|SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT|
|CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. AND DELAWARE AND HUDSON RAILWAY COMPANY, INC.--JOINT USE AGREEMENT|
|DECISION APPROVED A JOINT USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. (CSXT) AND DELAWARE AND HUDSON RAILWAY COMPANY, INC., (D&H) SUBJECT TO OVERSIGHT AND STANDARD EMPLOYEE PROTECTIVE CONDITIONS. THE AGREEMENT ALLOWS CSXT AND D&H TO USE RAIL LINES BETWEEN FRESH POND JUNCTION AND ROUSES POINT JUNCTION, N.Y.|
| 198 KB|
|Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 4 Minutes|
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|
41008 SERVICE DATE – LATE RELEASE OCTOBER 22, 2010
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Docket No. FD 35348
CSX Transportation, Inc. and
Decision No. 6
Decided: October 22, 2010
Digest: This decision approves an agreement between
CSX Transportation, Inc., and
By application filed on April 27, 2010, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), and Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, Inc. (D&H), seek Board approval under 49 U.S.C. §§ 11321-26, to commence operations pursuant to an agreement between CSXT and D&H, known as the New York Joint Use Agreement (Joint Use Agreement). This proposal is referred to as the transaction, and CSXT and D&H are referred to, collectively, as Applicants.
No. 2 (served and published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2010, at 75 Fed.
Reg. 29,805-10), the Board found that the proposed transaction is a “minor
transaction” under 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2(c) and that the application, as
supplemented, was complete. The Board also established a procedural
schedule that set July 2, 2010, as the due date for the filing of comments,
protests, requests for conditions, and any other evidence and argument in
opposition to the application. Comments on the proposed transaction were
filed by the following parties: New York
& Atlantic Railway Company (NYA); New York City Economic Development
is a wholly owned subsidiary of CSX Corporation and is a Class I railroad
that owns and operates approximately 21,000 miles of railroad lines in the
D&H, a Class
II railroad, is a wholly owned, indirect subsidiary of Canadian Pacific Railway
Company (CP), a Class I railroad.
D&H owns and/or operates 1,138 miles of rail lines in
D&H currently operates 2 trains per week in each direction between Albany, N.Y., and New York, N.Y., via a route consisting of: D&H’s line between Albany and Schenectady; trackage rights over CSXT’s line between Schenectady and Poughkeepsie, N.Y.; a line between Poughkeepsie and milepost 7 near High Bridge, N.Y., via a trackage rights agreement with Metro North Commuter Railroad (MNCR); and lines between Harlem River Yard, Oak Point Yard, and Fresh Pond Junction via trackage rights over CSXT and Amtrak. D&H states that trains in this corridor currently average less than 27 revenue carloads per train and asserts that such traffic volume is not sufficient to support more frequent, profitable train service.
Applicants state that the fundamental purpose of the
proposed transaction is to address certain inefficiencies in the current
north-south operations of CSXT and D&H in
Applicants state that, under the Joint Use Agreement, CSXT
would perform operations over the Albany-Fresh Pond Segment with its own trains
and crews. D&H currently has the
right to operate between Albany and Fresh Pond Junction and to access shippers
in the New York City metropolitan area under the trackage rights and switching
arrangements obtained in the Conrail proceeding. Under the proposed transaction, while D&H
would retain its existing trackage rights over CSXT’s lines, it would not
exercise those rights but would have all traffic along the Albany-Fresh Pond
Segment handled by CSXT during the term of the Joint Use Agreement. D&H’s traffic would be added to CSXT’s
larger trains, which, Applicants state, would eliminate D&H’s operation of
inefficient short trains in the
Similar to CSXT’s operations over the Albany-Fresh Pond
Segment with its own trains and crews, under the Joint Use Agreement, D&H likewise
would perform all train operations over the Saratoga Springs-Rouses Point
Segment, with D&H crews handling CSXT cars.
D&H would also handle traffic beyond Rouses Point, to and from the
Each carrier would perform its own train operations over
the Albany-Saratoga Springs Segment, which links both carriers’
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Statutory Criteria. Under 49 U.S.C. § 11323(a)(6), the joint use of a railroad line owned or operated by another rail carrier may be carried out only with Board approval under criteria set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 11324. Because the transaction does not involve the merger or control of 2 or more Class I railroads, this transaction is governed by § 11324(d), under which we must approve the 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 § 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. The Board also has the authority to consider the potential environmental effects of the transaction and to impose appropriate conditions to mitigate adverse environmental effects.
the evidence before the Board, we conclude that the transaction is not likely
to cause a substantial lessening of competition or to create a monopoly or
restraint of trade. Because the transaction
primarily involves nonexclusive overhead traffic, the existing transportation
options for shippers and carriers will not be reduced as a result of the
transaction and no shipper will lose a competitive rail option. CSXT will continue to serve local shippers on
the Massena Line, and Applicants anticipate no other change to local service
between Selkirk and
adversely affecting competition, it appears that the transaction will enhance intermodal
and intramodal competition by facilitating more efficient, cost-saving
operations for both CSXT and D&H.
The transaction will provide a significantly shorter and faster route
for CSXT traffic between
Several parties have submitted comments on the transaction. NYECDC and JG/Pal have submitted comments in support of the transaction. As discussed below, other parties filed comments in opposition to the transaction and/or requested that certain conditions be attached upon the Board’s approval of the transaction.
NYA and SRM. NYA, a provider of rail freight service in
NYA seeks a condition that would
maintain the current favorable arrangement it has with D&H. In particular, NYA requests that the Board attach
a condition upon its approval of the transaction requiring D&H to maintain,
for a period of 5 years, the existing rate and existing revenue division for
stone moving from Comstock or
shipper on the Albany-Fresh Pond Segment, similarly expresses an interest in
ensuring that Applicants’ promised improvements to the
The concerns raised by NYA and SRM provide no basis for
finding this transaction to be anticompetitive, our primary concern under §
11324(d). The Joint Use Agreement would
not reduce D&H’s incentive to market stone to the
With respect to NYA’s request for conditions, a condition governing the terms of a private agreement, as sought by NYA, has not been shown to be necessary. D&H and NYA have incentive to set viable levels for rates and revenue divisions for this marginally profitable traffic, given the significant intermodal and intramodal competition for stone traffic. Further, the Board’s general practice is not to use its conditioning authority to freeze in place the contractual terms, such as rate and revenue divisions, which have been voluntarily bargained for independent of a transaction.
Monitoring & Oversight Condition. NYSDOT, which is responsible for the supervision and administration of state policies and interests with respect to transportation within or affecting New York, does not oppose the transaction but requests that the Board condition its approval of the transaction on the Board retaining jurisdiction and establishing a 3-year oversight period to monitor Applicants’ adherence to various representations, including the effects on Amtrak in the Albany-Rouses Point Segment and the level of service and rates for shippers on both the Albany-Fresh Pond Segment and the Massena Line. NYSDOT acknowledges that the proposed service on the Albany-Fresh Pond Segment may enhance competition. NYSDOT is particularly concerned about the impact of CSXT’s additional overhead traffic on Amtrak service along the Saratoga Springs-Rouses Point Segment. NYSDOT states that Amtrak and D&H trains carrying Joint Use Agreement traffic would meet and pass each other on a daily basis, which could potentially offset NYSDOT-funded improvements in on-time performance of Amtrak trains. NYSDOT expresses further concerns about the adverse impact on CSXT’s short-line connections, shippers, and employees along the Massena Line, once CSXT moves its overhead traffic to the Saratoga Springs-Rouses Point Segment.
OBPA, which owns 30 miles of rail
In a letter dated September 29, 2010, United States Representative Bill Owens (N.Y.) expressed concern as to the potential reduction of service on the Massena Line, particularly as to the transaction’s impact on service provided to Ogdensburg.
Having considered the concerns raised by these parties, we will impose a 1-year oversight and reporting period. This will allow the Board to assess the various service and other impacts of the transaction. Although the Board does not anticipate anticompetitive consequences from the proposed transaction, it is mindful that operational difficulties can arise when implementing a transaction with these characteristics. Given the increase in traffic on the Albany-Saratoga Springs and Saratoga Springs-Rouses Point Segments in conjunction with the existing Amtrak operations, it is appropriate to monitor and require reporting on the transaction’s impact on Amtrak service. We will also monitor and require reporting on Applicants’ representation that CSXT will continue to serve the Massena Line with service comparable to what it currently provides. For the reasons discussed above, however, reporting on the Albany-Fresh Pond Segment has not been shown to be necessary.
Given the limited scope of the transaction, as well as the relatively short period of time it will take to implement and observe the impacts of the transaction, we find that a 1-year oversight period is appropriate, as opposed to the longer periods requested by NYSDOT and NYA. However, the Board may elect to extend its oversight for an additional period should it be necessary.
During the monitoring and oversight
period, the Board will require Applicants to report to us semiannually on
CSXT’s service to shippers along the Massena Line, as well as the transaction’s
impact on Amtrak service on D&H’s lines north of
Labor Protection. Applicants and NYSDOT request that the Board impose the labor protective conditions set forth in Norfolk & Western, which provide up to 6 years’ wage protection, worker moving and retraining allowances, and arbitration of disputes subject to limited Board review. Applicants state that they will not integrate their forces maintaining, dispatching, or operating the Joint Use Lines.
UTU-NY, which represents D&H and CSXT employees, submitted comments in opposition to the proposed transaction. UTU-NY argues that routing CSXT trains on the Saratoga Springs-Rouses Point Segment would be anticompetitive, creating a “combined single route,” with D&H currently hauling traffic for NSR and CN on that line. UTU-NY goes on to state that the transaction would adversely impact employees on the Massena Line and through traffic on the Massena Line that originates from or is destined for location in Western or Midwestern states and, and UTU-NY requests a hearing to address the effects of the transaction on the Massena Line. UTU-NY further argues that the transaction is not within the scope of § 11323(a)(6), because the transaction does not involve the joint operations of lines. Rather, UTU-NY asserts that D&H is effectively discontinuing its service along the Albany-Fresh Pond Segment and will only be a “phantom carrier” along that segment. For this reason, UTU-NY requests that the Board impose the labor protective conditions set forth in Oregon Short Line Railroad—Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham & Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 354 I.C.C. 76 (1979), modified, 360 I.C.C. 91 (Oregon Short Line), which normally apply to transactions involving the abandonment or discontinuance of a line.
The labor protective conditions set forth in Oregon Short Line require the negotiation of pre-consummation agreements and 90 days’ notice of the transaction to interested employees. The labor protective conditions set forth in Norfolk & Western do not require negotiated agreements prior to consummation of the transaction and require only 20 days’ notice.
UTU-NY has not provided any basis for finding the transaction to be anticompetitive. Arrangements, such as those provided by D&H on the Saratoga Springs-Rouses Point Segment, are valid rail transportation options, under which carriers remain free to compete with one another without consulting any other carrier. Further, UTU-NY fails to show that the contemplated changes in routing on the Massena Line amount to adverse competitive harm. We find the record to be sufficient for an evaluation of the statutory criteria, and UTU-NY’s request for a hearing will be denied.
The Board finds no merit in UTU-NY’s assertion that D&H is effectively discontinuing its service on the Albany-Fresh Pond Segment. Not only will D&H continue to provide service on the segment via CSXT trains, the Joint Use Agreement also explicitly maintains the East-of-the-Hudson trackage rights, which may be reactivated at D&H’s discretion. In light of the current state of D&H’s operations on the segment, it appears that service and competition will be enhanced, rather than diminished, by the transaction. Because this transaction does not involve discontinuance of service or abandonment of a rail line, we will deny UTU-NY’s request to impose the labor conditions set forth in Oregon Short Line. We find that the labor protective conditions set forth in Norfolk & Western are appropriate here.
The Requirements of NEPA. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347 (NEPA), generally requires federal agencies to consider “to the fullest extent possible” environmental consequences “in every recommendation or report on major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). Regulations governing implementation of this broad mandate have been promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), at 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500-1508, and by the Board, at 49 C.F.R. pt. 1105. Under the CEQ and Board regulations, actions are separated into 3 classes that prescribe the level of documentation required in the NEPA process. Actions that may significantly affect the environment generally require the agency to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(a)(1); 49 C.F.R. §§ 1105.4(f), 1105.6(a). Actions where the significance of impacts is uncertain ordinarily require the preparation of a more limited Environmental Assessment (EA). 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(c); 49 C.F.R. §§ 1105.4(d), 1105.6(b). Finally, actions that have environmental effects that are ordinarily insignificant may be “categorically excluded” from NEPA review across the board, without a case-by case review. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500.4(p), 1501.4(a)(2), 1508.4; 49 C.F.R. § 1105.6(c).
In its environmental rules, the Board has promulgated various categorical exclusions. As pertinent to this transaction, the proposed joint use agreement is classified as an action that normally requires no environmental review unless certain thresholds would be exceeded (49 C.F.R. pt. 1105.6(c)(4)). If the Board’s thresholds for review are triggered, the Board then, based on projected changes in operations, must determine if the proposed transaction has enough potential for significant environmental impacts to warrant preparation of either an EA or EIS. Even when the Board’s presumptive thresholds for environmental analysis are met, the Board may reclassify a particular transaction or modify the requirement that an EIS or EA be prepared, if the railroad applicant demonstrates that the proposed transaction has no potential for significant environmental effects. 49 C.F.R. § 1105.6(d). The Board’s regulations also provide that historic review normally is not required for transactions where there will be no significant change in operations, and properties 50 years old or older will not be affected. 49 C.F.R. § 1105.8.
The Environmental Process Here. In their application, Applicants asserted that the proposed transaction would have insignificant environmental effects and would cause only minor changes in carrier operations, none of which would exceed the thresholds triggering environmental review established in the Board’s environmental rules at 49 C.F.R. §§ 1105.7(e)(4) or (5), and 49 C.F.R. §§ 1105.6(c)(2) and (4), and that the proposed transaction would be exempt under 49 C.F.R. § 1105.8(b)(3) from historic preservation reporting requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470 (NHPA).
After reviewing Applicants’ operating plan (Exhibit 15 of the Application) and explanation of operational changes (Application at 26-27), the Board’s Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) determined that Applicants’ traffic level density data on the lines proposed for joint operations did not fully support their conclusion that no environmental documentation was warranted. Accordingly, SEA requested clarification from Applicants regarding the number of new trains that would move through the Albany-Saratoga Springs nonattainment area under the Joint Use Agreement and further explanation to support Applicants’ contention that the transaction does not warrant environment and historic documentation.
In a supplemental filing, Applicants explained that the proposed
transaction would allow the movement of 3 trains per day over the Albany-Saratoga
Springs Segment, but that, on a daily basis, the operating plan and the Joint
Use Agreement actually contemplated the operation of only 2 trains (1 in each
direction) per day carrying CSXT traffic between
To determine whether there was a need for formal environmental review of this transaction, SEA prepared and served copies of an Environmental Notice containing the information in Applicants’ operating plan and supplemental information to certain communities and Federal, state, and local agencies, as well as to parties on the Board’s service list for this proceeding, which announced that interested parties would have 20 days, or until July 21, 2010, to submit any comments on potential environmental concerns. SEA also made the Environmental Notice available on the Board’s website.
Applicants filed the only comment received on the Environmental Notice. In their comments, Applicants reiterated their position that the proposed transaction qualifies for the categorical exclusion because the proposed transaction would not result in an increase in train operations that would exceed the Board’s environmental thresholds set forth at 49 C.F.R. § 1105.7(e)(5)(ii)(A), and there is no potential for significant environmental impacts. Applicants also again noted that the transaction, if approved, would result in a reduction in GTMs, as well as corresponding statewide benefits in air quality, energy savings from reduced fuel consumption, and safety impacts associated with reducing the number of public and private at-grade crossings.
Conclusion on the Environmental Issues. Based on all of the information supplied by Applicants on potential environmental issues and the Office of Environmental Analysis’ (OEA) Environmental Notice and independent review of all available data, we find that there is no need for formal environmental review in this case, and that preparation of an EA or EIS is not warranted.
The potential environmental impacts associated with this type of transaction are ordinarily insignificant, and the proposed transaction is properly classified as categorically excluded from formal environmental review under 49 C.F.R. § 1105.6(c). The environmental record here shows that there would be only small changes in carrier operations that would not exceed the Board's thresholds, and there is nothing in the current environmental information to indicate that the transaction has any potential for significant environmental impacts. The proposed transaction also does not require historic review under NHPA, as further approval will be required to abandon any service, and there are no plans to dispose of or alter properties subject to the Board’s jurisdiction that are 50 years old or older.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. The proposed joint use agreement between CSXT and D&H is approved subject to conditions imposed herein.
2. Approval of the joint use agreement is subject to the conditions for protection of railroad employees set out in Norfolk and Western Railway Co.—Trackage Rights—Burlington Northern, Inc., 354 I.C.C. 605, 610-15 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Railway, Inc.—Lease & Operate—California Western Railroad, 360 I.C.C. 653, 664 (1980). UTU-NY’s request to impose labor protective conditions set forth in Oregon Short Line Railroad—Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham & Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 354 I.C.C. 76 (1979), modified, 360 I.C.C. 91, is denied.
3. Applicants must comply with the 1-year monitoring and oversight condition imposed in this decision, and, in connection therewith, must file the semiannual reports containing information discussed in this decision. The Board reserves the right to impose additional conditions, including extending the monitoring and oversight period, and/or to take other action if, and to the extent that, the Board determines it is necessary.
4. NYNJ’s motion for leave and for limited intervention is granted.
5. OBPA’s motion for leave to become a party to this proceeding is granted.
6. Representative Owens’ request to reopen the comment period is denied.
7. UTU-NY’s request for a hearing is denied.
8. This decision is effective on November 21, 2010.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner Nottingham.
 The digest constitutes no part of the decision of the Board but has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It may not be cited to or relied upon as precedent. Policy Statement on Plain Language Digests in Decisions, EP 696 (STB served Sept. 2, 2010).
 By a letter dated May 11, 2010 (supplemental filing), Applicants supplemented their application with additional information regarding the environmental and passenger service impacts of the proposed transaction.
 On August 16, 2010, the Board granted in part and denied in part a Motion to Compel, filed by New York & Atlantic Railway Company. The procedural schedule was modified to allow for comments and replies pertaining to the evidence that CSXT provided. No additional comments on this material were submitted.
 OBPA filed a late comment on September 24, 2010, requesting leave to become a party to this proceeding. CSXT filed its reply to OBPA’s comment on October 14, 2010, requesting that the Board reject the late-filed comment. For the purpose of creating a more complete record, the Board will accept OBPA’s comment and will grant its request to become a party to this proceeding.
 Railroads are classified by annual operating revenues (measured in 1991 dollars) as follows: Class I ($250 million or more), Class II (below $250 million but above $20 million), or Class III ($20 million or less). 49 C.F.R. pt. 1201, General Instructions § 1-1.
 D&H obtained those rights in connection with Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) and CSXT’s acquisition of control of Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail). CSX Corp.—Control and Operating Leases/Agreements—Conrail Inc., 3 S.T.B. 196, 282-83 (1998) (Conrail).
 The Saratoga
Springs-Rouses Point Segment extends between D&H’s Saratoga Springs Yard,
located at D&H milepost 36.10 ± near
Albany-Saratoga Springs Segment extends from a point of connection with CSXT’s
rail lines near D&H’s Kenwood Yard located at D&H milepost 0.0 ± in the
 The Albany-Fresh Pond Segment extends from a point of connection between CSXT’s and D&H’s rail lines near D&H’s Kenwood Yard at CSXT milepost QCP 7.1 in the vicinity of Albany, to CSXT’s Oak Point Yard and milepost QVK 8 in the vicinity of Fresh Pond Junction, a total distance of approximately 146.31 miles.
 Joint Use Agreement § 2.05.
 Joint Use Agreement § 10.04(d).
 In their supplemental filing and environmental comment filed on July 21, 2010 (discussed further below), Applicants state that the Operating Plan and Joint Use Agreement contemplate operating only 2 trains a day (1 in each direction) over the Albany-Saratoga Springs and Saratoga Springs-Rouses Point Segments. This number, Applicants state, corresponds to the 2 daily trains CSXT currently operates over the Massena Line to handle traffic to and from Huntingdon.
 While it appears that the proposed transaction could result in a change in service along the Massena Line, Applicants maintain that “local service on the Massena Line will not be reduced to two to three days per week as a result of the proposed Transaction. CSXT will continue to serve all customers as it does today, with service being in accordance with existing volumes.” Applicants’ Reb. V.S. Potter 6, July 23, 2010.
 Applicants state that D&H is a Class II carrier. In its verified statement (though not in its accompanying argument), UTU-NY asserts that the transaction should be “subject to the Class I standards,” because D&H, as a subsidiary of a Class I carrier (CP), should be treated as a Class I carrier. Regardless of the Class I or Class II carrier classification, there is no basis for treating this joint use arrangement as involving the merger or control of 2 or more Class I carriers. Thus, it is subject to the standards for approving a “minor” transaction.
 See NYEDC Comment 2, July 2, 2010.
 In a letter dated June 18, 2010, JG/Pal expressed concerns as to the impact of the transaction on its operations along the Albany-Fresh Pond Segment. In a subsequent comment, filed on July 21, 2010 (July 21 comments), JG/Pal states that its concerns have been addressed and that it supports the transaction.
 New York New
Jersey Rail, LLC (NYNJ), submitted a letter, dated July 20, 2010, seeking leave
to intervene out of time for the limited purpose of correcting a statement made
by NYA in its comments. NYNJ seeks to
clarify where it interchanges traffic with NYA.
Specifically, NYNJ states that NYA handles traffic to and from points on
NSR and CSXT through
 In comments
submitted on July 15, 2010, SRM requested that the Board condition its approval
on continuing oversight of the Albany-Fresh Pond Segment and on having
Applicants and NYA negotiate a 5-year agreement using cost based pricing for
the movement of stone to
 Application, V.S. Craig 3, Apr. 27, 2010.
 The oversight issue is discussed below.
 See Canadian
 NYSDOT also requests that the Board impose employee protective conditions set forth in Norfolk and Western Railway—Trackage Rights—Burlington Northern, Inc., 354 I.C.C. 605, 610-15 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Railway—Lease & Operate—California Western Railroad, 360 I.C.C. 653, 664 (1980) (Norfolk & Western). The imposition of labor protection is discussed below.
 JG/Pal, in its July 21 comments, states that it agrees with NYSDOT’s statements regarding the Albany-Fresh Pond Segment.
 Representative Owens also asserts that CSXT did not notify the appropriate local officials and asks that the comment period be reopened and notification be given to all stakeholders. Applicants certified that their application was served on the appropriate parties (including the Governor, Public Service Commission, and the Department of Transportation of each state in which any part of the Applicants’ properties is situated), pursuant to the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 1180.4(c)(5). The Board also published its acceptance of the application in the Federal Register on May 27, 2010, at 75 Fed. Reg. 29,805-10. This constitutes adequate notice under the Board’s regulations. Thus, we will decline to reopen the comment period.
 D&H states, however, that it is required by law (and by the terms of its existing agreement with Amtrak) to give Amtrak trains dispatching priority across all segments of D&H’s lines between Albany and Rouses Point.
 See Applicants’ Reb. 36, July 23, 2010.
 See discussion supra “NYA and SRM.”
 Norfolk & Western, 354 I.C.C. at 610-615.
 The thresholds differ depending on whether a rail line segment is in an area designated as “attainment” or “nonattainment” with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671 (CAA). For rail lines in nonattainment areas, environmental documentation typically is required when the proposed action would result in: (1) an increase of at least 3 trains per day; (2) an increase in rail traffic of at least 50 percent (measured in annual gross ton miles); or (3) an increase in carload activity at rail yards of at least 20 percent. 49 C.F.R. § 1105.7(e)(5)(ii). An attainment area is an area considered to have air quality as good as, or better than, the national ambient air quality standards as defined in the CAA. A nonattainment area is any area that does not meet, or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet, the ambient air quality standards for the pollutant under the CAA.
 A reclassification is based on the Board’s Office of Environmental Analysis’ determination that a proposed transaction, individually or cumulatively, has no potential for significant environmental impacts.
 Applicants state that the number of at-grade crossings trains would cross would go from 486 (on the Massena Line) to 251 (on the Albany–Saratoga Springs and Saratoga Springs–Rouses Point Segments).
 SEA is now the Office of Environmental Analysis. The name change from SEA to OEA became effective on September 1, 2010.