address, and telephone

number of the commenting party and its

representative upon whom service shall

be made;

(C) The commenting party’s position,

i.e., whether it supports or opposes the

proposed transaction;

(D) A statement whether the

commenting party intends to participate

formally in the proceeding, or merely to

comment on the proposal;

(E) If desired, a request for an oral

hearing with reasons supporting this

request; the request must indicate the

disputed material facts that can be

resolved only at a hearing; and

(F) a list of all information sought to

be discovered from applicant carriers.

Because we have determined that this

proposal is a minor transaction, no

responsive applications will be

permitted. See 49 CFR 1180.4(d)(4)(i).

Protesting parties are advised that, if

they seek either the denial of the

application or the imposition of

conditions upon any approval thereof,

on the theory that approval without

imposition of conditions will harm

either their ability to provide essential

services and/or competition, they must

present substantial evidence in support

of their positions. See Lamoille Valley

R.R. Co. v. ICC, 711 F.2d 295 (D.C. Cir

1983).

Response to Comments, Protests,

Requested Conditions, and Other

Opposition, Including DOJ and DOT;

Rebuttal in Support of Application

Parties submitting responses to

comments, protests, requested

conditions, and other opposition,

including DOJ and DOT, and rebuttal in

support of the application must be filed

with the Board by July 25, 2001.

Other Dates

The procedural schedule adopted in

this decision further provides: (1) That

applicants must file a SIP on May 9,

2001, as they have proposed; (2) that

applicants must distribute copies of

their Environmental Appendix and SIP

to the public and initiate publication of

newspaper notices by May 14, 2001

(within 5 days of service of this

decision); (3) that all comments on

applicants’ Environmental Appendix

and SIP are due on June 13, 2001; and

(4) that the final written decision,

addressing the application will be

served on September 7, 2001, if we

determine that no Environmental

Assessment or Environmental Impact

Statement is required and that there will

be no oral argument. If oral argument is

held, the decision will be served 45

days thereafter.

Discovery

Discovery may begin immediately. We

encourage the parties to resolve all

discovery matters expeditiously and

amicably.

Environmental Matters

Applicants assert in their application

that the proposed transaction will have

insignificant environmental effects and

therefore does not require a formal

environmental review under the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA). Applicants state that the

transaction will cause only modest

changes in carrier operations, none of

which would exceed the thresholds

triggering environmental review

established in our environmental rules

at 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(4) or (5). Applicants

further state that the transaction is

exempt under 49 CFR 1105.6(c)(2)(i)

from environmental reporting

requirements and exempt under 49 CFR

1105.8(b)(1) and (3) from historic

preservation reporting requirements.

To assist the Board’s Section of

Environmental Analysis (SEA) in

determining whether there is a need for

environmental review of this

transaction, SEA directed applicants to

prepare an Environmental Appendix

providing additional details and

explanation, including maps,

supporting applicants’ conclusion that

this transaction does not warrant

environmental documentation. SEA has

reviewed the Environmental Appendix.

Applicants also have been working

with the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) to develop a

Safety Integration Plan (SIP), under FRA

guidelines, specifically addressing the

process of safely combining applicants’

two separate systems, if the proposed

23762 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Notices

19As noted previously, these requirements do not

apply to filings addressing environmental

documents. Parties submitting comments to

applicants’ Environmental Appendix and SIP

should follow procedures as provided with such

documents.

20The electronic submission requirements set

forth in this decision supersede, for the purposes

of this proceeding, the otherwise applicable

electronic submission requirements set forth in our

regulations. See 49 CFR 1104.3(a), as amended in

Expedited Procedures for Processing Rail Rate

Reasonableness, Exemption and Revocation

Proceedings, STB Ex Parte No. 527, 61 FR 52710,

52711 (Oct. 8, 1996), 61 FR 58490, 58491 (Nov. 15,

1996).

transaction is approved. Applicants

indicate that they will submit the SIP to

SEA by May 9, 2001.

To facilitate public review and

comment on all aspects of the

Environmental Appendix and the SIP,

we are directing applicants, within 5

days of the service date of this decision

(i.e., May 14, 2001), to mail copies of

these materials to appropriate federal,

state, and local agencies and other

interested parties and to announce that

we are providing a 30-day period for

interested parties to submit comments

by June 13, 2001, to SEA. In addition,

we direct applicants to publish a notice

in newspapers of general circulation in

each county in the United States

through which affected rail line

segments pass alerting the public that

the Environmental Appendix and SIP

are available, and how to obtain copies

and submit comments. We will further

ensure broad access to the

Environmental Appendix and SIP by

making them available on the Board’s

web site at www.stb.dot.gov. Applicants

shall certify that they have met these

mailing and newspaper notice

requirements.

Based on its consideration of all

timely comments and its own

independent review of all available

environmental information, including

the SIP, SEA will recommend to the

Board whether there is a need for formal

environmental review in this case. We

will then determine whether to issue a

finding of no significant environmental

impact, or, alternatively, whether an

Environmental Assessment (EA) or

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

should be prepared. If it appears that an

EA or EIS is required to meet the

Board’s NEPA obligations, the

procedural schedule set forth here will

be adjusted accordingly. Even if no EA

or EIS is warranted, consistent with our

recent practice, we intend to impose a

condition on any decision approving the

transaction requiring applicants to

comply with the SIP.

Electronic Submissions 19

As already mentioned, in addition to

submitting an original and 25 paper

copies of each document filed with the

Board, parties must submit, on disks or

CDs, copies of all textual materials,

electronic work papers, data bases and

spreadsheets used to develop

quantitative evidence. Data must be

submitted on 3.5 inch IBM-compatible

floppy disks or CDs. Textual materials

must be in, or compatible with,

WordPerfect 9.0. Electronic

spreadsheets must be in, or compatible

with, Lotus 1–2–3 Release 9, or

Microsoft Excel 97. Each disk or CD

should be clearly labeled with the

identification acronym and number of

the corresponding paper document, see

49 CFR 1180.4(a)(2), and a copy of such

disk or CD should be provided to any

other party upon request. Also, each

disk or CD should be clearly labeled as

containing confidential or redacted

materials. The data contained on the

disks and CDs submitted to the Board

will be subject to the protective order

granted in Decision No. 1, served

February 5, 2001, and will be for the

exclusive use of Board employees

reviewing substantive and/or procedural

matters in this proceeding. The

flexibility provided by such computer

data will facilitate timely review by the

Board and its staff.20

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 is accepted for

consideration under 49 U.S.C. 11321–26

as a minor transaction under 49 CFR

1180.2(c).

2. Great Lakes’ filing of May 1, 2001,

is accepted.

3. Great Lakes’ request for dismissal of

the CN/WC application is denied.

4. Parties must comply with the

Procedural Schedule adopted by the

Board in this proceeding as shown in

Appendix A.

5. Parties must comply with the

procedural requirements described in

this decision.

6. This decision is effective on May 9,

2001.

Decided: May 3, 2001.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice

Chairman Clyburn, and Commissioner

Burkes.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

Appendix A: Procedural Schedule

April 9, 2001 Application and Petition for

Scheduling Order filed.

May 9, 2001 Board notice of acceptance

of application published in the Federal

Register.

May 9, 2001 Safety Integration Plan (SIP)

due.

May 14, 2001 Applicants distribute

Environmental Appendix and SIP to public

and initiate publication of newspaper

notices.

May 25, 2001 Notice of intent to

participate due.

June 13, 2001 All comments on

Environmental Appendix and SIP due.

June 25, 2001 All comments, protests,

requests for conditions, and any other

evidence and argument in opposition to the

application due, including filings of the U.S.

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

Department of Transportation (DOT).

July 25, 2001 Response to comments,

protests, requested conditions, and other

opposition due. Response to comments of

DOJ and DOT due. Rebuttal in support of

application due (close of record).

September 7, 2001 Date of service of final

decision (if no Environmental Assessment or

Environmental Impact Statement is required

and there is no oral argument).

[FR Doc. 01–11689 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P