![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Kansas City Southern--Control--The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Gateway Eastern Railway Company, and The Texas Mexican Railway Company
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: June 13, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 35474-35480]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13jn03-127]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 34342]
Kansas City Southern--Control--The Kansas City Southern Railway
Company, Gateway Eastern Railway Company, and The Texas Mexican Railway
Company
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
ACTION: Decision No. 2 in STB Finance Docket No. 34342; Notice of
Acceptance of Railroad Control Application; Issuance of Procedural
Schedule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is accepting for
consideration the KCS-3/TM-3 railroad control application (referred to
as the KCS/TM application) filed May 14, 2003, by Kansas City Southern
(KCS), The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCSR), Gateway Eastern
Railway Company (GWER), The Texas Mexican Railway Company (Tex Mex or
TM), and Mexrail, Inc. (Mexrail).\1\ The KCS/TM application seeks Board
approval and authorization under 49 U.S.C. 11321-26 for KCS, which
already controls KCSR and GWER, to acquire control of Tex Mex. The
Board finds that the transaction proposed in the KCS/TM application is
a ``minor transaction'' under 49 CFR 1180.2(c), although the applicants
are subject to the expanded and enhanced requirements discussed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ KCS, KCSR, GWER, Tex Mex, and Mexrail are referred to
collectively as ``applicants.'' The application does not list
Mexrail as an applicant, but Mexrail clearly is a party to the
transaction. Consistent with our practice, we will treat Mexrail as
an applicant. See, e.g., Union Pacific/Southern Pacific Merger, 1
S.T.B. 233, 241 n.3 (1996); CSX Corp. et al.--Control--Conrail
Inc.et al., 3 S.T.B. 196, 207 n.3 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board has considered applicants' petition to establish a
procedural schedule, also filed May 14, 2003. With a modification to
reflect that the KCS/TM application was filed on May 14, 2003, and with
further modifications principally intended to allow time for a public
hearing and to allow interested parties additional time to file
comments, the Board is adopting applicants' proposed procedural
schedule, as modified. This will allow the Board to issue a decision 45
days after the close of the record and 24 days prior to the statutory
deadline, assuming that no unanticipated environmental review is
required and that no oral argument is held.
DATES: The effective date of this decision is June 13, 2003. Applicants
must submit their Environmental Appendix and Safety Integration Plan
(SIP) to the Board, and must supplement their application in the manner
indicated below, by June 23, 2003. Any person who wishes to participate
in this proceeding as a party of record (POR) must file, no later than
June 27, 2003, a notice of intent to participate. Applicants must
distribute their Environmental Appendix and SIP to parties of record
and other designated entities, and must initiate publication of
newspaper notices, by July 1, 2003. A public hearing will be held in
late July 2003; the precise date and the location will be announced
later. All comments on applicants' Environmental Appendix and SIP must
be filed by July 31, 2003. All comments, protests, requests for
conditions, and any other evidence and argument in opposition to the
KCS/TM application, including filings by the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), must be filed by
August 4, 2003. Responses to comments, protests, requests for
conditions, and other opposition, responses to comments of DOJ and DOT,
and rebuttal in support of the KCS/TM application must be filed by
September 2, 2003. 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. 34342 to: Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.\2\ 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) William A. Mullins, Esq.,
Troutman Sanders LLP, 401 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC
20004-2134; and (4) Richard H. Streeter, Esq., Barnes & Thornburg, 750
Seventeenth Street, NW., Suite 900, Washington, DC 20006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 the Board's requirements
as discussed in detail in this decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 compact discs (CDs), copies
of all textual materials, electronic workpapers, data bases, and
spreadsheets used to develop quantitative evidence. Textual materials
must be in, or compatible with, WordPerfect 10.0. Electronic
spreadsheets must be in, or compatible with, Lotus 1-2-3 Release 9 or
Microsoft Excel 2002. 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) 565-1655.
(Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The KCS/TM common control for which
applicants seek approval in the KCS/TM application involves the
acquisition by KCS of control of Tex Mex.
Kansas City Southern. KCS, a noncarrier holding company, currently
controls two rail carriers: KCSR and GWER.
The Kansas City Southern Railway Company. KCSR, a Class I
railroad,\3\ is a wholly owned direct subsidiary of KCS. KCSR owns and
operates approximately 3,100 miles of main and
[[Page 35475]]
branch lines in 10 midwestern and southern states (Kansas, Missouri,
Illinois, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Alabama). KCSR's principal routes extend from Kansas City, MO, via
Shreveport, LA, to Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX, Lake Charles, LA, and New
Orleans, LA. KCSR also has a route extending from Dallas, TX, via
Shreveport, LA, to Meridian, MS, and a branch line route extending
north out of Alexandria, LA, to Hope, AR. KCSR's major terminals are:
Kansas City and St. Louis, MO; Shreveport, Lake Charles, Baton Rouge,
and New Orleans, LA; Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Dallas, TX; and
Vicksburg, Jackson, Meridian, and Gulfport, MS. KCSR also provides
service, via haulage rights, over 1,200 miles of lines of other
railroads, most prominently over lines of Union Pacific Railroad
Company (UP) between Springfield and Chicago, IL, between Omaha, NE/
Council Bluffs, IA, Lincoln, NE, Topeka and Atchison, KS, and Kansas
City, MO, and between Beaumont and Houston/Galveston, TX, and over
lines of The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF)
between Kansas City, MO, and Council Bluffs, IA. KCSR also owns a non-
controlling 16.6% interest in the Kansas City Terminal Railway Company
and a non-controlling 50% interest in the Kansas City Joint Agency,
both of which are located in Kansas City, MO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Board's regulations divide railroads into three classes
based on annual carrier operating revenues. Class I railroads are
those with annual carrier operating revenues of $250 million or more
(in 1991 dollars); Class II railroads are those with annual carrier
operating revenues of more than $20 million but less than $250
million (in 1991 dollars); and Class III railroads are those with
annual carrier operating revenues of $20 million or less (in 1991
dollars). See 49 CFR Part 1201, General Instruction 1-1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gateway Eastern Railway Company. GWER, a Class III railroad, is a
wholly owned direct subsidiary of KCSR. GWER owns and operates
approximately 17 miles of rail lines between East Alton, IL, and East
St. Louis, IL. GWER also operates via trackage rights over 5 miles of
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis track between WR Tower and
Willows Tower, IL, and over 11.07 miles of The Alton and Southern
Railway Company track between Lenox Tower and Rose Lake, IL. See KCS-3
at 217. GWER is primarily engaged in industrial switching in the Alton
and Wood River, IL areas.
The Texas Mexican Railway Company. Tex Mex, a Class II railroad, is
a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Mexrail. Tex Mex owns and operates
157 miles of rail line between Laredo and Corpus Christi, TX. Pursuant
to a 1996 Board order, see Union Pacific/Southern Pacific Merger, 1
S.T.B. at 421-26, Tex Mex also operates via trackage rights over
approximately 379 miles of UP lines between Robstown and Beaumont, TX,
via Placedo, Victoria, Flatonia, Rosenberg, and Houston, TX. Tex Mex
interchanges with KCSR at Beaumont, TX; with The Houston Belt &
Terminal Railway Company and The Port Terminal Railway Association at
Houston, TX; with BNSF at Corpus Christi, Houston, and Robstown, TX;
with UP at Corpus Christi, Houston, Laredo, Robstown, and Victoria, TX;
and with TFM, S.A. de C.V. (TFM), on the International Rail Bridge that
spans the Rio Grande River between Laredo, TX, and Nuevo Laredo,
Tamaulipas, Mexico.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Over 50% of all rail freight interchanged between the U.S.
and Mexico passes over the International Rail Bridge at Laredo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexrail. Prior to May 9, 2003, Mexrail, a noncarrier, was a wholly
owned direct subsidiary of TFM. Mexrail owns two assets: (1) 100% of
the shares of Tex Mex; and (2) 100% of the U.S. portion of the bridge
structure (but not the track, which is owned by Tex Mex, see KCS-3 at
220) of the International Rail Bridge that runs between Laredo (on the
U.S. side of the border) and Nuevo Laredo (on the Mexican side of the
border).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Applicants advise that Mexrail has been treated as a
noncarrier since its creation, and that they are aware of only one
instance in which there has ever been even so much as a suggestion
that Mexrail is a carrier. The one instance they cite, see KCS-3 at
19 n.12, was a ``passing statement'' by the Board that ``Mexrail is
a carrier.'' See Mexrail, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company and
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, STB Finance Docket No. 32980
(Mexrail) (STB served July 13, 2000), slip op. at 5 n.9 (whereas Tex
Mex owns the track on the U.S. half of the bridge, Mexrail owns the
underlying ``superstructure'' of the bridge). Under these
circumstances, applicants are justified in treating Mexrail as a
noncarrier (and they are therefore justified in not seeking
authority for KCS to control Mexrail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TFM. TFM, a railroad located entirely in Mexico, operates from
Nuevo Laredo south to Monterrey, San Luis Potosi, Querataro, and Mexico
City, and, from the Querataro-Mexico City area, west to Lazero Cardenas
and east to Veracruz. TFM owns no U.S. property and does not operate in
the U.S.\6\ (1) TFM, which (prior to May 9, 2003) held a 100% ownership
interest in Mexrail, is owned by Grupo Transportaci[oacute]n
Ferroviaria Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. (Grupo TFM, which owns an 80%
interest in TFM) and the Mexican Federal Government (which owns a 20%
interest in TFM).\7\ (2) Grupo TFM is owned by NAFTA Rail, S.A. de C.V.
(``NAFTA Rail #1,'' which owns a 36.9% interest in Grupo TFM),
TMM Multimodal (which owns a 38.5% interest in Grupo TFM), and TFM
(which holds a 24.6% interest, with limited voting rights, in Grupo
TFM, its 80% parent). (3) NAFTA Rail #1 is a wholly owned
indirect subsidiary of KCS.\8\ (4) TMM Multimodal is a 96.3%-owned
direct subsidiary of TMM Holdings, S.A. de C.V., which is itself a
wholly owned direct subsidiary of Grupo TMM, S.A. (Grupo TMM, a
noncarrier).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ TFM connects, on the International Rail Bridge that runs
between Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, with two U.S. railroads: Tex Mex
and UP. Traffic is interchanged, at the middle of the Bridge,
between TFM, on the Mexican side, and Tex Mex and UP, on the U.S.
side. See KCS-3 at 221.
\7\ Applicants have advised that Grupo TFM's owners are under an
obligation to acquire the Mexican Government's 20% interest in TFM
in 2003 unless the Mexican Government ``prior to that date sells
shares in a public offering.'' KCS-3 at 12 n.4.
\8\ Two points respecting the indirect interest that KCS holds
in Grupo TFM are addressed in this footnote. (1) Applicants have
indicated that NAFTA Rail #1 is a wholly owned indirect
subsidiary not only of KCS but also of KCSR, which (as has already
been noted) is itself a wholly owned direct subsidiary of KCS. See
KCS-3 at 13. If NAFTA Rail #1 were owned by KCS in a single
corporate chain that ran through KCSR, NAFTA Rail #1 would
indeed be a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of both KCS and KCSR.
Applicants have also indicated, however, that NAFTA Rail #1
is owned by KCS via two corporate chains, only one of which runs
through KCSR. See KCS-3 at 13. The two claims (the claim that NAFTA
Rail #1 is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of KCSR, and
the claim that NAFTA Rail #1 is owned by KCS via two
corporate chains, only one of which runs through KCSR) cannot both
be true. (2) Applicants have indicated that KCS currently owns ``an
approximate 47% stake'' in Grupo TFM. See KCS-3 at 12. See also KCS-
3 at 55 n.1 (applicants indicate that Grupo TFM is ``effectively
owned'' 46.5% by KCS) and KCS-3 at 73 (applicants indicate that KCS
has ``an economic interest'' in Grupo TFM of approximately 46.5%).
It is not clear how this calculation was derived. It may, perhaps,
have been derived by dividing 36.9% (the interest in Grupo TFM held
by KCS through intermediaries) by the sum of 36.9% and 38.5% (the
interests in Grupo TFM not held by Grupo TFM's 80%-owned
subsidiary), which would yield approximately 48.9%.
\9\ Although applicants generally refer to Grupo TMM, S.A., as
``TMM,'' see KCS-3 at 8, this decision refers to Grupo TMM, S.A., as
``Grupo TMM,'' to avoid confusion (by using a consistent naming
practice that reflects the fact that each ``Grupo'' entity sits at
the top of its respective corporate chain, see KCS-3 at 13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Transactions: KCS/TM and KCS/TFM. On April 21, 2003, KCS and
Grupo TMM announced a series of agreements that contemplate two
``separate'' transactions, which are referred to as the KCS/TM
transaction (this transaction contemplates the acquisition, by KCS, of
control of Tex Mex) and the KCS/TFM transaction (this transaction
contemplates the acquisition, by KCS, of control of TFM). Neither of
these two transactions is contingent upon the other. The KCS/TM
transaction has been submitted to the Board for regulatory approval,
and is the subject of this decision. The KCS/TFM transaction has not
been, and will not be, submitted to the Board for regulatory approval.
If these two transactions are consummated, KCS--which, as part of the
KCS/TFM transaction, will change its name to ``NAFTA Rail'' (referred
to
[[Page 35476]]
as NAFTA Rail #2) \10\--will control, directly or through one
or more corporate intermediaries, four railroads (KCSR, GWER, Tex Mex,
and TFM), all of which will be operated as separate subsidiaries under
common control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The new ``NAFTA Rail'' (i.e., the renamed Kansas City
Southern referred to as NAFTA Rail #2) should be
distinguished from the old ``NAFTA Rail'' (``NAFTA Rail, S.A. de
C.V.,'' the wholly owned indirect subsidiary of KCS that is referred
to as NAFTA Rail #1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The KCS/TM Transaction; Purchase Price; Voting Trust. One of the
agreements announced on April 21, 2003 (referred to as the KCS/TM Stock
Purchase Agreement) contemplated the acquisition by KCS, from TFM, of
51% of TFM's 100% interest in Mexrail, in exchange for approximately
$32.7 million in cash. On May 9, 2003, KCS consummated the acquisition
(the purchase price was apparently paid on May 9th) and acquired a 51%
interest in Mexrail.\11\ KCS advises that, to avoid any violation of 49
U.S.C. 11323 et seq., it immediately placed the shares of Mexrail and
Tex Mex (i.e., KCS's 51% interest in Mexrail, and Mexrail's 100%
interest in Tex Mex), see KCS-3 at 19 n.12, into an independent
irrevocable voting trust that was established pursuant to an agreement
(referred to as the KCS/TM Voting Trust Agreement) that, KCS claims, is
consistent with 49 CFR part 1013. KCS advises that, if and when the
Board approves the acquisition by KCS of control of Tex Mex, the voting
trust will be dissolved, KCS will take full ownership of its 51%
interest in Mexrail, and Mexrail will reassume full ownership of its
100% interest in Tex Mex.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Although KCS has already purchased 51% of TFM's 100%
interest in Mexrail, KCS also has a call on the remaining 49% of
TFM's 100% interest in Mexrail. This call apparently allows KCS to
purchase the remaining 49% interest. See KCS-3 at 14.
\12\ The KCS/TM transaction (i.e., the acquisition, by KCS, of a
51% interest in Tex Mex) is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board
under Sec. 11323(a)(5) (``Acquisition of control of a rail carrier
by a person that is not a rail carrier but that controls any number
of rail carriers.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The KCS/TFM Transaction; Purchase Price; Several Contingencies. Two
or more of the agreements announced on April 21, 2003, contemplate the
acquisition by KCS of control of TFM. The KCS/TFM transaction
envisioned by these agreements contemplates that Kansas City Southern
will be renamed ``NAFTA Rail'' (referred to as NAFTA Rail #2);
that NAFTA Rail #2 will acquire TMM Multimodal's 38.5% interest
in Grupo TFM, which, when combined with NAFTA Rail #2's (i.e.,
KCS's) present 36.9% interest, will give NAFTA Rail #2 a
controlling interest in Grupo TFM, and, therefore, a controlling
interest in TFM; \13\ and that TMM Multimodal will receive 18 million
shares of NAFTA Rail #2 representing an approximately 22% (20%
voting, 2% subject to voting restrictions) interest in NAFTA Rail
#2, plus $200 million in cash and a potential incentive payment
of between $100 million and $180 million based on the resolution of
certain contingencies.\14\ The KCS/TFM transaction, including the
change of name from Kansas City Southern to NAFTA Rail, is contingent
upon obtaining adequate financing, the approval of the shareholders of
KCS, the approval of the shareholders of Grupo TMM, the Hart-Scott-
Rodino process at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the approval of
the Mexican Competition Commission, and the approval of the Mexican
Foreign Investment Commission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The KCS/TM application does not appear to state explicitly
that NAFTA Rail #2 will acquire all of TMM Multimodal's
38.5% interest in Grupo TFM. The context, however, suggests that
NAFTA Rail #2 will indeed acquire all of TMM Multimodal's
38.5% interest.
\14\ Applicants indicate that the contingencies mainly involve a
value added tax dispute in Mexico. See KCS-3 at 54.
\15\ Although section 11323(a)(5) (``Acquisition of control of a
rail carrier [TFM]
by a person that is not a rail carrier [KCS]
but
that controls any number of rail carriers [KCSR and GWER, and, after
the termination of the voting trust, Tex Mex]'') might suggest the
applicability of this provision to acquisition of control of TFM by
KCS, this provision is not applicable in this context because the
Board has no jurisdiction over the acquisition of control of a rail
carrier--like TFM--that is located entirely outside the United
States. Similarly, although Sec. 11323(a)(4) (``Acquisition of
control of at least 2 rail carriers [KCSR, GWER, and, after the
termination of the voting trust, Tex Mex]
by a person that is not a
rail carrier [Grupo TMM]'') might conceivably be applicable to the
acquisition of a 20% (or 22%) interest in KCS by Grupo TMM, it has
long been understood that acquisition of control by a noncarrier of
any number of carriers operating as a ``single established system''
is not subject to Sec. 11323(a)(4). Fox Valley & Western Ltd.--
Exempt., Acq. and Oper., 9 I.C.C.2d 209, 217-18 (1992) (citing
cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The KCS/TM Transaction: Public Interest Considerations. Applicants
contend that bringing the KCSR/GWER and Tex Mex systems under common
control represents one more step in KCS's efforts to develop a ``NAFTA
Railroad'' that will connect Canada, the U.S., and Mexico and provide
seamless, efficient, and competitive rail service in all of North
America.\16\ Common control of KCSR/GWER and Tex Mex, applicants argue,
will provide more efficient routing and service options to shippers; it
will make possible better coordination of marketing, improved customer
service, and improved single-line service; it will allow KCSR/GWER and
Tex Mex to reduce expenses and rationalize operations; it will make
possible full integration of KCS's Management Control System (MCS),\17\
improved freight car utilization, improved performance of the
locomotive fleet, reduced time-keeping and payroll-processing costs,
and consolidation of general and administrative functions; it will
provide financial stability to Tex Mex, which (applicants note) has
from time to time in recent years found itself hard pressed to keep
pace with the increasing traffic volumes available; and, finally, it
will help position KCSR to remain a competitive, independent, and
viable carrier. Applicants argue that the combined KCSR/GWER-Tex Mex
system will be stronger, financially and operationally, than either
system could be separately. Applicants assert that they will be in a
better position to provide an effective competitive alternative at
Laredo, and better able to compete with other railroads, motor
carriers, and barges in providing effective and efficient service to
the shipping public.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The North American Free Trade Agreement is referred to as
NAFTA.
\17\ MCS is a computerized shipment and billing management
system.
\18\ Applicants anticipate that, as a result of common control
of KCSR/GWER and Tex Mex, approximately 6,313 carloads of traffic
will be diverted to the combined KCSR/GWER-Tex Mex system annually
(by the end of the third year following the consummation of common
control), generating additional annual revenues of approximately
$14.3 million. Applicants predict that much of the diverted traffic
will be interchanged with eastern carriers CSX Transportation, Inc.
and Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS). See KCS-3 at 221.
Applicants further anticipate that common control will result in net
operating-expense savings of approximately $3.3 million annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants further contend that common control of KCSR/GWER and Tex
Mex will not result in any loss of competitive rail options for any
shipper or any receiver. There are, applicants argue, no shippers or
receivers receiving rail service from KCSR/GWER and Tex Mex for which
common control would reduce the number of independent railroads serving
them from three to two or from two to one. Applicants advise that KCSR/
GWER and Tex Mex share only one common connection (at Beaumont, TX).
The KCS/TM transaction, applicants maintain, involves an end-to-end
connection whereby two carriers that already share common ownership and
operating practices will finally be combined under a unified management
team. Applicants contend that common control of KCSR/GWER and Tex Mex
will not result in a substantial lessening of competition, creation of
a monopoly, or restraint of trade in freight surface transportation in
[[Page 35477]]
any region of the United States. And, applicants add, in view of the
fact that the KCS/TM transaction occurs in a market in which motor
carriers are the dominant mode of transportation, this transaction
cannot have an adverse impact on competition.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Applicants also maintain that KCSR/GWER-Tex Mex common
control will not adversely impact the essential services provided by
any rail carrier. Applicants estimate that common control will
result in losses of 4,123 cars a year to UP (allegedly representing
1.7% of all cars delivered or picked up by UP at Laredo, TX) and
1,692 cars a year to BNSF (allegedly representing 17% of all cars
delivered or picked up by BNSF at Brownsville, TX). See KCS-3 at
122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants also contend that the KCS/TM transaction is not
anticompetitive because it does not call for cancellation of any
cooperative agreements with other carriers. These agreements include a
1997 NS-KCSR-Tex Mex marketing agreement (renewed in 2000 for 3 years)
for traffic moving into Texas and Mexico, the KCSR-CN/IC Alliance,\20\
and a 2002 BNSF-KCSR marketing agreement. Applicants add that these
agreements provide valuable carloads to the KCSR and Tex Mex systems
and form the backbone of the competitive alternative currently provided
by KCSR and Tex Mex for NAFTA traffic. They further contend that,
because of these agreements, shippers have a choice and do not have to
depend solely upon UP or the trucking industry for shipment of their
NAFTA traffic. Applicants state that, to improve Tex Mex's financial
stability, KCSR intends to work with all of its connecting carriers to
increase the amount of traffic flowing over Tex Mex. Applicants
acknowledge that, although they will honor all Tex Mex agreements
pursuant to the terms, any agreement that does not provide adequate
revenues will be reviewed, and, upon expiration, will be renegotiated
or not renewed. See KCS-3 at 60 n.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Canadian National Railway Company is referred to as CN.
Illinois Central Railroad Company is referred to as IC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor Protection. Applicants acknowledge that the applicable level
of labor protection for the proposed KCS/TM transaction is that set
forth in New York Dock Ry.--Control--Brooklyn Eastern Dist., 360 I.C.C.
60, 84-90 (1979). Applicants state that the existing collective
bargaining agreements for KCSR and Tex Mex will remain in force. They
explain that the implementation of KCSR's MCS on Tex Mex will result in
the elimination of a limited number of employee positions and that
other anticipated operating economies will result in the elimination of
a limited number of positions in marketing management, time-keeping and
payroll processing, and a limited number of positions involved with car
and locomotive pool. The applicants further acknowledge the possibility
that significant changes may occur as they gain experience in the
course of implementing common control of KCS and TM. See KCS-3 at 158.
KCS/TM Application Accepted. The Board agrees with applicants that
the KCS/TM common control transaction may be considered as a ``minor
transaction'' under 49 CFR 1180.2(c), and the Board accepts the KCS/TM
application for consideration because it is in substantial compliance
with the applicable regulations governing minor transactions. See 49
U.S.C. 11321-26; 49 CFR part 1180.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The Board reserves the right to require the filing of
supplemental information from applicants or any other party or
individual, if necessary to complete the record in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But while the KCS/TM transaction may be designated as ``minor''
from a regulatory standpoint, the broader transaction, incorporating
the related KCS/TFM component, could be very significant. Indeed, if
the KCS/TFM transaction were subject to the jurisdiction of the Board--
which it is not--it would be categorized as a ``major'' transaction
because TFM's size would make it a Class I railroad if it were in the
U.S. Moreover, the significance of the role played by TFM in the U.S.-
Mexico NAFTA corridor cannot be ignored.
Thus, UP has asked that applicants nevertheless be required to
supplement their application to address the implications of the KCS/TFM
transaction on the KCS/TM transaction (UP-1 pleading, filed May 27,
2003).\22\ UP expressed concern that TFM will not remain an independent
and neutral connection at Laredo. UP argues that the KCS/TFM
transaction must be evaluated on a record that includes the effect of
the KCS/TFM transaction on the KCS/TM transaction and on competition
within the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ UP's request that applicants be required to supplement the
KCS/TM application has been endorsed by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company (DuPont) in a pleading filed June 2, 2003. BNSF has also
requested supplementation. See BNSF-1 (filed June 3, 2003) at 2-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding that the two transactions nominally are separate
and independent of each other, in reality they are two components of a
single, larger transaction with broader potential implications in the
U.S. Thus, as UP has pointed out, the Board should be prepared to
address these effects. Accordingly, the Board will require that, by
June 23, 2003, applicants must supplement the KCS/TM application to
reflect the implications of the broader transaction for competition
within the U.S. In particular, applicants should submit the information
specified in 49 CFR 1180.1(k)(1) and 1180.11. Because the applicants
likely have already prepared much, if not all, of this information for
other purposes or after receiving UP's filing, they should be able to
submit the necessary supplemental information by that date.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Should applicants need additional time to prepare the
necessary supplemental information, they may request appropriate
revisions to this schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Inspection. The KCS/TM application is 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, it may be obtained from applicants' representatives
(Mr. Mullins, for KCS, KCSR, and GWER; Mr. Streeter, for Tex Mex and
Mexrail) at the addresses indicated above.
Procedural Schedule. Applicants have indicated that they would like
to release Tex Mex from the voting trust as soon as possible. They have
therefore proposed a 128-day procedural schedule that provides for
issuance of a decision by the Board on September 19, 2003, with an
effective date of September 24, 2003.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Applicants contend that, because Tex Mex is now operating
under a voting trust arrangement, the KCS/TM application should be
approved and made effective on as expeditious a schedule as is
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board is adopting a 156-day procedural schedule \25\ that,
although 28 days longer than applicants suggest, still provides for
less total time than the 180-day procedural schedule (30 days + 105
days + 45 days) established by the deadlines set forth at 49 U.S.C.
11325(a), (d)(2).\26\ Applicants' suggested
[[Page 35478]]
procedural schedule for this transaction would be shorter than others
of its scope. The schedule announced today is consistent with the
schedule for similar prior transactions. Applicants must submit their
Environmental Appendix and Safety Integration Plan (SIP) to the Board,
and supplement the KCS/TM application to reflect the implications, for
KCS/TM common control, of KCS/TFM common control, by June 23, 2003. Any
person who wishes to participate in this proceeding as a party of
record (POR) must file, no later than June 27, 2003, a notice of intent
to participate. Applicants must distribute their Environmental Appendix
and SIP to parties of record and other designated entities, and must
initiate publication of newspaper notices, by July 1, 2003. A public
hearing will be held in July 2003 (the precise date and the location
will be announced later). All comments on applicants' Environmental
Appendix and SIP must be filed by July 31, 2003. Comments, protests,
requests for conditions, and any other evidence and argument in
opposition to the KCS/TM application, including filings by the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), must be filed by August 4, 2003.\27\ Responses to comments,
protests, requests for conditions, and other opposition, responses to
comments of DOJ and DOT, and rebuttal in support of the KCS/TM
application must be filed by September 2, 2003. The Board's decision
will be issued on October 17, 2003 (the 156th day after the date on
which the KCS/TM application was filed, and the 45th day after the
close of the record). If, however, it is determined that an
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is required,
the procedural schedule will be adjusted as necessary. Also, if an oral
argument is held, the Board's decision will be issued no later than the
45th day after the date on which the oral argument is held.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The schedule adopted here is similar, in key respects, to
the schedule proposed by UP (in its UP-1 pleading, filed May 27,
2003), which is endorsed by DuPont (in its pleading filed June 2,
2003). Likewise, the schedule is also similar to that proposed by
The National Industrial Transportation League (in its NITL-2
pleading, filed June 3, 2003). The adopted schedule should afford
all non-applicant parties sufficient time to seek discovery
regarding all relevant impacts of the Tex Mex transaction and to
prepare and submit comments on the impacts of the transactions as
requested by CN (in its CN-2 pleading, filed June 3, 2003). The
Board realizes that, although the adopted schedule does not give
non-applicant parties the 45 days one of them seeks for filing
comments after the applicants' submission of supplemental
information (see BNSF-1 at 13, filed June 3, 2003), in affording
them 42 days, it has essentially accommodated that request.
\26\ The Board expects that applicants have adhered to their
promise to provide copies of the KCS/TM application to certain
parties that had previously requested copies of the application and
to all parties required by regulation. The Board further expects
that applicants have also adhered (and will continue to adhere) to
their promise to provide, promptly upon request, copies of the KCS/
TM application to any other party. The Board understands that
applicants' promises rest on the assumption that the parties
requesting the KCS/TM application have complied with the protective
order granted in Decision No. 1 (served May 13, 2003). See
applicants' procedural schedule petition at 6 n.3.
\27\ DOT, in its DOT-1 pleading (filed June 2, 2003), has asked
that the procedural schedule be modified to accommodate its past
practice of filing comments not only in response to the application
itself but also in response to the comments filed by other parties.
As in past proceedings, DOT will be allowed to file its comments in
response to other parties' comments on the reply due date (here,
September 2, 2003). Applicants will be allowed to late-file (as
quickly as possible) a reply to DOT's responsive comments. In this
manner, the procedural schedule will not be extended unnecessarily.
\28\ If the Board ultimately approves the KCS/TM application,
consideration will be given to applicants' request that the decision
take effect on the 5th day (and not, as is customary, the 30th day)
after the date of service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intent to Participate. Any person who wishes to
participate in this proceeding as a POR must file with the Board, no
later than June 27, 2003, 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, the Attorney General of
the United States, and 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.
The Board will serve, as soon as practicable, a notice containing
the official service list (the service list notice). Each POR will be
required to serve upon all other PORs, 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 POR also will be required to
file with 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
the preceding sentence has been accomplished. Every filing made by a
POR 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.
The Board will serve copies of its 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, Dā
2 Dā Legal Copy Service, to receive copies of Board decisions,
orders, and notices served in this proceeding. Dā 2 Dā
Legal Copy Service 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 Dā 2 Dā
Legal Copy Service is (202) 293-7776.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ An interested person does not need to be on the service
list to obtain a copy of the KCS/TM application or any other filing
made in this proceeding. The Board's 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.'' 49 CFR 1180.4(a)(3). The KCS/TM application and other
filings in this proceeding will also be available on the Board's Web
site at ``http://www.stb.dot.gov'' 
under ``Filings.''
Furthermore, Dā 2 Dā Legal Copy Service will provide, for a
charge, copies of the KCS/TM application or any other filing made in this
proceeding, except to the extent any such filing is subject to the
protective order previously entered in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Hearing. A hearing at which members of the public may voice
their views regarding the KCS/TM transaction will be held in July 2003.
The precise date and location of the public hearing will be announced
later. A public hearing is somewhat informal and the views expressed
are not expected to be ``legal'' arguments. On the other hand, an oral
argument is more formal and the lawyers representing the parties in a
proceeding are expected to express ``legal'' views regarding any
matters that are in dispute. It is possible that an oral argument may
be held in this proceeding at a later date.
Comments, Protests, Requests for Conditions, and Other Opposition
Evidence and Argument, Including Filings by DOJ and DOT. All comments,
protests, requests for conditions, and any other evidence and argument
in opposition to the KCS/TM application, including filings by DOJ and
DOT, must be filed by August 4, 2003.
Parties (including DOJ and DOT) filing such comments, etc., must
submit an original and 25 copies thereof. Each such submission: must be
filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20423-0001; must refer to STB Finance Docket No. 34342;
and must be clearly labeled with an identification acronym and number
(e.g., the KCS/TM application was labeled ``KCS-3''), see 49 CFR
1180.4(a)(2). 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.
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 PORs, and should include the
docket number and title of the proceeding, and the name, address, and
telephone number of the commenting party and its representative upon
whom service shall be made.
[[Page 35479]]
Because the KCS/TM common control transaction proposed in the KCS/
TM application has been determined to be a minor transaction, no
responsive applications will be permitted. See 49 CFR 1180.4(d)(1).
Protesting parties are advised that, if they seek either the denial
of the KCS/TM application or the imposition of conditions upon any
approval, on the theory that approval (or approval without imposition
of conditions) will harm competition and/or their ability to provide
essential services, they must present substantial evidence in support
of their positions. See Lamoille Valley R.R. Co. v. ICC, 711 F.2d 295
(DC Cir. 1983).
Responses to Comments, Protests, Requests for Conditions, and other
Opposition, Including DOJ and DOT; Rebuttal in Support of KCS/TM
Application. Responses to comments, protests, requests for conditions,
and other opposition submissions, responses to comments of DOJ and DOT,
and rebuttal in support of the KCS/TM application must be filed by
September 2, 2003.
Environmental Matters. Applicants assert in their application that
the proposed KCS/TM 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 not result in changes in carrier
operations that would exceed the thresholds triggering environmental
review established in the Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR
1105.7(e)(4) or (5).\30\ Applicants further state that, under 49 CFR
1105.8(b)(1) and (3), the transaction is exempt from historic
preservation reporting requirements because rail operations will
continue after consummation of common control, further Board approval
would be required to abandon any service, and there are no plans to
dispose of or alter properties subject to Board jurisdiction that are
50 years old or older. Finally, applicants explain that the transaction
is subject to a ``categorical exclusion'' from environmental analysis
under NEPA and the Board's environmental rules.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Applicants explain that KCS/TM common control will generate
less than a 1% increase in KCSR traffic and less than a 7% increase
in Tex Mex traffic. Applicants add that, although there are
significant rehabilitation and improvement plans that will take
place on Tex Mex property if KCS obtains control authority, such
improvements do not require Board approval or environmental review
under NEPA. See KCS-3 at 41.
\31\ Under the regulations of the President's Council on
Environmental Quality implementing NEPA and the Board's
environmental regulations, actions are separated into three classes
that prescribe the level of documentation required in the NEPA
process. Actions that may significantly affect the environment
generally require the agency to prepare a full Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). 40 CFR 1501.4(a)(1); 49 CFR 1105.4(f), 1105.6(a).
Actions that may or may not have a significant environmental impact
ordinarily require the agency to prepare a more limited
Environmental Assessment (EA). 40 CFR 1501.4(c); 49 CFR 1105.4(d),
1105.6(b). Finally, actions whose environmental effects are
ordinarily insignificant may be excluded from NEPA review across the
board, without a case-by-case review. Such activities are said to be
covered by a categorical exclusion. 40 CFR 1500.4(p), 1501.4(a)(2),
1508.4; 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information set forth in the application is sufficient to
create a presumption that this transaction is covered by a categorical
exclusion. However, the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA)
must independently determine whether applicants' transaction is
appropriately exempt from NEPA. To assist SEA in determining whether
formal environmental review of the transaction is necessary, the Board
has 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. Applicants shall submit the Environmental
Appendix to SEA by June 23, 2003.
Applicants also have been working with the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) to develop a Safety Integration Plan (SIP),
pursuant to the joint regulations adopted by FRA and the Board to
ensure adequate and coordinated consideration of safety integration
issues by both the Board and FRA. See 49 CFR Parts 244 and 1106. The
SIP will specifically address the process of safely combining
applicants' systems, if the proposed transaction is approved.
Applicants shall submit their SIP to SEA by June 23, 2003.
To facilitate public review and comment on all aspects of the
Environmental Appendix and the SIP, applicants must, by July 1, 2003,
distribute the Environmental Appendix and the SIP to all parties of
record and to appropriate agencies (consisting of the regional offices
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Governor's Office
and state equivalent of EPA in each state in which KCS owns track).
Applicants must also, by July 1, 2003, publish a notice in major
newspapers in communities between Beaumont, TX, and Laredo, TX, with
populations more than 5,000 people, alerting the public that the
Environmental Appendix and SIP are available and explaining how to
obtain copies and submit comments. Interested parties will have 30
days--until July 31, 2003--to submit comments on the Environmental
Appendix and the SIP to SEA. Applicants shall certify that they have
met these distribution and newspaper notice requirements. The Board
will further ensure broad access to the Environmental Appendix and the
SIP by making them available on the Board's Web site at ``
http://www.stb.dot.gov.''
As discussed above, the information provided by applicants is
sufficient to create a presumption that this action does not require
formal environmental review. Accordingly, comments challenging the
presumption that this matter is categorically excluded from NEPA must
demonstrate with specificity why an EA or EIS appears to be warranted
in this case.
Based on its consideration of all timely comments and its own
independent review of all available environmental information,
including the SIP, SEA will then recommend to the Board whether there
is a need for formal environmental review in this case. The Board will
then determine whether this transaction is categorically excluded from
NEPA or, alternatively, whether an EA or an EIS should be prepared. If
it appears that an EA or an EIS is required to meet the Board's
obligations under NEPA, the procedural schedule set forth in this
decision will be adjusted accordingly. Even if no EA or EIS is
warranted, the Board intends to include in any decision approving the
KCS/TM transaction a condition requiring applicants to comply with
their SIP. See 49 CFR 1106.4(b)(4).
Discovery. Discovery may begin immediately. The parties are
encouraged to resolve all discovery matters expeditiously and amicably.
Electronic Submissions: In General. As already mentioned, in
addition to submitting an original and 25 paper copies of each document
filed with the Board, parties must submit, on 3.5-inch IBM-compatible
floppy diskettes (disks) or on compact discs (CDs), copies of all
textual materials, electronic workpapers, data bases, and spreadsheets
used to develop quantitative evidence.\32\ Textual materials must be
in, or compatible with, WordPerfect 10.0. Electronic spreadsheets must
be in, or compatible with, Lotus 1-2-3 Release 9 or Microsoft Excel
2002. Each disk or CD should be clearly labeled with the identification
acronym and number of
[[Page 35480]]
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 May 13, 2003), and will be for the
exclusive use of Board employees reviewing substantive and/or
procedural matters in this proceeding. The flexibility provided by
computer data will facilitate timely review by the Board and its
staff.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Parties unable to comply with the electronic submission
requirement can seek a waiver from the Board.
\33\ The electronic submission requirements set forth in this
decision supersede, for the purposes of this proceeding, the
otherwise applicable electronic submission requirements set forth in
the Board's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Submissions: Workpapers, Data Bases, and Spreadsheets.
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,
parties submitting electronic workpapers, data bases, and/or
spreadsheets should use naming and linking conventions that will permit
the spreadsheets to operate on the Board's computers.\34\ Electronic
data bases should be compatible with the Microsoft Open Database
Connectivity (ODBC) standard.\35\ The Board currently uses Microsoft
Access 2000, 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 the Board to accept
the data base in another format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The Board 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 the Board's
computers can be addressed to William H. Washburn, Office of
Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration, at (202) 565-
1550.
\35\ ODBC 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excessive Use of Confidentiality Designations. Applicants have
included, in their KCS-3 application, copies of the KCS/TM Stock
Purchase Agreement and the KCS/TM Voting Trust Agreement. See KCS-3 at
160-91 and 192-209, respectively. Initially, however, neither agreement
was included in the ``Public Version'' of the KCS-3 application
because, initially, each agreement was designated ``Highly
Confidential'' in its entirety.\36\ Subsequently, applicants filed a
``Public Version'' of the KCS/TM Stock Purchase Agreement, see the KCS
submission dated May 29, 2003, but they have not filed a ``Public
Version'' of the KCS/TM Voting Trust Agreement. As respects the KCS/TM
Voting Trust Agreement, the continuing use of the ``Highly
Confidential'' designation provided for in the protective order granted
in Decision No. 1 appears to be excessive. There may, perhaps, be bits
and pieces of the KCS/TM Voting Trust Agreement that should be
protected under either the ``Confidential'' designation or the ``Highly
Confidential'' designation. It is highly unlikely, however, that this
agreement in its entirety merits such protection. Applicants will
therefore be required to file, no later than June 20, 2003, either a
redacted version of the KCS/TM Voting Trust Agreement or a persuasive
explanation of why it is that this agreement requires protection in its
entirety under either the ``Confidential'' designation or the ``Highly
Confidential'' designation.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Although there is one indication in the KCS-3 application
that the KCS/TM Stock Purchase Agreement was designated
``Confidential,'' see KCS-3 at 34, it seems more likely that this
agreement was actually designated ``Highly Confidential,'' see KCS-3
at 160.
\37\ If applicants choose to file an explanation in lieu of a
redacted version, the explanation, if applicants think it
appropriate, may be designated either ``Confidential'' or ``Highly
Confidential.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. The KCS/TM application in STB Finance Docket No. 34342 is
accepted for consideration.
2. The parties to this proceeding must comply with the Procedural
Schedule adopted by the Board in this proceeding as shown in Appendix
A.
3. The parties to this proceeding must comply with the procedural
requirements described in this decision.
4. Applicants must file, no later than June 20, 2003, either a
redacted version of the KCS/TM Voting Trust Agreement or a persuasive
explanation of why this agreement requires protection in its entirety
under either the ``Confidential'' designation or the ``Highly
Confidential'' designation.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ As respects the KCS/TM Stock Purchase Agreement, applicants
should also file a redacted version of the items referred to as
Annex I and Annex II, see KCS-3 at 163 (these items, although noted
in the Table of Contents, do not appear to have been included in
either the ``Highly Confidential'' version or the ``Public'' version
of the KCS/TM Stock Purchase Agreement). If, however, applicants
believe that these items should be treated as either
``Confidential'' or ``Highly Confidential,'' applicants may submit
these items under seal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. This decision is effective on June 13, 2003.
Decided: June 9, 2003.
By the Board, Chairman Nober.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
Appendix A: Procedural Schedule
May 14, 2003 KCS/TM application and petition to establish procedural
schedule filed
June 13, 2003 Board notice of acceptance of the KCS/TM application
published in the Federal Register
June 23, 2003 Environmental Appendix and Safety Integration Plan
(SIP) due. Supplementation of the KCS/TM application to reflect the
implications of KCS/TFM common control on the KCS/TM transaction and
on competition within the U.S. due
June 27, 2003 Notices of intent to participate due
July 1, 2003 Applicants distribute Environmental Appendix and SIP to
parties of record and other designated entities, and initiate
publication of newspaper notices
July 2003 Public hearing to be scheduled; date and location to be
announced
July 31, 2003 Comments on Environmental Appendix and SIP due
August 4, 2003 All comments, protests, requests for conditions, and
any other evidence and argument in opposition to the KCS/TM
application, including filings of the U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), due
September 2, 2003 Responses to comments, protests, requests for
conditions, and other opposition due. Responses to comments of DOJ
and DOT due. Rebuttal in support of KCS/TM application due
October 17, 2003 Date of service of final decision (if no
environmental review is required and no oral argument is held)
[FR Doc. 03-14902 Filed 6-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P