| SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Decision Information |  | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Number: | FD_35087_0 | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Title: | CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY AND GRAND TRUNK CORPORATION--CONTROL--EJ&E WEST COMPANY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decision Type: | Decision | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deciding Body: | Entire Board | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Decision Summary | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decision Notes: | DECISION APPROVED, WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS, THE ACQUISITION OF CONTROL BY CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY AND GRAND TRUNK CORPORATION OF EJ&E WEST COMPANY, A WHOLLY OWNED, NONCARRIER OF ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Decision Attachments | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 390 KB | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 4 Minutes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Note:If you do not have Acrobat Reader, or if you have problems reading our files with your current version of Acrobat Reader, the latest version of Acrobat Reader is available free at www.adobe.com. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Full Text of Decision | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
39537 SERVICE DATE – LATE RELEASE DECEMBER 24, 2008 EB This decision will be included in the bound volumes of printed reports at a later date. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION STB Finance Docket No. 35087[1] CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY AND GRAND TRUNK CORPORATION—CONTROL—EJ&E WEST COMPANY Decision No. 16 Decided: December 24, 2008 The Board approves, with certain
conditions, the acquisition of control by Canadian National Railway Company and
Grand Trunk Corporation of EJ&E West Company, a wholly owned, noncarrier
subsidiary of SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 3 THE CN/EJ&E CONTROL TRANSACTION................................................................................ 8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................... 13 Statutory Criteria......................................................................................................................... 13 Competitive Analysis................................................................................................................... 13 Gateways and Requested Conditions........................................................................................... 15 Bottleneck Rule; Contract Exception............................................................................................ 17 Relief Sought by Shippers Served by EJ&E................................................................................. 17 ACS........................................................................................................................................ 17 Equistar and AuxSable.......................................................................................................... 17 Relief Sought by Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co.................................................................... 18 Relief Sought by Wisconsin State Agencies.................................................................................. 20 Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection............................. 20 Wisconsin Department of Transportation............................................................................. 20 Relief Sought by Metra................................................................................................................ 21 St. Charles Air Line Route Condition........................................................................................... 23 Gary/Chicago International Airport Authority............................................................................... 25 Monitoring & Oversight Condition............................................................................................... 25 Labor Protection......................................................................................................................... 27 Related Filings............................................................................................................................. 28 Environmental Issues................................................................................................................... 29 Board Authority..................................................................................................................... 29 Environmental Analysis......................................................................................................... 34 Administrative Appeals................................................................................................................ 53 APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS.................................................................. 59 APPENDIX B: ABBREVIATIONS AND
ACRONYMS............................................................. 85 SUMMARY
In this decision, we are granting,
subject to numerous environmental mitigation and other conditions, the
application of Canadian National Railway Company (CNR) and Grand Trunk
Corporation (GTC) (together, CN or applicants) to acquire control of the
EJ&E West Company, a wholly owned non-railroad subsidiary of the Elgin,
Joliet & Eastern Railway Company (EJ&E). EJ&E is a Class II railroad that operates
approximately 200 miles of track in Northeastern Illinois and Northwestern
Indiana, in an arc around In reaching
our decision, we have balanced both the transportation-related aspects of this
transaction and the potential environmental impacts. The Board has carefully examined the effect
of the transaction on transportation and competition and the concerns raised by
various parties about possible anticompetitive consequences. We conclude that, with the conditions we are
imposing, the transaction will not substantially lessen competition, create a
monopoly, or restrain trade in freight surface transportation in any region in
the The Board also has engaged in an
extensive and thorough environmental review, which was completed with the
issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement[2] on
December 5, 2008. The level of
public participation throughout the environmental review process has been
unprecedented. More than 9,500 comments
on the Draft EIS were received by our Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA)
from members of the public, agencies, elected officials both in After carefully considering the
results of the environmental analysis, and the concerns and issues raised by
the parties and other commenters–both pro and con–we are imposing environmental
mitigation that we believe is reasonable and appropriate to minimize, and in
some cases eliminate, potential adverse environmental impacts of this
transaction. Our mitigation includes two
grade separations (and requires applicants to bear 67% of the cost of one and
78.5% of the cost of the other), cameras to assist in the timely response of
emergency providers, programs related to school and pedestrian safety, noise
mitigation, and a 5-year environmental reporting condition requiring applicants
to file quarterly reports on the implementation of our environmental
mitigation, so that we will be kept apprised of the effectiveness of the
conditions. We are also establishing a
5-year formal oversight period, with detailed monthly reporting requirements
imposed on the applicant carriers, to allow us to closely monitor applicants’
operations during the oversight period.
In addition, applicants will be required to comply with their extensive
voluntary environmental mitigation and with the negotiated agreements they have
entered into with the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak) and communities in INTRODUCTION
The Control Application. By application filed on October 30, 2007, CNR and GTC[3] seek approval under 49 U.S.C. 11323-26 for the acquisition of control by CN of EJ&E West Company (EJ&EW), a wholly owned, noncarrier subsidiary of EJ&E.[4] Seven Related Filings. Also by application filed on October 30, 2007, CN filed notices of exemption involving an intra-corporate family transaction and the granting of trackage rights. The Sub-No. 1 filing provides for EJ&E to transfer property to EJ&EW, which, at that time, would become a rail common carrier, prior to applicants acquiring control of EJ&EW. The Sub‑Nos. 2 through 7 filings provide for grants of trackage rights by EJ&EW to Grand Trunk Western Railroad (GTW), Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC), Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad Company (CCP), and Wisconsin Central Ltd. (WC), and by IC and CCP to EJ&EW, promptly upon applicants’ acquisition of control of EJ&EW, should the Board approve the proposed control transaction. In this decision, the Board is granting the application for acquisition of control, subject to certain conditions, and authorizing the transactions covered by the notices of exemption. Overview
of the Transaction. As explained in the EIS prepared by SEA,
The
EJ&E rail line, located in Northeastern Illinois and Northwestern Indiana,
extends in a 120-mile arc of mainline track around Under the transaction, applicants
would shift much of the rail traffic currently moving over CN’s five rail lines
in Summary of the Decision. In this decision,
the Board is approving CN’s acquisition of control of EJ&EW, as proposed in
the control application, subject to the following conditions: (1) applicants must adhere to their
representation that they will keep all existing active gateways affected by the
CN/EJ&E transaction open on commercially reasonable terms; (2) applicants
must adhere to their representation that they will waive any defenses they
might otherwise have as a result of the CN/EJ&E transaction, under the
Board’s general policy that it does not separately regulate bottleneck rates,
in circumstances where a shipper prior to the transaction would have been
entitled to regulation of a bottleneck rate under the Board’s “contract
exception” to the general rule; (3) the New York Dock labor protective
conditions, see New York Dock Ry.—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) (New York Dock), will apply to the control transaction; and (4) applicants
will comply with the environmental mitigation conditions set forth in Appendix
A, including the monitoring and reporting conditions contained therein. Further, the Board is exempting the corporate
family transaction at issue in the Sub-No. 1 proceeding. The Board is also exempting the trackage rights
at issue in the Sub-Nos. 2 through 7 proceedings, subject to the Norfolk
and Western labor protective conditions, see Norfolk and Western
Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino
Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980) (Norfolk and
Western). The Board is also imposing
a 5-year monitoring and oversight condition, and the Board is retaining
jurisdiction to impose additional conditions and to take other action if, and
to the extent, the Board determines it is necessary to impose additional
conditions and to take other action to address matters respecting the
CN/EJ&E transaction. Finally, the
Board is denying all other conditions sought by the various parties to this
proceeding.[11] Commenting
Parties: Shipper Interests. Comments
regarding the control transaction have been filed by various shipper parties,
including: Ace Ethanol (Ace); Algoma
Steel Inc. (Algoma); American Chemical Service, Inc. (ACS); American Suzuki
Motor Corporation (ASMC); Aracruz Celulose USA, Inc. (Aracruz); Aux Sable
Liquid Products, LP (Aux Sable); BASF Corporation (BASF); Equistar Chemicals,
LP (Equistar); National Industrial Transportation League (NITL); PCS Sales
(USA), Inc. (PCS); Potlatch Forest Products Corporation (Potlatch); Prairie
Material Sales, Inc. (Prairie Material); Raw Materials, Inc. (RMI); Thomas
Lighting; United Parcel Service (UPS); and United Sugars Corporation (United
Sugars).[12] Commenting
Parties: Railroad Interests. Comments respecting
the control transaction were submitted by: Adrian & Blissfield Railroad
(A&BR); Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR); CSX Transportation, Inc.
(CSXT); Effingham Railroad Company (Effingham); Norfolk Southern Railway
Company (NS); and Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co. (WSOR). Commenting
Parties: Passenger Rail Interests. Two
passenger rail interests filed submissions:
National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP); and the Northeast
Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation and the Commuter Rail Division
of the Regional Transportation Authority (collectively, Metra).[13] Commenting
Parties: Governmental Parties. The
following various governmental parties and local and state interests submitted
comments: the United States Department
of Transportation (DOT); Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT);
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT); the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce; the City of Carbondale, IL (Carbondale); the City of Memphis, TN
(Memphis); the City of West Chicago, IL (West Chicago); Will County, IL,
Village of Bartlett (Bartlett); Village of Crete (Crete); Village of Frankfort,
IL (Frankfort);[14] Village of Homewood (Homewood); Village of Mokena, IL
(Mokena); Village of South Holland (South Holland); Gary Chicago International
Airport Authority (GCIAA); Glendale Heights Chamber of Commerce (GHCC); Memphis
Regional Chamber (Memphis Regional);[15] Wheeling/Prospect Heights Area Chamber of Commerce and
Industry (WPHC); United Business Association of Midway (UBAM); Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP); United States
Representatives Melissa L. Bean (IL), Jerry F. Costello (IL), Donald A.
Manzullo (IL), Judy Biggert (IL), Timothy V. Johnson (IL), Peter J. Roskam
(IL), and Bill Foster (IL),[16] Bart Stupak (MI), Joe Knollenberg (MI), Thaddeus McCotter
(MI), John D. Dingell (MI), Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (IL), Candice Miller (MI),
Tim Walberg (MI), John M. Shimkus (IL), Danny K. Davis (IL), Janice D.
Schakowsky (IL), and John M. Shimkus (IL); United States Senators Richard J.
Durbin (IL), Debbie Stabenow (MI), and Carl Levin (MI); State Senators Mark
Schauer (MI), Karen Tallian (IN), and Susan Garrett (IL); State Representatives
Robert A. Rita (IL), Angelo Saviano (IL), Carolyn H. Krause (IL), and Terry
Link (IL); Governor of Michigan Jennifer M. Granholm; and Mayor of Chicago
Richard M. Daley. Commenting
Parties: Labor Parties. Submissions
respecting the control transaction were filed by several labor interest
parties, including: the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, A Division of the Rail Conference, the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BLET); the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW); the American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA);
the National Conference of Fireman & Oilers – SEIU (NCFO);[17] and United Transportation Union – General Committee of
Adjustment GO-386 (UTU GCA-386). Commenting
Parties: Environmental Issues. SEA received over
9,500 comments on its Draft EIS, including comments from members of the public,
elected officials, Federal and state agencies, and local governments. Summaries of these comments and the issues
raised by commenters can be found in the Final EIS, Chapter 3. THE CN/EJ&E CONTROL TRANSACTION
Canadian National. CN is one of EJ&E
West. EJ&EW is an The CN/EJ&E Transaction. Before applicants acquire control of
EJ&EW, EJ&E plans to transfer all of its land, rail, and related assets
located west of the centerline of Buchanan Street in Gary (together with the
real property and related fixtures associated with the hump and Dixie leads
located east of Buchanan Street) to EJ&EW, which at that time would become
a rail common carrier. As noted above,
this transaction is the subject of the Sub-No. 1 related filing. EJ&E would retain its land, rail, and
related assets east of the centerline (other than the real property and related
fixtures associated with the hump and In order to permit trains of its operating subsidiaries—GTW, IC, CCP, and WC—to operate over EJ&EW’s line and provide for maximum operational flexibility, applicants intend to cause EJ&EW to grant trackage rights to those subsidiaries over the entire length of EJ&EW from Waukegan to Gary. Applicants also intend to grant EJ&EW trackage rights over selected portions of its CCP and IC subsidiaries. These proposed trackage rights are the subjects of notices of exemption filed in the related Sub-Nos. 2 through 7 proceedings, providing for grants of trackage rights by EJ&EW to GTW, IC, CCP, and WCL, and by IC and CCP to EJ&EW. GTC and EJ&E have entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), dated September 25, 2007. The SPA provides that, subject to Board authorization of the control transaction, and other conditions, GTC will purchase from EJ&E all of the issued and outstanding common stock of EJ&EW for an overall purchase price of $300 million, subject to adjustments as provided for in the SPA. Purposes Served.
Applicants state three primary purposes for pursuing the control
transaction. First, they believe the
control transaction would improve their operations in and beyond the Transportation Considerations. Applicants state that the control transaction would help meet the need for a more efficient and reliable rail transportation system. Applicants assert that the control transaction would have no anticompetitive effects, as it would connect two transportation systems that do not compete but instead complement each other and would together create a stronger network. Applicants assert that there would be no 2-to-1 shippers, nor 3-to-2 shippers, on the CN/EJ&EW system. Moreover, applicants state that the control transaction would bring about no vertical foreclosure, no reduction in effective geographic competition, and no increase in market power. Applicants state that, as in past transactions, they are committed to keeping gateways open and honoring trackage rights and haulage agreements with all connecting carriers. Applicants assert that, even if the
control transaction had any adverse impacts on competition, those effects would
be outweighed by its transportation benefits.
The control transaction, applicants assert, would ensure more efficient
and reliable rail transportation at a lower cost and would, over time, reduce
rail traffic congestion, increase rail capacity for carriers operating in Labor Impacts & Protection. Applicants anticipate two principal labor
impacts as a result of the control transaction:
the elimination of redundant positions and the organization/integration
of forces to realize the efficiencies of the transaction. Applicants estimate that the control
transaction would result in the elimination of 114 positions. Applicants anticipate that, to the extent the
transaction leads to the elimination of positions, most of these impacts could
be accommodated through normal attrition during the implementation period. Applicants’ continuing need for experienced,
skilled railroaders at its neighboring Related Filings. In connection with this transaction, several notices of exemption were filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3) and 1180.2(d)(7). Sub-No. 1. In Sub-No. 1,
EJ&E filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3) for a
transaction within a corporate family.
Under this notice of exemption, EJ&E would transfer all its land,
rail, and related assets located west of the centerline of Buchanan Street in
Gary (together with the real property and related fixtures associated with the
hump and Dixie leads located east of Buchanan Street), to EJ&EW, which upon
completion of the transfers would become a rail carrier. EJ&E would retain its land, rail, and
related assets east of the centerline (other than the real property and related
fixtures associated with the hump and Sub-No. 2. In Sub-No. 2, CCP submitted a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). Pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement, EJ&EW would grant CCP trackage rights over all of EJ&EW’s line, which runs between milepost 74.6 at Waukegan and milepost 45.4 at Gary, including all trackage west of the centerline of Buchanan Street in Gary, plus trackage associated with the hump and Dixie leads located east of Buchanan Street, a distance of approximately 120 miles. Parties intend to execute the trackage rights agreement promptly upon applicants’ acquisition of control of EJ&EW, should the Board approve the proposed control transaction. As a condition to this exemption, CCP states that any employees affected by the acquisition of the temporary trackage rights would be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk and Western. Sub-No. 3. In Sub-No. 3, GTW
submitted a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). Pursuant to a written trackage rights
agreement, EJ&EW would grant GTW trackage rights over EJ&EW’s lines
between milepost 74.6 at Waukegan and milepost 45.4 at Gary, including all
trackage west of the centerline of Buchanan Street in Gary, plus trackage
associated with the hump and Dixie leads located east of Buchanan Street.[21] Parties intend to execute the trackage rights
agreement promptly upon applicants’ acquisition of control of EJ&EW, should
the Board approve the proposed control transaction. As a condition to
this exemption, GTW states that any employees affected by the acquisition of
the temporary trackage rights would be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk
and Western. Sub-No. 4. In Sub-No. 4, IC submitted a verified
notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7).
Pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement, EJ&EW would grant
IC trackage rights over EJ&EW’s lines between milepost 74.6 at Waukegan and
milepost 45.4 at Gary, including all trackage west of the centerline of
Buchanan Street in Gary, plus trackage associated with the hump and Dixie leads
located east of Buchanan Street. Parties
intend to execute the trackage rights agreement promptly upon applicants’
acquisition of control of EJ&EW, should the Board approve the proposed
control transaction. As a condition to this exemption, IC states that any
employees affected by the acquisition of the temporary trackage rights would be
protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk and Western. Sub-No. 5. In Sub-No. 5, WCL submitted a verified
notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7).
Pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement, EJ&EW would grant
WCL trackage rights over EJ&EW’s lines between milepost 74.6 at Waukegan
and milepost 45.4 at Gary, including all trackage west of the centerline of
Buchanan Street in Gary, plus trackage associated with the hump and Dixie leads
located east of Buchanan Street. Parties
intend to execute the trackage rights agreement promptly upon applicants’
acquisition of control of EJ&EW, should the Board approve the proposed
control transaction. As a condition to this exemption, WCL states that any
employees affected by the acquisition of the temporary trackage rights would be
protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk and Western. Sub-No. 6. In Sub-No. 6, CN submitted a verified
notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). Pursuant to a written trackage rights
agreement, CCP would grant EJ&EW trackage rights over CCP’s lines between
milepost 35.7 at Sub-No. 7. In Sub-No. 7, CN submitted a verified
notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7).
Pursuant to a written trackage rights agreement, IC would grant
EJ&EW trackage rights over IC’s lines between milepost 17.9 at DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Statutory Criteria. The acquisition of control of a rail carrier by another rail carrier or by a noncarrier that controls another rail carrier requires Board approval. 49 U.S.C. 11323(a)(3), (5). Because the proposed transaction does not involve the merger or control of two or more Class I railroads, this transaction is governed by 49 U.S.C. 11324(d), which directs us to approve a control application unless we find that: (1) as a result of the transaction, there is likely to be substantial lessening of competition, creation of a monopoly, or restraint of trade in freight surface transportation in any region of the United States; and (2) the anticompetitive effects of the transaction outweigh the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs. In assessing transactions subject to section 11324(d), our primary focus is on whether there would be adverse competitive impacts that are both likely and substantial. If so, we also consider whether the anticompetitive impacts would outweigh the transportation benefits or could be mitigated through conditions.[22] As discussed below, the Board also has the authority to consider the potential environmental effects of the transaction and to impose appropriate conditions to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. Competitive Analysis.
After considering the application and the full record in this
proceeding, the Board has determined that the proposed control transaction is
unlikely to cause a substantial lessening of competition or to create a
monopoly or restraint of trade. Currently,
no shippers are jointly served by CN and EJ&E. Where both railroads serve transloading and
transfer facilities, shippers would still have comparable options to transload
freight to or from several carriers in the Build-out
Option. ACS is a shipper solely
served by EJ&E and is concerned with the loss of competitive leverage
currently afforded by ACS’s ability to build out a short distance of track in
order to connect with CN. Accordingly,
ACS opposes the proposed transaction unless approval of the transaction is
conditioned on CN granting trackage rights to ACS (or to a rail carrier created
by ACS) and to NS over EJ&E between Griffith and Hartsdale, IN
(approximately 3 miles), or between Griffith and Van Loon, IN (approximately 4
miles), in order for ACS to connect with, and be rail served by NS. If for any reason this condition were not
imposed, ACS requests the following conditions:
(1) CN shall cause EJ&EW to continue to provide ACS with the
level of service EJ&E currently provides, i.e., 5 days per week; and
(2) CN shall cause EJ&EW to abide by all terms in the EJ&E
Transportation Contract EJE‑C‑0003 between ACS and EJ&E for a
period of 5 years from the date of consummation of CN control of EJ&EW, and
annually thereafter pursuant to an evergreen provision. CN maintains that ACS has never raised or
discussed the possibility of a build-out to either CN or EJ&E and that ACS
underestimates the difficulty in building out to the CN line. CN contends that, contrary to ACS’s assertions,
the control transaction would not eliminate competition provided by build-out
opportunities. The Board’s policy has been to preserve the competitive advantages made possible by build-outs.[23] Despite applicants’ argument that construction of this build-out would not be feasible, the Board notes that the ultimate test of feasibility is whether the line is actually constructed, not whether the shipper has demonstrated that it is economically feasible.[24] The evidence shows that CN’s line is in very close proximity to tracks owned by ACS. Should ACS build out to a CN connection, the Board will grant to NS or any third-party carrier the necessary trackage rights on CN to the build-out.[25] With this condition, no shipper would suffer a direct merger-related loss of competitive rail service. Geographic Competition. In examining the effect of the proposed transaction on geographic competition, the Board examines the effect of the transaction on source competition, when two carriers can transport the same product to the same destination but from different origins, or conversely when two carriers transport the same product from the same origin to two different destinations. No party has questioned applicant’s analysis or conclusion that there would not be a diminution in source competition as a result of the transaction. Therefore, based on the record, the Board finds that the transaction will not lead to a reduction in geographic competition. Market Power. The Board also considers whether common control would increase CN’s or EJ&E’s market power. As noted above, no shipper would face a reduction in the number of rail carriers serving any of its facilities, and no reduction in geographic competition is expected. However, the issue is whether the vertical integration of CN and EJ&E would have any anticompetitive effects for the users of rail transportation services. In its application, CN alleges that there would be no adverse vertical effects on competition and that it would keep all gateways affected by the control transaction open on commercially reasonable terms[26] and is committed to honoring trackage rights and haulage agreements with all connecting carriers.[27] Equistar contends that the control transaction would result in the loss of a “neutral connection” that allows shippers efficient access to every Class I railroad (with the exception of The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS)) at a range of gateways, as well as numerous short line and regional railroads.[28] Several parties anticipate that CN would maximize its own line-haul opportunities along the EJ&E and institute pricing and service to favor its own connecting route.[29] Many commenters assert that CN would not provide the same level of service and responsive rates that they currently receive from EJ&E.[30] The Board recognizes the vertical effects that might result from the proposed transaction, such as the potential for CN to impair the terms of trackage rights, interchange, or service associated with competing line haul carriers using EJ&E. Likewise, the Board takes seriously any possibility that CN might raise its rivals’ costs by acquiring a line that currently provides neutral access to alternative line-haul railroads that compete with one another (including CN). As discussed below, the Board will hold applicants to their representation to keep open affected gateways on commercially reasonable terms. The Board also recognizes that the service received by shippers from a regional short-line railroad, such as EJ&E, might change when the railroad is acquired by a long-haul railroad, such as CN. By imposing the oversight and monitoring condition described below, the Board will be able to address any possible service issues that may arise and to ensure that service levels are reasonable and adequate. In short, the evidence demonstrates that the transaction, in light of and subject to the conditions imposed in this decision, would not result in either a substantial lessening of competition, the creation of a monopoly, or a restraint of trade in freight surface transportation in any region of the United States. But even if there were some modest
anticompetitive effect, it would be outweighed by the public interest in
meeting significant transportation needs.
The proposed transaction would greatly improve efficiency for movements
through the Gateways and Requested Conditions. In its application, CN states that it would keep all gateways affected by the control transaction open on commercially reasonable terms[31] and is committed to honoring trackage rights and haulage agreements with all connecting carriers.[32] In its response to comments, CN further explains that this representation is meant to protect shippers’ commercial options, particularly from vertical foreclosure.[33] The Board will hold applicants to their pledge that they will keep all existing gateways affected by the transaction open on commercially reasonable terms. CSXT and WisDOT contend that CN’s representation regarding its gateways is not sufficient.[34] Fearing operational problems for its operations in the Chicago area that might reverberate throughout the its entire system, CSXT requests a condition holding CN to its representations until there is mutual consent between CSXT and CN to change the interchange and requiring CN to abide by the commitments CN made to CSXT through confidential correspondence. CSXT goes on to request the following: (1) that the interchange locations for the following railroads and/or specified traffic will continue to be the following: (i) Clearing Yard for interchange between CSXT and Wisconsin Central Ltd.; (ii) Clearing Yard for interchange between CSXT and Minnesota and Western Canada freight; (iii) Barr Yard and Riverdale Yard for interchange between CSXT and Illinois Central Railroad Company; and (2) that all other existing CN and CSXT interchange properties will be handled in accordance with existing agreements. CSXT also requests that the interchange between CSXT and EJ&E that exists as of January 28, 2008, at Curtis Yard will be utilized only for EJ&EW traffic after consummation of the transaction. Applicants claim that their commitment in the application to keep all gateways open on commercially reasonable terms is in no way a commitment to freeze in place all of CN’s and EJ&E’s interchange locations and related practices, terms, and conditions. Applicants argue, among other things, that moving interchanges is the receiving carrier’s prerogative and that the Board and the courts have consistently upheld this right, subject to location reasonableness. The Board is disinclined to impose conditions that would freeze in place existing interchange locations. Such conditions may have anticompetitive consequences, precluding a carrier from making route changes that improve efficiency and service and from establishing related rate reductions. The Board would prefer to allow a merged entity flexibility in determining the most efficient routes for its newly restructured system, benefiting shippers in the process.[35] While interchange locations may change, the Board expects that CN will maintain its ability to interchange traffic effectively with all parties. Indeed, CN will continue to have the obligation to make available reasonable facilities for interchange under 49 U.S.C 10742. WisDOT also asserts that CN provides no objective manner for the Board to effectively monitor CN’s commitment to keeping all existing gateways affected by the transaction open on “commercially reasonable terms,” as asserted in CN’s application. Accordingly, WisDOT requests that the Board define “commercially reasonable terms” in a manner that will allow an objective determination of compliance with their assertion. The Board does not see the need to define “commercially reasonable terms.” Under the operational monitoring condition discussed below, the Board will retain jurisdiction to determine on a case-by-case basis, when raised by an affected party, whether CN has failed to honor its commitment. Bottleneck Rule; Contract Exception. Under the Board’s “bottleneck” principles,[36] in certain circumstances a shipper may separately challenge a portion of a carrier’s rate for a segment of a movement if the shipper has obtained a contract with another carrier for the remainder of the movement (the “contract exception”). Applicants have pledged that they will not assert any claims that would deprive any shipper of the right and opportunity to use the contract exception that the shipper would have had before the transaction. See CN-2 at 75. The Board will hold applicants to their pledge. Relief Sought by Shippers Served by EJ&E. Several shippers whom EJ&E currently serves assert that the control transaction would result in a diminution in service, noting that a regional short line railroad provides superior service to customers on its line than a Class I railroad that is more concerned with long-haul rail transportation. ACS. ACS strongly disagrees with CN’s allegations that rail service to shippers would improve as a result of the proposed acquisition. Rather, ACS argues that shippers would be better served by a service-oriented local rail carrier, like EJ&E, than a large carrier like CN, whose headquarters are located far away. The Board will take very seriously any shipper allegation that it is not receiving adequate service to meet its needs as a result of the control transaction. The Board’s oversight condition is intended to address service issues that arise as a result of the control transaction. Equistar and AuxSable. Equistar owns and operates a polymers plant in East Morris, IL, that is currently served by EJ&E. Equistar states that EJ&E currently provides its East Morris plant a neutral connection that permits Equistar to access not only every Class I railroad, with the exception of KCS, at a range of gateways, but also numerous short-line and regional railroads as well. Equistar has reservations that consummation of the proposed transaction effectively would eliminate such neutral connections, and it anticipates CN’s capturing a substantial portion of those connections to maximize its line-haul opportunities, thereby causing Equistar’s traffic to encounter inefficient and unnecessarily circuitous routing. While CSXT has the capacity to serve the East Morris plant, Equistar contends that CSXT is not a viable competitor of EJ&E because CSXT does not have the storage-in-transit capacity that is a critical element in service to the plastics industry. Further, Equistar notes that CSXT does not offer a direct line connection between Chicago and East Morris, instead operating under trackage rights over EJ&E accorded between East Morris and Joliet. Equistar is therefore concerned that any reduction in or restriction of those trackage rights would further compromise CSXT’s efforts to serve the East Morris plant. Thus, Equistar asserts, the loss of neutral connections as a result of the proposed transaction would serve to eliminate competition for Equistar’s traffic. Accordingly, Equistar requests that the Board condition approval of the control transaction on CN granting trackage rights and storage-in-transit rights consistent with those currently offered by EJ&E to protect Equistar’s ability to continue to receive the benefits equivalent to having a neutral connection at its East Morris plant. Aux Sable is concerned with the
reduction of rail competition resulting from CN’s acquisition of EJ&E,
which Aux Sable believes would jeopardize the existing favorable arrangement
covering EJ&E’s service to its plant in The conditions sought by Aux Sable
and Equistar are not appropriate and go beyond what is necessary to address any
anticipated adverse effect of the control transaction. As CN notes in its reply, the requested conditions
do not seek to remedy a significant loss in competition (as the number of
railroads serving Equistar and Aux Sable will remain the same
post-transaction). Relief Sought by WSOR asserts that, given the dramatic impact of the CN/EJ&E and CPR/DM&E/IC&E proceedings on Midwestern rail service, the Board must consider the adverse impacts of both transactions in deciding whether to grant the conditions sought by WSOR. Further, to relieve the anticipated congestion, WSOR requests that approval of the transaction be conditioned on the Board requiring the following: (1) CN to sell to WSOR CN’s former Wisconsin Central rail line from Leithton (milepost 37.9) to Forest Park, IL (milepost 11.0) (where it connects with a line of CSXT, giving WSOR access to the BRC’s Clearing Yard) at a price to be negotiated by the parties but subject to Board oversight; (2) CN to grant WSOR overhead trackage rights over CN’s line between Grayslake (milepost 44.0) and Leithton (milepost 37.9); (3) CN to assign to WSOR its trackage rights over CSXT from milepost 11.0 to the entrance to the Clearing Yard (also known as CSXT milepost 9.9, distance of about 8.9 miles) or, alternatively, to grant WSOR overhead trackage rights on its entire line from Grayslake (milepost 44.0) to Leithton (milepost 37.9), and then to Forest Park, IL (milepost 11.0) at a fee not to exceed 36 cents per mile, and (4) CN to assign its rights over CSXT into the Clearing Yard. Although Board regulations provide for the evaluation of the cumulative impacts and crossover effects likely to occur as rival carriers react to the proposed combination in a major merger,[39] those regulations do not apply to a minor transaction. And although the Board has approved the CP/DM&E transaction, CP has not yet taken steps to begin constructing a line to the PRB or sought to have the existing restrictions lifted that currently limit the routing of any PRB coal moving over that line.[40] In the meantime, any projections as to the resulting traffic and congestion, and the effects thereof, continue to be highly speculative. Further, the Board agrees with CN’s assertion that the conditions WSOR seeks do not address competitive harm caused by the proposed transaction. For these reasons, the Board finds WSOR’s requested conditions to be inappropriate, and they will be denied. However, the operational monitoring condition will provide a means for the Board to monitor and address any congestion issues resulting from the control transaction. Relief Sought by Wisconsin State Agencies.
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
DATCP is concerned with the potential for decreased services to Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
WisDOT is concerned about the transaction’s impact on already congested
CN lines traversing WisDOT requests that the following conditions be imposed: (1) CN operations would not block access to business or individuals for an unduly lengthy period of time and CN would establish a means of removing blockages within 30 minutes when notified of a blockage; (2) CN would construct additional infrastructure as needed if CN is unable to prevent blockages that last an unduly lengthy period of time; (3) CN would negotiate alternative access to the access to the Chicago terminal area with regional carriers who may be negatively affected by increased CN traffic through Wisconsin; (4) CN would not increase speeds on its lines in Wisconsin above current speeds until the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Railroads determines that grade crossing warning devices at at-grade crossings provide adequate warning for the proposed speed; and (5) CN would share its plan for improvement to trackage in Wisconsin to accommodate the increased volumes including dollar amounts by line segment with WisDOT.
DATCP’s and
WisDOT’s concerns and requested conditions do not address any adverse competitive impacts on freight transportation. WisDOT’s assertion that traffic would
increase with the opening of the Relief Sought by Metra. Metra opposes the proposed transaction unless approval of the application is made subject to conditions that they claim would adequately protect the interests of Metra. Metra is concerned that the proposed increase in traffic on the EJ&E would pose a serious potential challenge to Metra’s continued ability to provide high-quality commuter service. Metra notes that CN has stated that it would work with Metra and host freight operators to coordinate operations and adjust operating windows such that the needs of all users would be met and that CN would explore options to facilitate Metra’s proposed Suburban Transit Access Route (STAR) line plans. Metra states it has met with CN to negotiate a resolution, but no resolution could be reached. Accordingly, Metra requests three conditions specifically concerning Metra’s operations, one of which has a subset of conditions in the alternative. Metra also requests a fourth condition for the public interest. STAR
Line. Metra states that it is
currently in the planning stages of instituting commuter operations, referred
to as the STAR line, over a portion of the EJ&E. Metra states that at least two segments
involving the EJ&E have been identified for future expansion of the STAR
line: the Star Line East Segment that would operate along the EJ&E
right-of-way from Southeast
Service. Metra claims that, in
conjunction with the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts Process, it is
in the planning stages of developing a new rail service line, the Southeast
Service Line, from Chicago to Crete, IL, on the joint right-of-way of UP and
CSXT, and will cross the EJ&E at grade at Chicago Heights. Accordingly, Metra requests that approval of
the proposed transaction be conditioned on CN agreeing to work cooperatively
with Metra on the establishment of a commuter train schedule to accommodate the
Southeast Service. The proposed
condition also requests that, once such a schedule is established, CN agree to
respect the integrity of the schedule and grant commuter trains priority over
the EJ&E controls the interlockings
at West Chicago and Accordingly, Metra requests that
approval of the proposed transaction be conditioned on the control of the West
Chicago and CN strongly opposes these proposed conditions and asserts that adequate capacity exists for Metra trains and that any additional and longer trains will not be running over and sharing UP lines, but merely cross the same diamonds as UP lines. Metra’s
Requested Reporting Condition.
Lastly, Metra requests that CN cause EJ&EW to report to the Board
regarding the effect of the foregoing conditions on delay of Metra commuter
trains at West Chicago and The Board will not impose Metra’s
requested conditions concerning the STAR line, the Southeast Service line, or
the West Chicago and The Board further notes that many
of the concerns surrounding the proposed STAR line and Southeast Service have
been addressed in the EIS prepared by SEA.[41] As a voluntary mitigation measure, applicants
state that they will operate the The Board also recognizes the concern surrounding any changes in protocol in the handling of passenger train traffic. The Board’s operational monitoring condition will require the reporting of current protocol and changes to protocol during the oversight period. Parties, such as Metra, will have ample opportunity to report any diminution in service resulting from the proposed transaction. Further, the Board will hold applicants to their representation that affected gateways will be kept open on commercially reasonable terms. Several
parties oppose the proposed transaction and assert that the abandonment of the
In their response, applicants addressed these concerns by stating that CN has now agreed to the conditions sought by Amtrak: that Amtrak may remain on the Air Line Route indefinitely, until the Grand Crossing Connection or another acceptable alternative is available, at a cost to be capped at the current level (adjusting only for inflation pursuant to the formula contained in the agreement between CN and Amtrak) and at the level of operating utility currently enjoyed by Amtrak.[47] Applicants do note, however, that CN never committed itself to making a financial contribution to the Grand Crossing Connection and did not make such a commitment as part of CREATE.[48] On December 9, 2008, Amtrak and CN
jointly filed a notice of settlement and request for conditions. The settlement agreement memorializes the
commitments made by CN regarding Amtrak’s continued use of the The Board finds that the terms of
the settlement agreement sufficiently address the parties’ concerns with regard
to the Gary/Chicago International Airport Authority. GCIAA opposes the proposed transaction based on the belief that increased rail traffic would have negative effects on safety and economic development at the Gary/Chicago International Airport. Specifically, GCIAA raises concerns about impairment to its runway expansion project to increase the overall length of its primary runway. The expansion project, which has already begun, is designed to address expansion and safety issues, and to bring the runway up to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards. The expansion plan requires that a portion of the EJ&E line running directly northwest of the runway be relocated. For approximately the last 6 years, GCIAA has tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with EJ&E to relocate 2.3 miles of the line. GCIAA asserts that the proposed transaction would significantly impair its ability to fund and complete the runway expansion. GCIAA explains that the increased traffic would further complicate the proposed track changes and create additional issues with compensating EJ&E for the changes to the track. Additionally, GCIAA asserts that the increased train operations would pose serious safety issues. While GCIAA’s concerns may be valid, its comments, as CN
notes, do not allege any adverse competitive impacts
in freight transportation. The
difficulties in negotiating with EJ&E appear to be a longstanding issue of
concern. GCIAA has not shown how future
negotiations with applicants would be impeded as a direct result of the control
transaction. While the Board urges
parties to reach a resolution, GCIAA’s comments do not address any competitive
harm that would arise from the approval of the control transaction. The Board notes, however, that GCIAA’s safety concerns are
addressed in the EIS. As discussed in the
Draft EIS, GCIAA, EJ&E, CSX, and NS entered into a four-party Preliminary
Memorandum of Understanding (PMOU) on June 27, 2008.[50] The PMOU provides for relocating the EJ&E
rail line, building a bridge over the existing NS Gary Branch, and constructing
a separated-grade crossing at Monitoring & Oversight Condition. The Board is establishing an
oversight period for 5 years so that it may assess the competitiveness of
service provided by CN upon implementation of the proposed transaction, the
various service and other impacts of the transaction, and the effectiveness of
the various conditions we have imposed.
Although the Board does not anticipate anticompetitive consequences from
the transfer of control, it is mindful that operational difficulties can arise
when implementing transactions of this scope.
Therefore, approval of the transaction will be conditioned upon a
monitoring and oversight condition. If
operational problems arise after consummation of the transaction, this
oversight condition should provide a fully effective mechanism for quickly
identifying and addressing them. The
Board retains jurisdiction to impose additional conditions and take other
action if, and to the extent, the Board determines it is necessary to address
matters related to operations following the transfer of control. At the end of the 5-year oversight period,
the Board may elect to extend its oversight for an additional period if
conditions warrant. The Board finds that
an initial 5-year duration is appropriate, so that the oversight period will
begin with the implementation phase (which applicants expect to be completed
within 3 years after consummation of their acquisition of control over
EJ&EW[51]) and
continue for a 2-year period following the full implementation of the operating
plan. During the oversight period, the Board will closely monitor whether
applicants have adhered to the various representations made on the record in
this proceeding. To accomplish this goal
we will require CN to report to us monthly on the operational matters described
below. CN shall meet with Board
personnel to establish appropriate measures and reporting procedures for this
monitoring. CN shall continue to report
these measures on a monthly basis during the oversight period unless the Board
alters or terminates the reporting. Interchanges. To monitor interchange activity, the Board will require CN to establish
measurements of the effectiveness of each current (historic) interchange and to
report the same measures for these interchanges post-merger. The reporting shall cover any new interchange
should CN move traffic from one or more current interchanges to a new
point. The new interchange with the Gary
Railway Company shall also be included in the reporting. Railroad At-Grade Crossings. EJ&E also has at-grade crossings with several railroads in the Train Volumes, Accidents and Incidents,
and Street Crossing Blockages. CN
will be required to provide monthly the following information pertinent to
post-merger operations: the number of
trains operating over appropriate segments of the EJ&E and CN lines through
Chicago per day; the date and descriptive information about each accident or
incident that occurs on the EJ&E rail line or CN lines through Chicago,
including grade crossing accidents; and the date and descriptive information
about each crossing blocking occurrence on the EJ&E rail line that exceeds
10 minutes in duration. Labor Protection. Under 49 U.S.C. 11326 (with exceptions not pertinent here), the imposition of labor protection is mandatory when approval is sought for a transaction under sections 11323–11325. In the absence of a need for greater protection, the conditions in New York Dock are appropriate for this type of transaction. Because no need for greater protection has been shown (the evidence indicates that the CN/EJ&EW control transaction will be implemented with limited adverse effects on employees), these conditions will be imposed here. Applicants state that most job reductions (estimated at 114) will be addressed through normal attrition during the implementation period, and state that any workforce reductions would allow for increased administrative efficiency, improve equipment utilization and maintenance, and create centralized dispatching and crew-calling offices. UTU GCA-386
has asked the Board to extend employee protection to include protections for
employees of other railroads, in particular employees of BNSF Railway Company
(BNSF), engaged in terminal operations in BLET asks the Board to deny the application and related filings, or, in the alternative, apply New York Dock conditions on the entire transaction, including the proposed grants of trackage rights in STB Finance Docket No. 35087 (Sub-Nos. 2 through 7). BLET contends that these grants of trackage rights would provide CN a level of control over its five subsidiaries that would require Board approval under section 11323, and thus would necessitate the application of New York Dock conditions to the entire unified transaction, instead of imposing the standard level of protection for trackage rights exemptions set forth in Norfolk and Western. BLET also expresses concern regarding applicants’ statement regarding the need to create a single collective bargaining agreement for all train and engine personnel. Lastly, BLET takes issue with CN’s proposal to give trackage rights to GTW and WC over the entire length of EJ&EW’s main line, while EJ&EW would have no corresponding rights over GTW and WC. New York Dock and Norfolk & Western provide differing levels of protection, but, as it respects affected employees of applicants and their rail carrier affiliates, these differences will be of no consequence: affected employees of applicants and their rail carrier affiliates covered by Norfolk & Western would also be covered by, and would therefore be entitled to the protections of, the New York Dock conditions. Further, as CN notes, any attempt by CN to bring all Chicago-area train and engine employees under a single collective bargaining agreement would not occur without negotiation and, if necessary, arbitration under New York Dock, subject to the Board’s review.[55] This provision under New York Dock would also address BLET’s concerns regarding pending employment proceedings and the proposed allocation of EJ&E employees between the Gary Railway and EJ&EW. Therefore, Board’s approval of this transaction does not indicate approval or disapproval of any of the applicants’ plans regarding the collective bargaining agreements of affected employees. BLET’s request will be denied. Lastly, IBEW, ATDA, and NCFO file joint comments requesting the Board to condition approval upon assurances from applicants that: (1) the collective bargaining agreements covering these unions’ CN and EJ&E members remain intact; (2) CN succeed to EJ&E’s contractual obligations in pending contract claims and disciplinary appeals; and (3) employees receive full New York Dock protections. As stated above, New York Dock protections will be imposed. The Board does not issue specific findings regarding any potential changes to collective bargaining agreements an applicant might implement to carry out a transaction. Those discussions are covered by New York Dock. New York Dock protections also apply to pending contract claims and disciplinary appeals. Therefore, the concerns of these parties are adequately addressed by our imposition of New York Dock as a condition to approval of this transaction. Related Filings. Corporate Family Transaction (Sub-No. 1). In its application, CN has included a notice of exemption filed by EJ&E, under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3), that would allow EJ&EW to acquire the land, rail, and related assets of EJ&E located west of the centerline of Buchanan Street in Gary, immediately following the Board’s approval of the proposed transaction. The pertinent class exemption exempts transactions within a corporate family that do not result in adverse changes in service levels, significant operational changes, or a change in the competitive balance with carriers outside the corporate family. Because this transfer, alone, would not affect service levels, operations, or competition, the Board will allow the notice of exemption to take effect on the effective date of this decision. Trackage Rights Exemption Notices (Sub-Nos. 2 through 7). Applicants have filed six notices of exemption (in Sub-Nos. 2 through 7) under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). In Sub-Nos. 2 through 5, applicants’ subsidiaries—CCP, GTW, IC, and WC—seek to obtain trackage rights over EJ&EW, between Waukegan, IL, and Gary, IN. In Sub-Nos. 6 and 7, EJ&EW seeks trackage rights over selected portions of CN’s CCP and IP subsidiaries. The pertinent regulation exempts the acquisition of trackage rights by a rail carrier over lines owned or operated by any other rail carrier that are: (1) based on written agreements and (2) not filed or sought in a responsive application in a rail consolidation proceeding. No individual findings under 49 U.S.C. 10502 are necessary as to the trackage rights notices because the transactions fall within the class exemption provided at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). The Board will allow the notices of exemption to take effect on the effective date of this decision. Environmental Issues.
Board Authority. The Board and, before it, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) have long exercised authority to impose environmental mitigation conditions on the agency’s approval of transactions governed by what is now section 11324(d).[56] In its comments on the Draft EIS, CN asserted—for the first time in this or any other such proceeding—that the Board lacks the statutory authority to impose environmental conditions.[57] CN also questioned whether NEPA applies in a section 11324(d) proceeding because the time provided in section 11325(d) for a final decision is not sufficient for the Board to conduct the environmental review required by NEPA. As discussed below, CN is estopped from contesting the Board’s authority to attach environmental mitigation conditions in this case by its contemporaneous Congressional testimony. Moreover, CN waived its other claims by failing to raise them in a timely manner before the Board. Nevertheless, for the benefit of future applicants, we will discuss the basis of the Board’s statutory authority to impose environmental mitigation conditions on our approval of transactions subject to section 11324(d). Estoppel. Three weeks before CN filed its comments on the Draft EIS questioning the Board’s authority to impose environmental mitigation conditions, CN’s President testified before Congress that the Board already has the authority to conduct an environmental review of the transaction and impose environmental mitigation conditions.[58] Consequently, CN is barred here from arguing that the Board does not have the authority to impose environmental mitigation conditions by analogy to the doctrine of judicial estoppel.[59] The elements of judicial estoppel[60] are present here: CN has taken clearly inconsistent positions before the Board and Congress; it convinced Congress that new legislation was unnecessary by assuring them that the Board has environmental conditioning authority; and it would now derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment if it were not estopped from asserting before the Board the inconsistent position that the Board lacks environmental conditioning power here. Waiver. In pleadings filed in May
and August 2008, CN also suggested that NEPA does not apply to acquisition
proposals designated as “minor” under the Board’s rules because the Board is
required by statute to reach a decision within 180 days of the filing of the
application, which is not adequate time to complete a NEPA review if
preparation of an EIS is necessary. CN
however, has waived this claim because it did not forcefully raise it in a timely manner.[61] The time for CN to have done so would have
been either before or immediately after the Board’s November 26, 2007 decision,
which accepted the application as a minor transaction, announced the Board’s
intention to prepare an EIS, rather than a more limited EA, in this case, and
extended the date for a final decision as needed to complete the full
environmental review process. CN failed
to do so. Instead, it took the opposite
position–that “the Board cannot
authorize the Transaction on the merits until the EIS process is complete.”[62] Had CN presented its current argument to the
Board at the outset, the agency would have been in a better position to assess
the extent to which NEPA applies and whether there were any suitable ways to shorten
the environmental review process from the outset.[63] Environmental Conditioning
Authority. This agency has had broad authority over
rail consolidations since 1920. Prior to
1980, ICC review of all mergers and acquisitions was conducted under a single,
broad public interest standard.[64] In 1980, Congress concluded that the ICC had
been taking too long to decide non-controversial cases “where approval is
routinely and consistently granted.”[65] Therefore, as part of its overhaul of
railroad regulation in the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 (Staggers Act), Congress
narrowed the factors to be considered by the agency in deciding whether to
approve rail merger or acquisition proposals that do not involve more than one
Class I railroad (current section 11324(d)) and imposed shorter timetables for
the review of those cases (current sections 11325(c) and (d)). In applications that do not involve more than
one Class I railroad, the schedule for review is either 300 days (for a
proposal with regional or national transportation significance, section
11325(c)) or 180 days (for all other proposals, section 11324(d)). As noted above, with regard to a transaction that does not involve the merger or acquisition of at least two Class I rail carriers, section 11324(d) directs the Board to approve the transaction unless: (1) as a result of the transaction, there is likely to be substantial lessening of competition, creation of a monopoly, or restraint of trade in freight surface transportation in any region of the United States; and (2) the anticompetitive effects of the transaction outweigh the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs. And because section 11324(d) was enacted specifically to curtail the substantive, transportation-related review of issues that were deemed “routine,” the ICC, shortly after passage of the Staggers Act, concluded that its substantive, transportation-related review in such cases should focus only on the “significant anticompetitive effects” standard in the statute.[66] Environmental conditions, however, are different, and we believe that Congress in the Staggers Act did not intend to preclude environmental conditions in section 11324(d) cases. Although NEPA was enacted in 1969, it had not come into play in ICC merger cases by the time of the Staggers Act. Nevertheless, Congress considered exempting section 11324 transactions from NEPA, but ultimately chose not to do so.[67] Because Congress has explicitly exempted other types of rail transactions from NEPA,[68] its failure to do so here is an important fact suggesting that it did not intend to preclude NEPA’s application. As a general matter, the Board has broad powers to administer the Interstate Commerce Act, including the rail transaction review provisions. Section 721(a) makes clear that “[e]numeration of a power of the Board . . . does not exclude another power the Board may have in carrying out [the Act].” Section 11324(c) gives the Board explicit authority to impose conditions on rail consolidations subject to section 11324, including section 11324(d) transactions. The agency has always believed that the limitation against imposing traditional public interest conditions unrelated to competition in section 11324(d) transactions does not extend to environmental conditions, and it has imposed environmental conditions in other mergers subject to section 11324(d).[69] The agency’s clear demarcation of environmental conditions—as distinct from conditions relating to traditional public interest factors—stems from the special status of environmental protection under a separate legislative mandate. In NEPA, Congress required all federal agencies to incorporate informed environmental considerations into their decision-making. 42 U.S.C. 4332(C). To that end, Congress directed agencies to interpret and administer their statutes, regulations and policies in accordance with the environmental protection policies set forth in NEPA “to the fullest extent possible.” See 42 U.S.C. 4332; see also 40 CFR 1500.6 (CEQ regulation). Thus, where an agency’s authority to take a particular action—such as imposing conditions—is grounded in its own statute, NEPA “authorizes the agency to make decisions based on environmental factors not expressly identified in the agency’s underlying statute.” Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The Board has complied with NEPA’s mandate by construing the Interstate Commerce Act to permit the imposition of environmental conditions in mergers subject to section 11324(d). Although Congress intended NEPA to be broadly applied to virtually all major actions taken by federal agencies, there are certain narrow exceptions to NEPA applicability when there is a “clear and unavoidable” conflict between an agency’s statute and NEPA.[70] As discussed below, however, none of the exceptions applies to the Board’s exercise of conditioning authority here, and nothing in the structure or language of the Interstate Commerce Act suggests that Congress intended to preclude the application of NEPA to transactions covered by section 11324(d). Unless there is a direct conflict between NEPA and an agency’s organic statute or some other strong evidence demonstrating Congressional intent to repeal NEPA, then NEPA is to be followed. See Izaak Walton League v. Marsh, 655 F.2d 346, 367 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Although section 11324(d) limits the range of transportation-related conditions that the Board can impose in smaller mergers, it does not directly preclude the Board from considering environmental impacts when determining whether to impose environmental conditions on its approval of such transactions.[71] Consistent with the “direct contradiction” standard, in certain situations the time limits on an agency’s decisionmaking are so short as to reflect a clear Congressional intent to preclude the consideration of environmental issues.[72] See, e.g., Flint Ridge (30-day time limit too short for NEPA); City of New York v. Minetta, 262 F.3d 169 (2d. Cir. 2001) (60-day time limit too short). The court cases do not support the conclusion that the 300-day review period for section 11324(d) transactions that have regional or national transportation significance and the 180-day review period for all other section 11324(d) transactions are so short as to reflect an intent by Congress to exempt the Board’s decisionmaking from NEPA.[73] The Board has conducted environmental reviews of varying detail under these time frames in prior cases, and has made informed decisions with regard to the need (or lack of need) to exercise our authority to impose environmental mitigation conditions.[74] In light of the foregoing, the
Board concludes that Congress authorized the Board to impose conditions to
mitigate adverse environmental effects.
This is especially so where Board approval of a transaction–by statute–exempts
the merging carriers from “all other law,” including state and local
environmental laws, “as necessary” to let the carriers carry out the
transaction and operate the rail property.
See 49 U.S.C. 11321(a). Indeed, the current transaction illustrates
why the Board’s conditioning authority must be construed to permit
environmental mitigation. The
CN/EJ&E transaction is expected to provide nationwide economic benefits by
making the interstate rail transportation network more efficient and relieving
rail congestion in the Environmental Analysis. With the assistance of SEA,
the Board has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of this transaction,
which involves changes to rail operations, the related construction of rail
connections totaling about 4.9 miles, construction of double-track segments
totaling about 19 miles, primarily within existing right-of-way, and changes in
rail yard operations, by preparing an EIS addressing a broad range of
environmental issues. The Requirements of NEPA. NEPA
requires that the Board examine the environmental effects of proposed Federal
actions and to inform the public concerning those effects. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, 462 The EIS Process. SEA conducted a detailed analysis of all of the potential environmental impacts associated with the transaction. That analysis involved the development of a comprehensive environmental record to consider and study all aspects of the transaction. On December 21, 2007, the Board published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS, which initiated the scoping process; requested comments on a draft scope of study for the EIS; and notified the public of planned open house meetings on the draft scope. SEA held 14 scoping open house meetings in seven locations in January 2008. After reviewing and considering all comments received, the Board published a final scope of study for the EIS in the Federal Register on April 28, 2008. In addition
to the public scoping meetings, SEA held agency scoping meetings with Federal,
state, and local agencies in SEA
consulted extensively with appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies
throughout the preparation of the EIS, including the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), and state historic preservation offices. SEA also identified 28 communities with
minority or low-income populations potentially affected by the
transaction. SEA then conducted targeted
and specific outreach efforts to engage these communities in the environmental
review process, including direct calls to elected officials regarding the
environmental review process and meetings with local representatives. SEA also met with the Metropolitan Mayors
Caucus in SEA issued
the Draft EIS on July 25, 2008, and made it available for public review and
comment for a 60-day period to and including September 30, 2008. In addition to soliciting written comments on
the Draft EIS, SEA held eight open house/public meetings throughout the SEA
received over 9,500 comments on the Draft EIS, including comments from members
of the public, elected officials, Federal and state agencies, and local
governments. The comments expressed both
support for and opposition to the transaction.
Many of those expressing support talked generally of project benefits,
such as reduced noise or congestion along CN rail lines that would experience a
decreased volume of freight rail traffic or improved regional rail traffic
efficiency. A number of CN’s rail
freight customers wrote in support of the transaction because, by providing
applicants a quicker route through In preparing the Final EIS, SEA revised information to clarify, update, and correct some information contained in the Draft EIS. In addition, SEA conducted additional analysis and evaluated new information furnished or suggested by agencies and the public during the public comment period. This additional analysis included supplemental evaluation of the potential impacts of the transaction on the Metra STAR Line service and the planned expansion of NICTD commuter service, school safety, hazardous materials transport, quality of life in communities along the EJ&E line, noise and vibration, and biological resources.[75] Additional and updated analysis was also provided on average daily traffic counts (ADT)[76] and potential effects resulting from changes to: highway/rail at-grade crossings; delays to emergency services; rail operations and safety; air quality and intersection mobility; and modifications to planned changes to the originally-proposed Matteson Connection and a revised Double Track—Leithton Connection. On November 18, 2008, the Board
held a public meeting at its offices in
Alternatives Analyzed. Three alternatives were evaluated during the
environmental review process: the
proposed action; the no action alternative (under which SEA assessed rail
operations that would take place on the EJ&E line if applicants did not
acquire control of that line); and the proposed action with conditions,
including environmental mitigation measures.
As the courts have repeatedly found, under NEPA, the Board need only
consider “reasonable, feasible alternatives,”[78]
and the Board agrees with the Final EIS that these were the reasonable and
feasible alternatives in this case.
Alternatives that do not advance the purpose of the proposal before the
agency are not considered reasonable or appropriate.[79] SEA therefore properly eliminated four other
proposed alternatives from detailed study in the EIS because they did not meet
applicants’ stated purposes and need for the transaction.[80] The No-Action Alternative. Some citizens and
communities along the EJ&E line have asked the Board to withhold its
approval of the transaction on environmental grounds and have argued that the
Board has the power to do so. The Board
need not reach the question of whether the Board has such power, however,
because we do not find a basis in the record to deny approval on environmental
grounds. Although
some communities on the EJ&E line will experience adverse environmental
effects, the Board finds that these effects are outweighed by the many
transportation and environmental impact benefits that approval of this
transaction would bring about. The
transaction should produce substantial transportation benefits by making CN
more efficient, reducing transit times, and reducing congestion on rail lines
in the Chicago region, many of which were laid out over 100 years ago and were
not designed to facilitate the movement of through traffic.[81] Because Moreover,
many communities along CN’s existing lines will experience environmental
benefits from the reduction in rail traffic as CN reroutes traffic around Finally,
traffic on the EJ&E line could increase significantly even without CN’s
acquisition. The Board does not regulate
frequency of service except to ensure service adequacy. Therefore, the current owner and the carriers
with overhead trackage rights on the EJ&E could increase the frequency of
trains on the line without Board approval and without environmental
mitigation. Nor is prior Board approval
required for many categories of railroad construction. Here, the EJ&E is an operational rail
line, and the current owner could double-track the entire line without Board
approval and without Board-imposed environmental mitigation. Under these circumstances, the communities
along the EJ&E line do not have a “reliance interest” to be free from the
adverse effects of traffic increases on the line, and denying the transaction
could actually make the communities worse off because the environmental effects
of future traffic increases would not be mitigated. The
Board appreciates the concerns of the communities along the EJ&E line and
is imposing substantial mitigation measures to reduce the adverse impacts of
the increase in traffic levels that will result from approval of the
transaction. The Board’s consistent
practice has been to mitigate only those impacts that result directly from a
proposed transaction. However, the Board
does not require mitigation for existing environmental conditions, such as the
effects of current railroad operations. Overview of Environmental Mitigation. After carefully considering the entire environmental record, and except as otherwise stated here, the Board adopts all of SEA’s analysis and conclusions, including those not specifically discussed below. However, for reasons stated in this decision, the Board is modifying several of SEA’s final recommended mitigation conditions. The Board is satisfied that the Draft EIS issued for public review and comment, and the Final EIS, which responds to those comments and contains additional analysis, together have taken the requisite “hard look” at the potential environmental impacts associated with the transaction. The Board agrees with SEA’s analysis of alternatives, and with the exceptions addressed below, the Board finds that SEA’s final recommended environmental mitigation is reasonable and feasible to address the environmental effects of the transaction that SEA identified as potentially significant in the course of the environmental review.[82]
As discussed in more detail below, the
Board’s environmental conditions require applicants to comply with all of their
voluntary mitigation,[83]
and include extensive additional mitigation measures. There is mitigation for eight substantially
affected highway/rail at-grade crossings, including requiring two grade
separations: one at Ogden Avenue near
Aurora, IL, and one at Lincoln Highway in Lynwood (with applicants responsible
for 67% of the cost of the grade separation at Ogden Avenue and 78.5% of the
cost of the Lincoln Highway grade separation, as discussed below). As the Final EIS explains, two other
crossings (
In addition, there is mitigation
requiring applicants to install a closed-circuit television (CCTV) system with
video cameras to facilitate emergency service response at seven locations in Finally, the Board’s mitigation requires applicants to comply with the terms of their agreement reached with Amtrak, and their agreements with Joliet, IL, Crest Hill, IL, Dyer, IN, Schereville, IN, Chicago Heights, IL, Mundelein, IL, Hoffman Estates, IL, Frankfort, IL, and Griffith, IN,[86] and includes mitigation for the transaction-related construction activities. The Board encourages communities and other entities and the applicants to reach negotiated agreements at any time during the environmental reporting period the Board is imposing. Mutually acceptable negotiated agreements can be more far-reaching than site-specific Board-imposed mitigation and are tailored to the specific needs of the community or other entity. Therefore, if negotiated agreements are reached after the Board’s decision here has been issued and becomes effective, the Board will impose the terms of these negotiated agreements as additional mitigation conditions in subsequent decisions.[87] Analysis of Environmental Issues. The
EIS evaluated a broad range of environmental issues, including: rail operations, safety, transportation
systems (highways, railroads, waterways, and airports), hazardous waste sites,
land use, socioeconomics, environmental justice, energy, air quality and climate,
noise and vibration, biological resources, water resources, and cultural
resources. The study area consisted of
the As the EIS explains, the transaction as proposed would produce significant transportation efficiency benefits by reducing congestion in Chicago and reducing transit times required to move railcars and would result in environmental benefits to communities located along the five CN rail lines leading into and out of Chicago–including decreased vehicle traffic delay, reduced noise, reduced air emissions, and fewer shipments of hazardous materials by rail. See Final EIS at ES-2-5, 20. At the same time, the EIS makes it clear that communities along the EJ&E rail line would experience increased train traffic, which could result in adverse impacts caused by increases in vehicle traffic delay, noise, air emissions, and risks to pedestrian and vehicular traffic at crossings. Moreover, the environmental analysis shows that pre-existing conditions along the EJ&E rail line already are problematic to the communities along the line. As the EIS explains (see, e.g., Final EIS at 2-32), these communities currently experience substantial vehicular traffic delays and safety risks during peak travel times due to the high volume of cars and trucks on roadways, and train noise and safety risks due to the freight and passenger trains that are currently on the EJ&E rail line. Specific issues of particular concern. The Board addresses here some of the issues that were of particular concern to commenters during the EIS process. Except as otherwise specifically stated here, the Board is satisfied that all areas of concern have been fully studied and properly analyzed, and we adopt the conclusions in the Final EIS. Rail Traffic Projections. Concerns were raised throughout the EIS process about the traffic projections used in the EIS. Applicants provided in their operating plan a traffic increase forecast covering the first 3 years following implementation of the transaction, and suggested that forecasts of future conditions beyond that time horizon would not produce accurate and reliable predictions. During scoping, commenters argued that the 3-year projections were too short and that SEA should project traffic until 2020 or beyond. For the reasons set forth in the Final Scope and the EIS, SEA reasonably decided to use 2015 as the planning horizon year. As SEA explained, that year represented the limit of what is reasonably foreseeable with regard to projected rail traffic on the EJ&E line, and projections beyond 2015 would be speculative. SEA also properly found that the applicants’ operating plan and rail traffic forecasts were reasonable and reflected the maximum amount of traffic that would likely move on the EJ&E line in 2015, based on a detailed assessment that evaluated (1) the EJ&E rail line capacity based on a constraint analysis,[88] Line Occupancy Index (LOI) evaluation,[89] and use of the Rail Traffic Control (RTC) model[90] and (2) additional analysis that included major trends in rail freight movement and an economic analysis based on anticipated growth in the gross national product.[91] Traffic
Caps. As previously noted, the rail
traffic projections in the EIS show that, as rail traffic increases on the
EJ&E line as a result of the transaction, there would be corresponding
decreases–and potential benefits–in the communities along the five CN lines in
the During the EIS process, a number of commenters requested that the Board impose traffic caps on the number of trains applicants could route on the lines on which CN’s traffic now moves to ensure that the benefits of the transaction are preserved for a specific period of time. But traffic caps would not be reasonable or appropriate here. As discussed above, applicants’ traffic projections are consistent with SEA’s own extensive analysis. Even if traffic levels on the CN lines turn out to be somewhat higher than what the EIS projects, based on unanticipated changes in market conditions, there still would be less traffic on the CN lines if this transaction is implemented than would be the case if applicants lacked full access to the EJ&E line. Nevertheless, given the concerns that have been raised, the Board will modify the recommended reporting and monitoring condition in the Final EIS to require applicants to notify the Board, in the quarterly reports that applicants will submit for 5 years, of any substantial departure from the projected traffic levels upon which this decision is based. The Board recognizes, however, that there can be emergency or other temporary conditions that could lead applicants to use the current CN lines for traffic that would otherwise be routed over the EJ&E line on a short-term basis. Therefore, the Board’s environmental monitoring and reporting condition (number 74) specifically exempts from this reporting requirement the need to report deviations that are only temporary or short-term (i.e., a rerouting to deal with an emergency, or to reduce congestion caused by temporary construction or maintenance activities on a line segment). Highway/Rail At-Grade Crossing Analysis. Many of the comments expressed concern about the impact on safety and congestion at highway/rail at-grade crossings from increased rail traffic on the EJ&E. Therefore, SEA conducted a comprehensive analysis of highway/rail at‑grade crossings that would be potentially affected by the transaction during the environmental review process. SEA’s analysis of impacts is based on Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards and guidelines for evaluating safety and congestion at at-grade crossings. From a safety perspective, SEA’s analyses considered at-grade rail crossing accident probability and safety factors related to increased freight traffic that would result from the transaction. The accident probability analyses addressed the potential for rail and vehicle accidents. The transportation analyses focused on vehicular delays and queue length changes at rail crossings due to the projected increases in rail traffic. Detailed analyses were done at highway/rail at‑grade crossings that have an ADT of 2,500 vehicles per day or are within 800 feet of another crossing. SEA conducted the analyses for projected traffic levels in 2015. The Draft EIS reviewed all highway/rail at-grade crossings on the EJ&E line and the CN lines to identify those that met the threshold for detailed analysis (see Draft EIS, section 4.3). SEA’s evaluation of vehicle safety is described in section 4.2 of the Draft EIS. It showed that, while overall predicted highway/rail at-grade crossing accidents would decrease under the transaction, the transaction would cause three crossings on the EJ&E line to have a high predicted accident frequency.[92] Three crossings on the EJ&E line would potentially experience a substantial increase in exposure of highway vehicles to trains to one million or greater per day.[93] The Draft EIS also evaluated the potential transportation effects of increased rail traffic at highway/rail at-grade crossings by the year 2015. Using screening criteria established by the Board in prior cases involving the construction of new rail lines (see Draft EIS, Table 4.3.1), in particular a minimum ADT of 2,500 vehicles per day in 2015, SEA determined that 87 out of 112 crossings along the EJ&E line met the Board’s thresholds for further environmental analysis. SEA performed a detailed analysis of vehicle delays, mobility issues and length of vehicle queues at the 87 crossings in order to assess the potential effects of the transaction on the area’s transportation system.[94] Based on this analysis, SEA concluded in the Draft EIS that 16 crossings would be “substantially affected,” which SEA defined as a situation where transaction-related queue length would block a roadway that would not otherwise be blocked; the roadway crossing would be at or over capacity (Crossing Level of Service (LOS) E or F as set forth in the Draft EIS at 4.3-10); or total delay for all delayed vehicles would be more than 40 hours per day. The criteria for determining whether a crossing would be “substantially affected” are based on FHWA guidelines. SEA presented a range of mitigation options for fifteen crossings that could potentially warrant mitigation and requested comments on the mitigation options. See Draft EIS at 4.3-50. In response to numerous comments on
the Draft EIS, SEA updated its analysis of transportation systems in the Final
EIS. [95] The Final EIS identified 13 at-grade
crossings on the EJ&E line that would likely be substantially affected by
the transaction. The changes reflect
updated ADTs provided by the IDOT and As the Final EIS explains (at 2-43 to 2-44 and 4-11 to 4-22), SEA considered the individual characteristics of each highway/rail at-grade crossing site, as well as the information provided in public comments, in determining what, if any, mitigation would be appropriate for the substantially affected at-grade crossings. Based on its analysis, SEA recommended mitigation for eight crossings and determined that mitigation was not needed for five crossings.[97] As part of its analysis of mitigation measures, SEA explained (see Final EIS at 4-9) that mitigation for substantially affected at-grade crossings generally includes: (1) traffic advisory signs to notify drivers to stay clear of intersections; (2) roadway modifications, [98] or (3) grade separation.[99] To develop its final mitigation recommendations, SEA considered a host of factors, including the importance of the highway at the crossing to regional traffic flows, existing congestion, existing structures (such as mature trees and local roadways) near the highway/rail at-grade intersection, and the cost of a grade separation. SEA’s analysis of each substantially affected crossing is set forth in the Final EIS at 4-7 through 4-22. SEA ultimately concluded that it
would be appropriate for the Board to require two grade separations: one at Woodruff Road and Washington Street in Joliet also
would be substantially affected because the total delay of 9,381 minutes and
9,879 minutes respectively are significantly higher than SEA’s 2,400 minute
threshold, and the transaction is expected to reduce the crossing LOS from LOS
B to LOS F. Thus, as the Final EIS
concludes, if the applicants’ negotiated agreement with the City of
The Board will also impose
mitigation requiring traffic advisory signs for four of the other substantially
affected at-grade crossings to alleviate the potential to block an adjacent
intersection because of increased queue length.[100] While numerous commenters requested grade
separations at other substantially affected crossings, or questioned how
effective traffic advisory signs could be, we agree with SEA’s analysis in the
Final EIS explaining why a grade separation (or other mitigation such as
requests to place the EJ&E line in a trench in
Grade-Separation
Funding. Many commenters requested
that we require applicants to fully fund whatever grade-separated crossings we
might require. But as SEA explained
(Final EIS at 4-22), the primary cause of the existing traffic congestion in
the communities along the EJ&E line is the high number of vehicles and lack
of capacity on the current roadway system.
Even where trains are responsible for traffic congestion, the problem
would not be caused solely by applicants’ trains on the EJ&E line, but
rather by the combined presence of multiple freight railroads and, in some
locations, commuter trains as well. It
would be inappropriate to hold the applicants responsible for the inadequate
roadway system that now exists in the communities along the EJ&E line and
the rarity (and in some communities, the absence) of grade-separated crossings.[102] Because many of the traffic problems along the
EJ&E line are existing conditions, it would not be reasonable to require
applicants to bear the entire cost of the design and construction of the two
grade separations that we are requiring at At the same time, the Board rejects the argument of applicants and some other railroads that, based on the precedent of grade separations using Federal funds, the Board should require applicants to pay only 5% of the grade-separation cost (the typical railroad share for crossings that obtain Federal funding). FHWA regulations limit railroad contributions to the cost of grade-separated crossings funded with federal highway grants to 5%, on the theory that a railroad typically derives little or no benefit from grade separations. 23 CFR 646.210(b)(1), (3). That rationale does not apply here, however. In this case, the applicants have sought, and in this decision are receiving, the substantial benefit of the Board’s approval of this transaction, which will change the character of the EJ&E line from a line serving local traffic that also facilitates longer-haul movements through haulage and trackage rights into a line that will be integrated into CN’s North American rail network at the very heart of the system. As the Final EIS shows, this transaction would have a substantial adverse effect on vehicular traffic delays and, in some areas, regional and local mobility and safety at grade crossings. Thus, applicants’ share of the cost should be more than the traditional railroad share for grade-separation projects. In the Final EIS, SEA suggested two
different approaches for apportioning the costs of grade separating the
crossings at Ogden Avenue and Lincoln Highway:[103] (1) a regional approach that considers
all highway/rail at-grade crossings affected by the transaction on both the
EJ&E rail line segments and the CN rail line segments, and measures total
regional impact to vehicle delay; and (2) an approach that focuses only on
the individual, site-specific impact of the transaction to vehicle traffic
delay at In the Final EIS, SEA recommended
that the Board use its regional analysis.
However, the Board finds that SEA’s regional approach understates the
specific impact the transaction would have on the grade crossings at Therefore, the Board will determine
CN’s required share of the cost of the grade separations at
This means that the transaction’s expected contribution to
collision exposure in 2015 at The Board’s consistent practice has
been to require applicants to mitigate only those impacts associated with the
proposed action before us, not preexisting conditions. To do so here, for each intersection, the
Board will average the transaction-related share of the two relevant impacts–traffic
congestion and collision exposure–to arrive at a single figure representing the
percentage by which the transaction is expected to contribute to those
problems. That figure will constitute
CN’s required share of the cost of the grade separation at that
intersection. Performing that
calculation, the Board determines that, at The Board will not require CN to
escrow these funds, nor will it require CN to be obligated indefinitely for its
share of the cost of grade-separating the crossings at these
intersections. The State of The Board notes that grade separations usually involve three phases: preliminary engineering/environmental review; right-of-way acquisition/utility relocation; and actual construction. The Board intends for applicants to contribute the cost percentages set out above for each of these phases. However, it would not be fair to require applicants to pay for repeated engineering studies related to these grade separations. Applicants will be obligated to contribute their share of the cost of only one preliminary engineering study for each grade separation. The Board’s final conditions reflect these changes. Finally, as part of the Board’s quarterly environmental monitoring and reporting requirement (see Appendix A, condition 74), applicants shall report on the progress and costs associated with these two grade-separation projects, so that the Board can monitor the reasonableness of those expenditures. Quality of Life. The Draft EIS identified only minor effects on populations and demographics, economy, taxes, property values, housing, communities and community cohesion, travel patterns, and community facilities and public services. Many residents of communities along the EJ&E line raised concerns in their comments that increased train traffic due to the transaction would severely impact their quality of life. Following issuance of the Draft EIS, SEA prepared additional analysis on property values, socio-economics, and other quality-of-life issues, which is presented in the Final EIS at 2-74-96, 1-105-111. This analysis shows that air emissions, noise, vibration, and traffic delays from the increase in train traffic on the EJ&E line would affect residences located near the line. But these potential adverse effects are not expected to be great enough to induce a large number of residents to change their behavior or move, and impacts would be limited to the vicinity of the EJ&E line. While the transaction could have some adverse impact on property values, the Final EIS shows that the impacts typically would be far less than the amount claimed by some of the commenters. Further, the Final EIS contains mitigation to reduce the potential quality of life impacts, such as conditions requiring applicants to furnish fencing, identify at-grade crossings where additional pedestrian warning devices may be warranted, and make Operation Lifesaver programs and informational materials regarding railroad safety available. The Board is satisfied that the EIS has fully and appropriately analyzed potential quality-of-life concerns and that the conditions imposed on the transaction (which include applicants’ voluntary mitigation and additional conditions developed by SEA) are sufficient to minimize or eliminate them. Emergency Response. In the Draft EIS, SEA determined that the transaction could adversely affect emergency service providers by increasing the potential for delay at highway/rail at-grade crossings due to increased train operations on the EJ&E line. Based on public comments on the Draft EIS, SEA performed additional analysis and determined that there were a total of 14 fire protection and hospital facilities that might be substantially affected by the transaction. See Final EIS Section 2.6, at 2-49 – 2-65; Table 4.2-2. With the exception of one facility that would not need mitigation because of a grade-separated crossing within a 3-mile radius of its location and six facilities located in communities with negotiated agreements, the Board is imposing mitigation to minimize impacts on emergency response at each of these facilities. The Board’s mitigation requires applicants to install a real-time video monitoring (CCTV) system with video cameras at appropriate locations so that the movement of trains can be monitored and reasonably predicted. It also requires applicants to train two individuals from each affected emergency service provider to use the system. See Final EIS at 4-26. Applicants also proposed several voluntary conditions (VM-42 through 48) that address potential impacts of the transaction on emergency vehicles and during construction. Commenters raised concerns about
how grade-crossing cameras can help emergency responders and the people they
are attempting to help if the cameras were to show, for instance, that all area
crossings are blocked. However, as the
Final EIS explains, since the EJ&E line is in place and an active rail line
today, the affected emergency service providers’ current dispatching process
includes the possibility that a crossing could be blocked. The mitigation that the Board is imposing
will provide the emergency dispatchers with better and more timely information
so that they can either take pre-planned alternative routes or dispatch
services from alternative facilities when appropriate. Therefore, the Board’s mitigation is
reasonable and feasible to address the potential impacts on emergency response
discovered during the environmental review. School Safety. Many commenters on the Draft EIS raised concerns regarding how the increased traffic along the EJ&E line might impact the safety of school children. Commenters stated that school buses cross the railroad tracks daily and could be delayed if crossings are blocked by trains, and that school children and other pedestrians could be at risk crossing the tracks by foot or bicycle. In response, SEA performed additional analysis to identify schools located along the EJ&E rail line that might be adversely impacted by increased train traffic. In addition, applicants proposed voluntary mitigation to provide fencing along the EJ&E line right‑of-way (ROW) for schools and parks within 0.25 miles of the ROW (VM-10), to identify at‑grade crossings where additional pedestrian warning devices may be warranted (VM-10); and to provide informational materials concerning railroad safety for schools within 0.50 miles of the ROW (VM-11). Applicants further agreed to make Operation Lifesaver programs available to affected schools (VM-43 and VM-44). The Board is imposing applicants’ voluntary mitigation along with the additional conditions (nos. 11 and 12) developed by SEA to strengthen it. The Board acknowledges that the safety of school children and pedestrians, as well as school bus delay, are important issues. But the EIS shows that the transaction would have only a minor adverse impact beyond existing risk at highway/rail at-grade crossings. In these circumstances, the Board finds that the conditions it is imposing are adequate to address the potential incremental adverse impact of the transaction. Noise and Vibration. As explained in the Final EIS, applicants
have proposed voluntary noise mitigation that would result in meaningful and
appropriate noise reduction (see VM-3 through VM-5 and VM-77 through VM-83),
which include constructing noise control devices such as noise barriers,
installing vegetation or berms, or installing enhanced warning devices to allow
communities to achieve quiet zone requirements.
Also, the Board has imposed additional noise mitigation that requires
applicants to consult with affected communities to identify locations where
wheel squeal is considered a nuisance. The
Board is also imposing a quiet zone condition for Hazardous
Materials. The EIS concludes that
the transaction would increase the risk of an accident involving the discharge
of a hazardous material along the EJ&E line and decrease this risk along
the CN lines into Passenger,
Commuter Rail, and Airport Issues. As
noted above, in a letter dated December 9, 2008, CN and Amtrak jointly informed
the Board that they reached an agreement to amend the operating agreement
between Illinois Central Railroad Company and Amtrak, dated February 1, 1995,
which governs Amtrak's continued use of the St. Charles Air Line in In response to comments on the Draft EIS raising concerns about the effects of the transaction on Metra’s STAR Line and future NICTD expansion plans, SEA performed additional detailed analysis for the Final EIS (as explained at 2-19 to 2-28). Based on this analysis, we conclude that the transaction will not have a substantial adverse effect on the potential implementation of the STAR Line service on the EJ&E line and that the transaction could potentially benefit future NICTD plans. There is also mitigation assuring continued discussion and cooperation with Metra on development of the proposed STAR line, including possible use of the EJ&E line (VM-39) and mitigation providing for continued access to the pedestrian tunnel between the Metra Park-n-Ride lot and the Metra Matteson train station (VM‑40). This mitigation is adequate to address the potential concerns about these issues raised during the EIS process. Concerns related to the effects of
the transaction on Gary/Chicago International Airport expansion plans also have
been addressed. The Board’s environmental
mitigation includes a condition (no. 19) requiring applicants to adhere to the
terms of a preliminary memorandum of understanding (PMOU), announced in June
2008, to prevent the transaction from affecting the airport’s expansion
plans. The PMOU provides a framework to
address such issues as relocation of the EJ&E line, construction of a
bridge over the existing NS Gary Branch, and construction of a grade-separated
crossing at Environmental Justice. SEA did not identify any disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or low-income populations in the EIS. However, in recognition of the large Spanish-speaking population in the Chicago metropolitan area and along many segments of the EJ&E line, applicants committed to distributing all media information in Spanish as well as English (see VM-2) and to providing Operation Lifesaver programs in Spanish upon request (see VM-44). During the preparation of the Draft
EIS, SEA conducted environmental justice outreach meetings with leaders who
represented community groups and church congregations near the EJ&E
line. At those meetings, SEA sometimes
needed a translator. As a result, SEA
recommended, and the Board is imposing, conditions requiring that certain
materials and programs be made available in both English and Spanish, upon
request. Biological Resources. The Board’s mitigation requires applicants to designate a local resource agency liaison to work closely with Federal, state, and local natural and water resource agencies, for 5 years from the effective date of the Board’s final decision to ensure that adaptive management strategies are developed to protect the area’s threatened and endangered species habitat and sensitive ecological resources, such as Cuba marsh and the Lake Renwick heron rookery, near Barrington. See conditions 29-33. In particular, the Board’s mitigation requires applicants to work with relevant natural resource stakeholder groups, forest preserve districts, and Federal and state agencies, including USFWS, to establish, and fund for a 5-year period following this decision, appropriate monitoring programs to identify baseline conditions and post-transaction conditions in areas adjacent to forest preserves and designated natural areas for species of concern to these groups. See condition 30. Following issuance of the Final EIS, the Board received a submittal from the Illinois Natural Resources/Water Resources Stakeholder Group (INR/WRSG), representing four forest preserve districts located on the EJ&E line in Lake, Cook, DuPage and Will Counties, Illinois, as well as the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, USFWS, and EPA. In its submittal, INR/WRSG explains that it is currently negotiating with the applicants and asks the Board to impose additional mitigation to address potentially adverse impacts to critical habitat and wildlife communities caused by construction of the Munger Connection and additional train traffic on the EJ&E. INR/WRSG asserts that applicants’ voluntary mitigation measures 64 and 104 and SEA’s recommended mitigation measures 29 and 30, while a good start, are not adequate to satisfy their concerns. Consequently, INR/WRSG requests additional mitigation that would require applicants to: enter into agreements on the management of the four forest preserve districts; develop containment facilities at all new and future construction sites that traverse wetlands or waterways at risk of rapid contamination from possible spills of hazardous materials; transfer certain of CN’s railway assets entering and terminating within the Goose Lake Prairie State Park; develop a website to facilitate communication with all resource management agencies; establish a $10.5 million escrow fund with the USFWS Conservation Fund as partial compensation for adverse wildlife impacts; fund a 5-year study, to be conducted by an independent third-party contractor, on the causal impacts on flora, fauna, and aquatic resources along the EJ&E line caused by the transaction; and contribute $1.5 million annually to the USFWS Conservation Fund to meet tiered mitigation obligations determined by the impact study. The Board appreciates the efforts
of the INR/WRSG and notes that the participation of experts with first-hand
knowledge and experience in managing natural resources is essential to adapting
that management in light of the transaction.
The Board has adopted SEA’s recommended conditions 29-38 and 49-60 so
that applicants can address the range of concerns raised by INR/WRSG in both The Board expects that progress toward the goal of mutually acceptable solutions will be documented in the quarterly reports mandated by conditions 72-74. If progress is not documented in applicants’ reports, further action by the Board could be warranted. Safety Integration Plan. Pursuant to 49 CFR 1106, applicants prepared a Safety Integration Plan (SIP) that specifically addressed the process applicants propose to safely integrate the two rail systems. Applicants filed the SIP with the Board on December 28, 2007, and submitted the SIP to FRA for review. On June 27, 2008, the applicants submitted a revised version of the SIP addressing certain points raised by FRA, and FRA has approved the revised SIP. SEA also independently reviewed both versions of the SIP. To ensure that applicants complete the ongoing SIP process, the Board is imposing conditions requiring applicants to comply with their approved SIP, which may be modified and updated as necessary to respond to evolving conditions. Under the Board’s conditions, the ongoing safety integration process shall continue until FRA notifies the Board that the integration of applicants’ operations has been safely completed. Threatened or Endangered Species. In preparing the Final EIS, SEA and applicants met with the USFWS to discuss concerns raised about the Hine’s emerald dragonfly, Karner blue butterfly, Indiana bat, Eastern prairie fringed orchid, turtle crossings, and noise effects on migratory birds. See Final EIS at 4-30. Applicants have provided voluntary mitigation to avoid impacts with Federally or state-listed threatened or endangered species and other species of concern. See VM-102 through VM-108. In addition, SEA recommended conditions 49 through 54 that require additional mitigation to protect biological resources. Based on extensive informal consultation and the Biological Report submitted to USFWS (see Final EIS, Appendix A.9), SEA concludes that the transaction may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, listed threatened or endangered species. On December 16, 2008, USFWS provided its formal concurrence finding that, as conditioned, the transaction may proceed without adversely affecting listed threatened or endangered species. Thus, all issues involving threatened or endangered species have been adequately resolved. Conclusion. The
Draft EIS and Final EIS demonstrate that the Board has taken the requisite
“hard look” at environmental issues in this case. The Board concurs with SEA’s detailed
analysis and conclusions regarding the potential environmental benefits and
harms of the transaction and has imposed reasonable and feasible measures to
reduce or eliminate potential adverse environmental impacts of the
transaction. The Board recognizes that
the transaction may have adverse environmental effects that cannot be fully
mitigated. For example, horn noise from
train operations cannot be fully mitigated without compromising safety. And even with mitigation, there will still be
vehicle delays at highway/rail at-grade crossings. However, many of the potential effects (such
as vehicle delay) pertain to existing conditions that are present today. Moreover, at the same time that applicants
will increase rail traffic along the EJ&E line, there will be corresponding
decreases in rail traffic, and potential environmental benefits, in communities
along the CN lines in the
Administrative Appeals. Finally, under the CEQ regulations (40 CFR
1506.10(b)), agencies must wait 30 days from EPA’s Federal Register
notice announcing the availability of the Final EIS before issuing a final
decision unless they have an internal appeal process. The Board has such a process (see
49 CFR 1115.3(a) (petitions for reconsideration)) and may, therefore,
issue this final decision in less than 30 days from December 12, 2008, the date
that the Final EIS was noticed. The
Board agrees, however, with SEA’s recommendation to extend the administrative
appeal process to permit parties to seek agency reconsideration of our final
decision within 30 days after it is served, rather than the typical 20 days
under 49 CFR 1115.3(e). The Board will
consider any petitions for reconsideration in a subsequent decision. Based on the record, the Board finds: 1. The
acquisition of control by Canadian National Railway Company and Grand Trunk
Corporation of EJ&E West Company, as conditioned, will not substantially
lessen competition, create a monopoly, or restrain trade in freight surface
transportation in any region of the 2. As conditioned, this action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources. It is ordered: 1. In STB Finance Docket No. 35087, the proposed acquisition of control by Canadian National Railway Company and Grand Trunk Corporation of EJ&E West Company is approved, subject to the imposition of the conditions discussed in this decision. 2. In STB Finance Docket No. 35087 (Sub-No. 1), the corporate family transaction referenced in the notice filed October 30, 2007, is authorized pursuant to the class exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3). 3. In STB Finance Docket No. 35087 (Sub-No. 2), the CCP trackage rights referenced in the notice filed October 30, 2007, is authorized pursuant to the class exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). 4. In STB Finance Docket No. 35087 (Sub-No. 3), the GTW trackage rights referenced in the notice filed October 30, 2007, is authorized pursuant to the class exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). 5. In STB Finance Docket No. 35087 (Sub-No. 4), the IC trackage rights referenced in the notice filed October 30, 2007, is authorized pursuant to the class exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). 6. In STB Finance Docket No. 35087 (Sub-No. 5), the WC trackage rights referenced in the notice filed October 30, 2007, is authorized pursuant to the class exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). 7. In STB Finance Docket No. 35087 (Sub-No. 6), the CNR trackage rights referenced in the notice filed October 30, 2007, is authorized pursuant to the class exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). 8. In STB Finance Docket No. 35087 (Sub-No. 7), the CNR trackage rights referenced in the notice filed October 30, 2007, is authorized pursuant to the class exemption at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). 9. Applicants must comply with all the conditions imposed in this decision, including, but not limited to all the conditions reflected in Appendix A, whether or not such conditions are specifically referenced in these ordering paragraphs. 10. Applicants must adhere to their representation that a unified CN/EJ&EW will not engage in “vertical foreclosure” by closing gateways, but, rather, shall keep all gateways affected by the control transaction open on commercially reasonable terms. 11. Applicants must adhere to their representation that they “will waive any defenses they might otherwise have as a result of the CN/EJE transaction, under the general principle that the Board does not separately regulate bottleneck rates, in circumstances where shippers prior to the CN/EJE transaction would have been entitled to regulation of a bottleneck rate under the Board’s ‘contract exception’ to the general rule.” 12. Applicants must comply with the monitoring and oversight condition imposed in this decision, and, in connection therewith, must file the monthly operational and quarterly environmental reports containing information discussed in this decision. 13. Approval of the CN/EJ&EW control application is subject to the conditions for the protection of railroad employees described in New York Dock Ry.—Control—Brooklyn Eastern Dist., 360 I.C.C. 60 (1979). 14. Applicants are required to adhere to any and all of the representations they made on the record during the course of this proceeding, whether or not such representations are specifically referenced in this decision. 15. Any condition that was requested by any party in the STB Finance Docket No. 35087 proceeding that has not been specifically approved in this decision is denied. 16. Parties have until January 23, 2009, to file petitions for reconsideration. Replies must be filed by February 12, 2009. 17. This decision shall be effective on January 23, 2009. By
the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner
Buttrey. Vice Chairman Mulvey and
Commissioner Buttrey commented with separate expressions. Anne K. Quinlan Acting Secretary _____________________________________ VICE CHAIRMAN MULVEY, commenting: I write separately to express my reasons for voting to approve the transaction before us. From an economic policy
perspective, I see the proposed project as one of national, if not international,
significance. It is also a project that
portends the future of transportation planning.
Improved mobility of freight through the From a legal perspective, in my view, 49 U.S.C. 11324(d) requires that the Board consider only competitive impacts in determining whether to approve or disapprove a “minor” merger transaction. I do not believe that the Board can deny approval of such a merger on grounds other than potential anticompetitive impacts. As stated in our decision, there will be no anticompetitive effects here, but even if there were, those effects would be outweighed by the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs. It is gravely unfortunate that this
project will impact the communities around NEPA directs that agencies take a so-called “hard look” at potential environmental impacts in carrying out their mandates. I am satisfied we have done so. The Board has the ability to soften the adverse environmental impacts of a merger transaction through reasonable mitigations. Our monitoring and oversight conditions will assure that the mitigations we order here continue to be reasonable once the transaction is implemented and operational. For these reasons, in addition to those in the Board’s decision, I vote to approve the applicants’ transaction. _____________________________________ COMMISSIONER BUTTREY, commenting: I join the Board’s decision today to approve the proposed control transaction, but I am filing this separate expression to make clear that I would have gone much farther in imposing conditions to mitigate its environmental impacts. I appreciate the hard work that has been done by the Board’s Section of Environmental Analysis and the Board’s consultant. However, as I explained at the public meeting held on November 18, 2008, to discuss SEA’s recommendations, I do not feel that the mitigation conditions outlined in the Final EIS will be enough. And although the Board’s decision today does go beyond SEA’s recommendations in some respects, I would have gone even farther. In this
proceeding, much has been made of the issue of congestion on the five existing
CN lines within the City of I fully
support the Board’s decision to retain jurisdiction over this transaction and
to continue oversight for at least five years and to impose monthly monitoring
and public reporting by CN. This will
enable the Board, if necessary, to take additional steps or impose additional
requirements if conditions warrant.
However, I would have gone farther.
Consistent with what a number of commenting parties requested, I would
have imposed strict traffic caps on the existing CN lines within the City of I also would have required applicants to reach a mutually-acceptable mitigation agreement with every impacted community along the EJE lines before rail volumes could be increased above pre-transaction levels. I commend CN for having reached agreements with many of the impacted communities. Although this process started slowly, the pace began to pick up toward the end of the proceeding after the strength of the opposition became clear. I feel strongly that this process should be allowed to continue. No one is in a better position to determine what mitigation measures are needed and appropriate than the affected community itself. In my view, this Board should not presume to know better than the affected communities what mitigation will be required in the public interest. If this transaction truly has as many potential benefits as applicants claim, then I believe that national, state and local officials would have every incentive to help CN and the affected communities along the EJE reach reasonable compromises in a timely fashion, so that the overall benefits of this transaction could be achieved. The This
transaction is an effort by CN to address its own problems in moving traffic
through For all of these reasons, I would have required CN to do more to assure the benefits and ameliorate the impacts, as conditions of the Board’s approval of this transaction. APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS
Applicants’
Voluntary Mitigation Grade Crossings VM 1. Applicants shall consult with appropriate agencies to determine the final design and other details of the grade crossing protections or rehabilitations on EJ&EW’s rail line. Implementation of all grade crossing protections shall be subject to the review and approval of the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) and the appropriate state Departments of Transportation. VM 2.
Applicants shall coordinate with the appropriate state
departments of transportation, counties, and affected communities along the
EJ&E rail line to develop a program for installing temporary notification
signs or message boards, where warranted, in railroad right-of-way (“ROW”) at
highway/rail at-grade crossings, clearly advising motorists of the increase in
train traffic on affected rail line segments.
The format and lettering of these signs shall comply with the Federal
Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2007b) and shall be in place no less
than 30 days before and 6 months after the acquisition by CN of the
control of EJ&EW. The Applicants
shall conduct a media campaign throughout the affected counties and communities
surrounding the EJ&E rail line advising the public of increased operations
along the EJ&E rail line. The
campaign shall include the use of different media (radio, television,
newspaper, Internet). Applicants shall
distribute all information in both English and Spanish, where appropriate. VM 3. Where necessary for implementation of a Quiet Zone, and in consultation with the affected community, FRA, and the appropriate state Department of Transportation, Applicants shall construct or install roadway median barriers to reduce the opportunity for vehicles to maneuver around a lowered gate. VM 4. Applicants shall cooperate with the municipalities affected to determine which improvements would be necessary for existing Quiet Zones to maintain FRA compliance. VM 5. Applicants shall cooperate with interested communities for the establishment of Quiet Zones and assist in identifying supplemental or alternative safety measures, practical operational methods, or technologies that may enable the community to establish Quiet Zones. VM 6. Applicants shall consult with affected communities to improve visibility at highway rail at-grade crossings by clearing vegetation or installing lighting to illuminate passing or stopped trains. VM 7. Within 6 months of acquisition by CN of the control of EJ&EW, Applicants shall cooperate with the Illinois Department of Transportation, Indiana Department of Transportation and other appropriate local agencies to coordinate a review of corridors surrounding highway/rail at-grade crossings to examine safety and adequacy of the existing warning devices, and identify remedies to improve safety for highway vehicles. VM 8. Where grade-crossing rehabilitation is agreed to, Applicants shall assure that rehabilitated roadway approaches and rail line crossings meet or exceed the standards of the State Department of Transportation’s rules, guidelines, or statutes, and the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (“AREMA”) standards, with a goal of eliminating rough or humped crossings to the extent reasonably practicable. VM 9. For each of the public grade crossings on EJ&EW’s rail line, Applicants shall provide and maintain permanent signs prominently displaying both a toll-free telephone number and a unique grade-crossing identification number in compliance with Federal Highway Regulations (23 CFR. Part 655). The toll-free number shall enable drivers to report accidents, malfunctioning warning devices, stalled vehicles, or other dangerous conditions and shall be answered 24 hours per day by Applicants’ personnel. At crossings where EJ&EW’s ROW is close to another rail carrier’s crossing, Applicants shall coordinate with the other rail carrier to establish a procedure and share information regarding reported accidents and grade-crossing device malfunctions. VM 10. Within 6 months of acquisition by CN of the control of EJ&EW, Applicants shall cooperate with school and park districts to provide fencing where schools or parks are within one-quarter mile of the right of way and to identify at-grade crossings where additional pedestrian warning devices may be warranted. VM 11. Applicants shall continue ongoing efforts with community officials to identify elementary, middle, and high schools within 0.5 miles of EJ&EW’s ROW and provide, upon request, informational materials concerning railroad safety to such identified schools. VM 12. Within 6 months of the effective date of the Board’s final decision, Applicants shall initiate review of the locations of designated pedestrian and recreational trail at-grade crossings along the EJ&E rail line that would see an increase in train traffic under the Proposed Action. The Applicants shall cooperate in the review with local agencies and community trail groups to assess the adequacy of the existing warning devices, to ascertain if particular trail uses or issues reduce the effectiveness of these warning devices, and to identify appropriate remedies to improve safety for pedestrian and recreational trail users. Construction VM 13. Before starting any construction activities for the proposed connections or installation of double track, Applicants shall develop – in conjunction with the affected communities and local fire and emergency response departments along the EJ&E rail line – an adequate plan for fire prevention and suppression and subsequent land restoration during construction and operation along the EJ&E rail line. Applicants shall submit the plan to local communities and local fire and emergency response departments. Applicants’ plan shall ensure that all non-turbocharged locomotives are equipped with functional spark arrestors on exhaust stacks, and carry fire extinguishers suitable for flammable liquid fires, electrical fires, and combustible materials fires, as well as provide for the installation of low-spark brake shoes on all locomotives. Hazardous
Materials Transportation VM 14.
Applicants shall comply with the current Association
of American Railroads (“ VM 15.
Applicants shall comply with the current VM 16. To the extent permitted and subject to applicable confidentiality limitations, Applicants shall distribute to each local emergency response organization or coordinating body in the communities along the key routes a copy of the Applicants’ current Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plans. VM 17. Applicants shall incorporate EJ&EW into their existing Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan. VM 18. Applicants shall comply with all hazardous materials regulations of the United States Department of Transportation (including the Federal Railroad Administration and the United States Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) and Department of Homeland Security (including the Transportation Security Administration). Applicants shall dispose of all materials that cannot be reused in accordance with applicable law. VM 19. Upon request, Applicants shall implement real-time or desktop simulation emergency response drills with the voluntary participation of local emergency response organizations. VM 20. Applicants shall continue their ongoing efforts with community officials to identify the public emergency response teams located along EJ&EW and shall provide, upon request, hazardous material training. VM 21. Applicants shall conduct Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response Program (TRANSCAER) workshops (training for communities through which dangerous goods are transported) in those communities along the EJ&E rail line that request this training. VM 22. Applicants shall assist in the hazardous materials training emergency responders for affected communities that express an interest in such training. Applicants shall support through funding or other means the training of one representative from each of the communities located along the EJ&E rail line segments where the transportation of hazardous materials would increase. Applicants shall complete the training within 3 years from the date that the Applicants initiate operational changes associated with the Proposed Action. VM 23. Applicants shall develop internal emergency response plans to allow for agencies to be notified in an emergency, and to locate and inventory the appropriate emergency equipment. Applicants shall provide the emergency response plans to the relevant state and local authorities within 6 months of acquisition by CN of the control of EJ&EW. VM 24. Applicants shall provide dedicated toll-free telephone number to the emergency response organizations or coordinating bodies responsible for communities located along the EJ&E rail line. This telephone number shall provide access to applicant personnel 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, enabling local emergency response personnel to obtain and provide information quickly regarding the transport of hazardous materials on a given train and appropriate emergency response procedures should a train accident or hazardous materials release occur. VM 25. In accordance with their Emergency Response Plan, Applicants shall make the required notifications to the appropriate Federal and state environmental agencies in the event of a reportable hazardous materials release. Applicants shall work with the appropriate agencies such as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Indiana Department of Environmental Management to respond to and remediate hazardous materials releases with the potential to affect wetlands or wildlife habitat(s), particularly those of federally threatened or endangered species. VM 26. Prior to initiating any Transaction-related construction activities, Applicants shall develop a spill prevention plan for petroleum products or other hazardous materials during construction activities. At a minimum, the spill prevention plan shall address the following: o
Definition of
what constitutes a reportable spill; o
Requirements and
procedures for reporting spills to appropriate government agencies; o
Methods of
containing, recovering, and cleaning up spilled material; o
Equipment
available to respond to spills and location of such equipment; and o
List of
government agencies and Applicants’ management personnel to be contacted in the
event of a spill. In the event of a
reportable spill, Applicants shall comply with their spill prevention plan and
applicable Federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to spill
containment and appropriate clean-up. Transportation Systems Grade Crossing Delay VM 27.
Applicants shall comply with
the Voluntary Mitigation Agreement concluded with the City of VM 28. Although Applicants have not identified any grade crossings, other than Woodruff Road and Washington Street, that would require mitigation under SEA’s established standards, Applicants shall, upon request, cooperate with municipalities and counties in support of their efforts to secure funding, in conjunction with appropriate state agencies, for grade separations where they may be appropriate under criteria established by relevant state Department of Transportation. Applicants shall contribute their statutorily required amount of funding to the cost of the grade separation. VM 29. Applicants shall examine train operations for ways of reducing highway/rail at-grade crossing blockages. VM 30. Applicants shall cooperate with the appropriate state and local agencies and municipalities to: o
Evaluate the
possibility that one or more roadways listed in Table ES-1 [of the Draft EIS]
could be closed at the point where it crosses the EJ&E rail line, in order
to eliminate the at-grade crossing. o
Improve or
identify modifications to roadways that would reduce vehicle delays by
improving roadway capacity over the crossing by construction of additional
lanes. o
Assist in a
survey of highway/rail at-grade crossings for a determination of the adequacy
of existing grade crossing signal systems, signage, roadway striping, traffic
signaling inter-ties, and curbs and medians. o
Identify
conditions and roadway, signal, and warning device configuration may trap
vehicles between warning device gates on or near the highway/rail at‑grade
crossing. o
Cooperate with
state and local agencies to develop and implement a plan to grade-separate the
highway/rail crossing. VM 31. Applicants shall install power switches along EJ&EW where Applicants determine that manual switches could cause stopped trains to block grade crossings for excessive periods of time and that power switches would increase the speed of rail traffic and reduce the likelihood of such blockages. VM 32. In order to minimize the number of trains being stopped by operators at locations that block grade crossings on the EJ&EW system, Applicants shall work with other railroads to establish reasonable and effective policies and procedures to prevent other railroads’ trains from interfering with Applicants’ trains on EJ&EW. VM 33. Applicants’ design for wayside signaling systems shall be configured and implemented to minimize the length of time that trains or maintenance-of-way vehicles or activities occupy at-grade crossings or unnecessarily activate grade-crossing warning devices. VM 34. Applicants shall install control signals (“A” block or absolute stop signals) at the ends of sidings, double track sections, crossovers, and other control switch locations (Applicants 2008a). VM 35. Applicants shall operate under U.S. Operating Rule No. 526 (Public Crossings), which provides that a public crossing must not be blocked longer than 10 minutes unless it cannot be avoided and that, if possible, rail cars, engines, and rail equipment may not stand closer than 200 feet from a highway/rail at-grade crossing when there is an adjacent track (Applicants 2008a). If the blockage is likely to exceed this time frame, then the train shall be promptly cut to clear the blocked crossing or crossings. VM 36. Applicants shall develop and submit to SEA a report on frequency and duration of train delays at crossing for a period covering the first 3 years of operational changes. Commuter and Passenger Rail Service VM 37. Applicants and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) will amend the February 1, 1995 operating agreement between Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC) and Amtrak to provide as follows: 1) IC shall maintain the St. Charles Air Line Route and Markham-to-Grand Crossing Route (as each is defined in the Settlement Agreement for purposes of the 1995 Agreement) for use by Amtrak at not less than the 1995 Agreement Section 4.2, “Maintenance of Rail Lines,” conditions existing on April 28, 2008; 2) Costs paid to IC by Amtrak for use of the St. Charles Air Line Route shall be capped at their April 28, 2008 levels, adjusted only for inflation pursuant to the formula in Appendix IV of the 1995 Agreement (as it may be amended); 3) Costs paid to IC by Amtrak for use of the Markham-to-Grand Crossing Route shall be determined on the same basis as costs for Amtrak’s use of IC’s lines between Markham and New Orleans; 4) Amtrak’s rights and obligations under these conditions regarding the St. Charles Air Line Route shall cease upon the earlier of (a) six (6) months after Amtrak begins to provide regularly scheduled passenger rail service either over the Grand Crossing Router or over another route that provides an alternative to the St. Charles Air Line Route for passenger rail service to or from Union Station in Chicago that is acceptable to Amtrak, or (b) such time as Amtrak ceases for a continuous period of one (1) year to use the St. Charles Air Line Route to provide regularly scheduled passenger service at least three (3) days per week to and from Union Station in Chicago; 5) Amtrak’s rights and CN’s obligations under these conditions regarding the Markham-to-Grand Crossing Route shall cease upon such time as Amtrak ceases for a continuous period of one (1) year to use the Markham-to-Grand Crossing Route to provide scheduled passenger rail service at least three (3) days per week to and from Union Station in Chicago. . VM 38.
Applicants shall operate the key interlockings at West
Chicago and VM 39. Applicants shall work with Metra to explore all options for service on the proposed STAR Line, including use of the EJ&E rail line. The timing and implementation of STAR Line service remain subject to numerous variables, including securing government funding, but the Applicants are committed to continuing discussions with Metra on the STAR Line (Applicants 2008j). VM 40. During and after construction, Applicants shall maintain the pedestrian tunnel from the Metra Park-n-Ride lot to the Metra train station on the east side of the Chicago Subdivision rail line at Matteson (Applicants 2008l). VM 41.
Applicant shall comply with any written and executed curfew
agreements that are now in effect regarding operations affecting passenger or
commuter train service. Emergency Vehicle Delay VM 42.
Applicants shall notify Emergency Services Dispatching
Centers for communities along the affected segments of all crossings blocked by
trains that are stopped and may be unable to move for a significant period of
time. Applicants shall work with
affected communities to minimize emergency vehicle delay by maintaining
facilities for emergency communication with local Emergency Response Centers
through a dedicated toll-free telephone number; and providing, upon request,
dispatching monitors that allow VM 43. Applicants shall make Operation Lifesaver programs available to communities, schools, and other organizations located along the affected segments. VM 44. For up to 3 years after acquisition by CN of the control of the EJ&EW, Applicants shall provide Operation Lifesaver programs in Spanish, upon request. Construction VM 45. At least one month prior to initiation of Transaction-related construction activities, Applicants shall provide the information described below regarding Transaction-related construction of sidings, double-tracking, or connections, as well as any additional information, as appropriate, to fire departments and the Local Emergency Planning Commissions (“LEPC”) for communities within or adjacent to the construction area: o
The schedule for
construction throughout the project area, including the sequence of
construction work relating to public grade crossings and approximate schedule
for these activities at each crossing; o
A toll-free
number to contact Applicants’ personnel, to answer questions or attend meetings
for the purpose of informing emergency-service providers about the project
construction and operations; and o
Revisions to this
information, including changes in construction schedule, as appropriate. VM 46. In undertaking Transaction-related construction activities, Applicants shall use practices recommended by AREMA and recommended standards for track construction in the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering. VM 47. During Transaction-related construction concerning at-grade crossings, when reasonably practicable, Applicants shall consult with the appropriate state Department of Transportation regarding detours and associated signage, as appropriate, or maintain at least one open lane of traffic at all times to allow for the quick passage of emergency and other vehicles. VM 48. Applicants shall minimize temporary road closures during construction activities associated with the connections and double track. Applicants shall manage construction schedules to: o
Minimize
highway/rail at-grade crossing closures o
Relay
highway/rail at-grade crossing closure schedules to local emergency service
providers General Land Use VM 49. Before beginning construction activity, Applicants shall survey all suitable habitats potentially impacted by the construction activity for Federally and state-listed threatened or endangered plant species. If any listed plant species are located, Applicants shall implement a mitigation plan in consultation with the appropriate Federal and state agencies. VM 50. If identified in the area, Applicants shall coordinate with USFWS-Indiana and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to monitor effects on the Karner blue butterfly in the West Gary Recovery Unit. VM 51. Applicants shall continue with the existing agreements for Paul Ales Branch operation for the protection of the Federally listed Hine’s emerald dragonfly. VM 52.
Applicants shall identify suitable habitat for VM 53. Land areas that are directly disturbed by Applicants’ Transaction-related construction and are not owned by the Applicants (such as access roads, haul roads, and crane pads) shall be restored to their original condition, as may be reasonably practicable, upon completion of Transaction-related construction. VM 54. During construction, temporary barricades, fencing, and/or flagging shall be used in sensitive habitats to contain construction-related impacts to the area within the construction Right Of Way (“ROW”). Staging areas shall be located in previously disturbed sites and not in sensitive habitat areas. VM 55. To the extent reasonably practicable, Applicants shall confine construction traffic to a temporary access road within the construction ROW or established public roads. Where traffic cannot be confined to temporary access roads or established public roads, Applicants shall make necessary arrangements with landowners to gain access from private roadways. The temporary access roads shall be used only during project-related construction. Any temporary access roads constructed outside the rail line ROW shall be removed and restored upon completion of construction unless otherwise agreed to with the landowners. VM 56. During Transaction-related earthmoving activities, Applicants shall remove topsoil and segregate it from subsoil. Applicants shall also stockpile topsoil for later application during reclamation of disturbed areas along the ROW. Applicants shall place the topsoil stockpiles in areas that would minimize the potential for erosion and use appropriate erosion control measures around all stockpiles to prevent erosion. VM 57. Applicants shall commence reclamation of disturbed areas as soon as reasonably practicable after Transaction-related construction ends along a particular stretch of rail line. The goal of reclamation shall be the rapid and permanent reestablishment of native ground cover on disturbed areas. If weather or season precludes the prompt reestablishment of vegetation, Applicants shall use measures such as mulching or erosion control blankets to prevent erosion until reseeding can be completed. VM 58. Applicants shall limit ground disturbance to only the areas necessary for Transaction-related construction activities. VM 59. Applicants shall review the limits of land disturbance prior to construction to determine whether any U.S. Department of Commerce, National Geodetic Survey monuments (that is, a government-owned permanent survey marker) would be disturbed. If any survey monuments would be disturbed, Applicants shall give a 90‑day notification to the U.S. Department of Commerce. VM 60. Applicants shall consult with the appropriate state, county personnel, Forest Preserve and trail managers prior to construction activities on state land and shall flag the boundaries of the ROW. VM 61. Applicants shall notify the trail managers of new construction that intersects trails during final design. Where possible, Applicants shall maintain access to all existing trails, greenways, and scenic corridors during construction. If temporary trail closures are required during construction, Applicants shall provide appropriate signage to detour pedestrian and recreational trail users to a safe alternate route. VM 62. Before construction of the Applicants’ Proposed Munger Connection adjacent to the Pratt’s Wayne Woods Forest Preserve, Applicants shall flag the boundaries of the CN ROW, the EJ&E ROW, and the portion of the Commonwealth Edison ROW required for construction. Applicant shall remain within the flagged boundaries. Unless agreed by the Forest Preserve Management, no construction shall take place outside of the flagged construction area. Where possible, Applicants shall maintain access during construction activities to all existing roads, trails, and facilities within the Pratt’s Wayne Woods Forest Preserve. VM 63. Applicants shall require contractors to dispose of waste generated during Transaction-related construction activities in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. Community Outreach VM 64. Prior to initiation of Transaction-related construction activities, Applicants shall name a Community Liaison to: consult with affected communities, businesses, and agencies; seek to develop cooperative solutions to local concerns regarding construction activities; be available for public meetings; and conduct periodic public outreach regarding Transaction-related construction activities. The Community Liaison shall be available to consult with businesses and agencies until all Transaction-related construction activities are complete. Applicants shall provide the name and phone number of the Community Liaison to mayors and other appropriate local officials in each community where Transaction-related construction activities will occur. VM 65. Applicants shall continue their ongoing community outreach efforts by maintaining, throughout the period of construction of Transaction-related sidings, double-track, and connections, a website about the construction. Residential VM 66. Applicants’ Transaction-related construction vehicles, equipment, and workers shall not access work areas by crossing residential properties without the permission of the property owner or occupant. Business and Industrial VM 67. Applicants’ Transaction-related construction vehicles, equipment, and workers shall not access work areas by crossing business or industrial areas, including parking areas or driveways, without advance notice to the business owner. VM 68. Applicants shall work with affected businesses or industries to appropriately redress Transaction-related construction activity issues affecting any business or industry. VM 69. To the extent reasonably practicable, Applicants shall ensure that entrances and exits for businesses are not obstructed by Transaction-related construction activities, except as required to move equipment. State Lands VM 70.
Applicants shall consult with the General Land Office
(“GLO”) of Utility Corridors VM 71. Applicants shall make reasonable efforts to identify all utilities that are reasonably expected to be materially affected by the proposed construction within their existing ROW or that cross their existing ROW. Applicants shall notify the owner of each such utility identified prior to commencing Transaction-related construction activities and coordinate with the owner to minimize damage to utilities. Applicants shall also consult with utility owners to design the rail line so that utilities are reasonably protected during Transaction-related construction activities. VM 72. Applicants shall use the services of a qualified pipeline engineering firm that is familiar with the project area to assist in the identification of the various pipeline crossings and to assist in the design of crossings as necessary for Transaction-related construction activities. VM 73.
Applicants shall
accelerate implementation of EPA locomotive emissions reduction efforts by
installing idling control systems on their switching locomotives assigned to
the Chicago area and shall accelerate replacement of switching locomotives that
are excluded from EPA emission standards and are now in service at Chicago-area
yards that will experience increased yard activity as a result of the
Transaction with locomotives that are compliant with EPA Tier 0 or more
stringent emission standards. VM 74.
Applicants,
to the extent reasonably practicable, shall adopt efficient fuel saving practices that may include a range of operating practices that will help reduce
locomotive emissions, such as shutting
down locomotives when not in use and when temperatures are above 40 degrees. VM 75. To minimize fugitive dust emissions created during Transaction-related construction activities, Applicants shall implement appropriate fugitive dust suppression controls, such as spraying water or other approved measures. Applicants shall also regularly operate water trucks on haul roads to reduce dust. VM 76. Applicants shall work with their contractors to make sure that construction equipment is properly maintained and that mufflers and other required pollution-control devices are in working condition in order to limit construction-related air emissions. VM 77. Applicants shall work with affected communities that have sensitive receptors that would experience an increase of at least 5 dBA [A-weighted decibel] and reach 70 dBA to mitigate train noise to levels as low as 70 dBA by cost effective means as are agreed to by an affected community and Applicants. In the absence of such an agreement, Applicants shall implement cost effective mitigation that could include such measures as (1) constructing noise control devices such as noise barriers, (2) installing vegetation or berming, or (3) installing, or providing funding for installation of, enhanced warning devices in order to provide the level of warning necessary to allow the community to request a waiver from Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) of the requirement to sound the horn and achieve quiet zone requirements. VM 78. Applicants shall consult with affected communities and work with their construction contractors to minimize, to the extent reasonably practicable, construction-related noise disturbances near any residential areas. VM 79. Applicants shall work with their construction contractors to maintain Transaction-related construction and maintenance vehicles in good working order with properly functioning mufflers to control noise. VM 80. In addition to the development of other noise mitigation measures, Applicants shall consider lubricating curves where doing so would both be consistent with safe and efficient operating practices and significantly reduce noise for residential or other noise sensitive receptors. Applicants shall also continue to employ safe and efficient operating procedures that, in lieu of, or as complement to, other noise mitigation measures can have the collateral benefit of effectively reducing noise from train operations. Such procedures include: o
inspecting rail
car wheels to maintain wheels in good working order and minimize the
development of wheel flats; o
inspecting new
and existing rail for rough surfaces and, where appropriate, grinding these
surfaces to provide a smooth rail surface during operations; o
regularly
maintaining locomotives, and keeping mufflers in good working order; and o
removing or
consolidating switches determined by Applicants to no longer be needed. VM 81. To minimize noise and vibration, Applicants shall install and maintain rail and rail beds according to AREMA standards. VM 82. Applicants shall comply with FRA regulations establishing decibel limits for train operations. VM 83. Applicants shall install or relocate a Wheel Impact Load Detector (WILD) on the EJ&E rail line within three years of acquisition by CN of control of EJ&EW. VM 84. For impacts to non-jurisdictional isolated wetlands habitat along the new line, Applicants shall survey the route to determine if the Hine’s emerald dragonfly is present along the ROW. VM 85. Upon consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should the Hine’s emerald dragonfly be observed on the site of Transaction-related construction activities, Applicants shall implement appropriate measures prior to and during construction to reduce or eliminate impacts on the Hine’s emerald dragonfly. VM 86. Prior to initiating Transaction-related construction activities, Applicants shall consult with the local offices of the Natural Resource Conservation Service (“NRCS”) to develop an appropriate plan for restoration and re-vegetation of the disturbed areas (including appropriate seed mix specifications). VM 87. During construction activity, Applicants shall take reasonable steps to ensure contractors use fill material appropriate for the project area. VM 88. Applicants shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, revegetate the bottom and sides of the drainage ditches using natural recruitment from the native seed sources in the stockpiled topsoil. VM 89. In the case where there is a potential for a railroad drainage ditch to influence wetland hydrology, Applicants shall construct low permeability clay berms (wetland berms adjacent to the drainage channels that would be proximal to the isolated wetlands). These berms would minimize the impact to surface water drainage from the proposed drainage ditch. VM 90.
Applicants shall compensate in accordance with USACE
regulations in both VM 91. Applicants shall maintain drainage ditches as permanent vegetated swales to provide storm water retention and treatment. Removal of accumulated sediments shall be conducted only as necessary to maintain storm water retention capacity and function. VM 92. To minimize sedimentation into streams and waterways during construction, Applicants shall use best management practices, such as silt fences and straw bale dikes, to minimize soil erosion, sedimentation, runoff, and surface instability during project-related construction activities. Applicants shall seek to disturb the smallest area possible around any streams and shall conduct reseeding efforts to ensure proper revegetation of disturbed areas as soon as reasonably practicable following Transaction-related construction activities. VM 93.
In order to control erosion, Applicants shall establish
staging and lay down areas for Transaction-related construction material and
equipment at least 300 feet from jurisdictional waters of the VM 94. During Transaction-related construction activities, Applicants shall require all contractors to conduct daily inspections of all equipment for any fuel, lube oil, hydraulic, or antifreeze leaks. If leaks are found, Applicants shall require the contractor to immediately remove the equipment from service and repair or replace it. VM 95.
Applicants shall employ best management practices to
control turbidity and disturbance to bottom sediments of surface waters during
Transaction-related construction.
Applicants shall implement best management practices in wetlands or
other waters of the VM 96. Applicants shall implement their current noxious weed control program during construction and operation of Transaction-related sidings, double-track, and connections. All herbicides used by Applicants shall be approved by the U.S. EPA. VM 97. Applicants shall ensure that any herbicides used in ROW maintenance to control vegetation are approved by the U.S. EPA and are applied by licensed individuals who shall limit application to the extent necessary for rail operations. Herbicides shall be applied so as to prevent or minimize drift off of the ROW onto adjacent areas. VM 98. During construction, Applicants shall prohibit Transaction-related construction vehicles from driving in or crossing streams at other than established crossing points. VM 99. Applicants shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, ensure that any fill placed below the ordinary high water line of wetlands and streams is appropriate material selected to minimize impacts to the wetlands and streams. All stream crossing points shall be returned to their pre-construction contours to the extent reasonably practicable and the crossing banks will be reseeded or replanted with native species immediately following project-related construction. VM 100. Applicants shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) storm water discharge permit from U.S. EPA or appropriate State agencies for Transaction-related construction activities. VM 101. Applicants shall submit quarterly reports to SEA on the progress of, implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for a period covering the first 3 years of operational changes. Supplemental Voluntary Mitigation Measures VM 102. Applicants shall cooperate with Midwest Generation, LLC (“MWG”), to identify locations on Applicants’ property, or available to Applicants, on which loaded coal trains could be staged while awaiting delivery to MWG’s Will County Generating Station and Joliet Generating Station and which would make unnecessary the construction of additional train storage capacity on MWG property that would adversely affect the Hine’s emerald dragonfly or its habitat. If no adequate existing train storage locations can be identified, Applicants shall make reasonable efforts to acquire or construct, at MWG’s expense, new train storage capacity, at locations where construction would not have adverse impacts on the Hine’s emerald dragonfly or its habitat, and which would make construction of additional storage capacity on MWG’s property unnecessary, and shall make that capacity available as needed for staging of coal trains destined for Will County and Joliet Stations. VM 103. In consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and relevant natural resource stakeholders, Applicants shall participate in the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly or necessary work plans applicable to State and Federally listed threatened and endangered species and take the necessary measures to ensure that rail operations do not cause undue impact to those species. VM 104. [Migratory Birds] Where warranted, Applicants shall work with relevant natural resource stakeholder groups, Forest Preserve Districts, the Indiana office of The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (INDNR), and USFWS to support the creation or enhancement of migratory bird habitat away from those segments of the EJ&E rail line on which Applicants project Transaction-related increases in rail traffic, and where there is proposed Transaction-related construction of double-track and new or improved connections. VM 105. [Rare and Listed Turtles] In consultation with USFWS, Applicants shall construct and maintain adequate passages (that is, pipes or culverts) for turtles to cross through the track bed in areas on the EJ&E rail line between Leithton and Gary on which Applicants expect to increase rail traffic and where habitat for rare and/or listed turtle species (that is, Blanding’s or spotted turtle) exists on both sides of the rail line. VM 106.
[Karner
Blue Butterfly] In consultation with USFWS, Applicants shall identify areas of
suitable habitat of the Karner blue butterfly within Kirk Yard and in the
vicinity of all planned Transaction-related construction of double track and
new or improved connections within the State of VM 107.
[ VM 108. [Eastern prairie fringed orchid] Prior to any ground disturbing activities, Applicants shall hire a qualified biologist to survey for the Eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) in areas containing suitable habitat. Applicants shall survey each area on at least three non-consecutive days between June 28 and July 11, as this is when the orchid typically flowers and is most identifiable. If Applicants’ biologist finds orchids, Applicants shall not conduct any construction activities in that area and Applicants shall notify USFWS and the Board immediately. The Board shall reinitiate consultation with USFWS. Applicants shall work with the Board and USFWS to determine appropriate measures to offset impacts, most likely providing funding for an ongoing hand pollination project, or providing funding to be used to enhance another orchid site (that is, brush cutting, prescribed burning). Board’s Final Mitigation Conditions Applicants’ Voluntary Mitigation 1)
Applicants shall comply with their voluntary mitigation
measures. Rail Operations 2)
As part of the Applicants’ quarterly reports that will be
required under VM 101, VM 36, and Condition 74, Applicants shall report quarterly
to SEA and communities adjacent to or intersected by the EJ&E rail line on
the frequency, cause, and duration of train blockages of crossings of
10 minutes in duration or greater, listing each delay and including any
notifications from persons affected by the blockage and the time of the
beginning and end of each delay.
Applicants shall summarize the cause of each type of blockage that the
Applicants self-report and shall state how the Applicants intend to reduce the
incidence of all blockages not attributed to emergencies or weather-related
incidents (sometimes called Acts of God) in the quarterly report. 3)
Applicants shall distribute to communities adjacent to or
intersected by the EJ&E rail line the contact information for the
Applicants’ community liaison established in VM 64 to ensure that
Applicants are aware of highway/rail at-grade crossing blockages lasting
10 minutes or more. Safety Integration Plan 4)
Applicants shall comply with their approved final Safety
Integration Plan (SIP), prepared pursuant to 49 CFR 1106, which may be
modified and updated as necessary to respond to evolving conditions. 5)
Applicants shall continue to coordinate with FRA in
implementing the approved final SIP, including any amendments thereto. The ongoing safety integration process shall
continue until FRA notifies the Board that the integration of Applicants’
operations has been safely completed. Freight Rail Safety 6)
Applicants shall adhere to all applicable Federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), FRA, and state
construction and operational safety regulations to minimize the potential for
accidents and incidents on the EJ&E rail line. Vehicle Safety Industry Track 7)
As requested by the Illinois Commerce Commission, Applicants
shall notify the Illinois Commerce Commission prior to modifying rail service
to existing rail shippers along the EJ&E rail line during the morning and
evening commuter rush hours, in areas where: 1) industry tracks cross
highway/rail at-grade crossings, and 2) those industry track highway/rail
at-grade crossings are protected with warning devices that are not
interconnected with or part of the warning devices at a highway/rail at-grade
crossing of the same roadway located within 300 feet which experiences commuter
rail traffic. Before modifying the rail
service Applicants shall allow the Illinois Commerce Commission to review the
adequacy of the highway/rail at-grade crossing warning devices and abide by the
Illinois Commerce Commission’s reasonable determination(s), including
contributing to funding any required modifications. Quiet Zones 8)
Applicants shall work with Hazardous Materials
Transportation Safety 9)
To supplement Applicants’ VM 21, Applicants shall conduct
TRANSCAER workshops in English and Spanish upon request for 3 years from the
effective date of the Board’s final decision authorizing the Proposed Action. 10)
In addition to Applicants’ VM 25, Applicants shall adhere to
all EPA regulations as described in 40 CFR 263 and shall coordinate with EPA,
state agencies, and local agencies on spill responses. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety 11)
To supplement Applicants’ VM 10, Applicants shall coordinate
with each affected community prior to installation of this fencing and shall
install fencing where the community deems appropriate. Applicants shall furnish and install at their
sole expense a standard 6-foot-high, galvanized, chain-link fence at all
locations where an effective fence does not currently exist. Upon completion of construction, the fence
shall be owned and maintained by the community unless both parties agree
otherwise in writing. The community may
decide to install fencing that differs from this standard, but Applicants shall
only be obligated to provide funds sufficient to construct the standard
fence. 12)
To supplement Applicants’ VM 43 and 44, Applicants shall
make Operation Lifesaver programs available to communities, schools, and other
appropriate organizations located along the EJ&E rail line for 3 years
after the effective date of the Board’s final decision. The programs will be designed and provided in
coordination with the Illinois Commerce Commission and INDOT. 13)
To address concerns raised by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Applicants shall either continue EJ&E’s practice of holding
trains south of Transportation Systems Regional and 14)
In addition to VM 28, Applicants shall coordinate with the
following state and local officials for the expeditious implementation of a
grade separation at: ·
The highway/rail at-grade crossing of ·
The highway/rail at-grade crossing of Lincoln Highway (US
30) and the EJ&E rail line in Lynwood (USDOT # 260651D). Coordinate with The
substantial effects of the transaction on traffic delay, regional and local
mobility, and grade-crossing safety warrant an increase over the traditional
railroad share of the cost of these grade separations if they are approved and
funded. Once applicants have been notified that the required
non-CN funds have been committed and obligated, applicants shall pay 67% of the cost of the grade
separation at 15)
Applicants shall coordinate with IDOT and the appropriate
counties and affected communities to develop a program to install traffic
advisory signs on roadway ROW at certain public highway/rail at-grade crossings
along the EJ&E rail line. These
signs shall clearly advise motorists not to block intersections, and the format
and lettering of these signs shall comply with FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. These signs shall be in place within a
year of the effective date of the Board’s final decision, subject to the
approval of the coordinating agencies, and
shall be located near the following intersections: a.
Old b.
Main Street/IL
22, c.
d. Plainfield-Naperville Road/IL 59, 16)
Applicants shall construct the revised connection at 17)
As requested by the Illinois Commerce Commission, Applicants
shall consult with Illinois Commerce Commission, as well as INDOT, to locate
roadway intersections with traffic lights within 1,000 feet of existing
highway/rail at-grade crossings along the EJ&E rail line to identify
circumstances where queued cars could extend over the EJ&E rail line and to
consider reasonable solutions. Emergency Response 18)
In addition to VM 42, to further assist with the timely
response of the emergency service providers listed in Table ES- 1 below, Applicants shall consult with all appropriate
agencies to implement a CCTV system with video cameras placed in locations so
that the movement of trains can reasonably be predicted at the highway/rail
at-grade crossings listed in Table ES-1.
Applicants shall pay for the necessary equipment, including cameras,
monitors, poles, cables, controllers, cabinets, communications equipment,
electrical connections, or other necessary components, the installation of the
equipment, and equipment training for up to two individuals for each emergency
service provider listed in Table ES-1 below.
Applicants shall work with all appropriate agencies to determine
specifications and scheduling for the installation of this system. Applicants shall not be responsible for the
ongoing maintenance and operation of the CCTV system after the system is
installed and operational.
Airports 19)
Applicants shall comply with the four-party Preliminary
Memorandum of Understanding (PMOU) announced by the Gary/Chicago International
Airport, EJ&E, CSX, and NS on June 27, 2008, regarding the airport’s plan
to extend its main runway and to relocate the EJ&E rail line. 20) Applicants shall consult with and comply with the reasonable requirements of INDNR to demonstrate compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. 1451-1456) and the Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program in accordance with the guidelines found in the Indiana Natural Resources Commission’s Information Bulletin #43 (Indiana Natural Resources Commission 2007). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||