[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54655-54659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21846]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Docket No. FD 35654]
Genesee & Wyoming Inc.--Control--RailAmerica, Inc., et al.
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Decision No. 2 in Docket No. FD 35654; Notice of acceptance of
application; issuance of procedural schedule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is accepting for
consideration the application filed August 6, 2012, by Genesee and
Wyoming Inc. (GWI) and RailAmerica, Inc. (RailAmerica). The application
seeks Board approval under 49 U.S.C. 11323-11325 of the acquisition of
control of RailAmerica, a noncarrier holding company, by GWI, a
noncarrier holding company. This proposal is referred to as the
Transaction, and GWI and RailAmerica are referred to collectively as
Applicants.
The Board finds that the application is complete and that the
Transaction is a minor transaction upon the preliminary determination
that the Transaction clearly will not have any anticompetitive effects.
49 CFR 1180.2(b)(1), (c). The Board makes this determination based
solely on the evidence presented in the application. The Board stresses
that this is not a final determination, and its finding may be rebutted
by filings and evidence submitted into the record for this proceeding.
The Board will give careful consideration to any claims that the
Transaction would have anticompetitive effects that are not apparent
from the application itself.
DATES: The effective date of this decision is September 5, 2012. Any
person who wishes to participate in this proceeding as a party of
record (POR) must file, no later than September 19, 2012, a notice of
intent to participate. All comments, protests, requests for conditions,
and any other evidence and argument in opposition to the primary
application and related filings, including filings by the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), must be filed by October 5, 2012. Responses to comments,
protests, requests for conditions, and other opposition, and rebuttal
in support of the primary application or related filings must be filed
by October 26, 2012, see the Appendix A (Procedural Schedule). Further
procedural orders, if any, will be issued by the Board as necessary.
ADDRESSES: Any filing submitted in this proceeding must be submitted
either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper
format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and
otherwise comply with the instructions found on the Board's Web site at
``www.stb.dot.gov'' at the ``E-FILING'' link. Any person submitting a
filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10
paper copies of the filing (and also an electronic version) to: Surface
Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In
addition, one copy of each filing in this proceeding must be sent (and
may be sent by email only if service by email is acceptable to the
recipient) to each of the following: (1) Secretary of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (2) Attorney General
of the United States, c/o Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust
Division, Room 3109, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; (3)
Terence M. Hynes (representing RailAmerica), Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K
Street NW., Washington, DC 20005; (4) David H. Coburn (representing
GWI), Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20036; and (5) any other person designated as a POR on the service list
notice (as explained below, the service list notice will be issued as
soon after September 19, 2012, as practicable).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathon Binet, (202) 245-0368.
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: GWI is a publicly traded, noncarrier holding
company. RailAmerica is a publicly traded, noncarrier holding company.
See Appendix B for a complete list of each company's relevant holdings.
Applicants state that, pursuant to an agreement and plan of merger
(Agreement), Jaguar Acquisition Sub, Inc., a newly formed, wholly owned
noncarrier subsidiary of GWI, would acquire control of RailAmerica and
its railroad subsidiaries. RailAmerica's shareholders would receive
$27.50 per share of RailAmerica common stock.
According to GWI, all shares of common stock of RailAmerica will be
placed into an independent voting trust.\1\ Applicants state that, on
or after the effective date of the Board's decision authorizing the
Transaction, the voting trust would be terminated, RailAmerica's shares
would be transferred to GWI, and RailAmerica would become a wholly
owned subsidiary of GWI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See GWI Voting Trust--Control Exemption--RailAmerica, Inc.,
FD 35660 (STB served Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicants state four primary purposes for pursuing the
Transaction. First, Applicants state that expanding GWI's safe and
efficient rail operation of regional and shortline railroads would
improve customer service for GWI and RailAmerica customers, as well as
the Class I railroads with which they connect. Second, Applicants
anticipate an increased likelihood of industrial and manufacturing
development opportunities in the communities they serve. Third, they
seek to enhance operational efficiencies by combining the best
practices of each company. Lastly, Applicants assert that the
Transaction would create stability for employees and customers.
Financial Arrangements. Under the Agreement, the purchase price
would be paid in cash. RailAmerica would not issue any new railroad
securities in connection with the Transaction although, following
approval by the Board, it may guarantee debt obligations incurred by
GWI. GWI would incur approximately $2 billion of debt obligations and
would issue up to $800 million of equity and/or equity-linked
securities in connection with the Transaction.
[[Page 54656]]
Passenger Service Impacts. Applicants state that the Transaction
would not affect passenger rail service.
Discontinuances/Abandonments. Applicants state that there would not
be any Transaction-related line abandonments.
Public Interest Considerations. Applicants state that the
Transaction would benefit the public by providing safe, reliable, and
efficient rail service and by allowing GWI to focus on local economic
development. Applicants point to GWI's history in the industry and its
commitment to providing continuously improved customer service as
additional public benefits.
Applicants assert that the Transaction would have a negligible
effect on shippers and the railroad industry and, therefore, has a
limited possibility of creating any adverse competitive effects.
According to Applicants, the Transaction would not create a monopoly
and would not result in any restraint of trade. Applicants note that
GWI and RailAmerica currently serve the same customer in only one
locality--Linden, Alabama--but they state that no customer there would
experience a reduction in service alternatives because the routes of
these two carriers have completely opposite orientations and serve
distinctly different destinations. In other words, at Linden, a shipper
wishing to ship traffic east or west has one option and the same
shipper wishing to ship traffic north or south has a different option.
Applicants assert that there would be no ``2-to-1 shippers'' (i.e.,
shippers served by two carriers before the Transaction that would be
served by one after it) as a result of the Transaction. Applicants
state that GWI and RailAmerica railroads interconnect or interchange in
only four localities and are in close proximity (five miles or less) in
two localities and that the combination would not affect competition at
any of those locations. According to Applicants, the Transaction would
have no effect on geographic competition. Lastly, Applicants state that
the Transaction would not have a detrimental impact on non-affiliated
shortlines that connect to GWI and RailAmerica railroads or on any
transportation in a transportation corridor.
Applicants assert that, even if the Transaction had any adverse
impacts on competition, those effects would be de minimis due to the
limited connections between Applicants' railroad subsidiaries and, in
any event, would be outweighed by the public benefits of the
Transaction. As all of the railroads involved in the Transaction are
shortlines, Applicants contend that they have little ability to
influence rail transportation at the regional or national level. Also,
because they believe the Transaction would result in safer, more
reliable rail and customer service as well as local economic
development, Applicants assert that these public interest
considerations outweigh any de minimis effects on competition.
Time Schedule for Consummation. Applicants intend to consummate
control of RailAmerica as soon as possible after the effective date of
the final order, should the Board authorize the proposed Transaction.
Applicants will place all shares of RailAmerica common stock into a
voting trust. On or after the effective date of the Board's final order
(assuming the Board authorizes the Transaction), the voting trust would
be terminated and the shares of RailAmerica would be transferred to
GWI.
Environmental Impacts. Applicants contend that, because the
Transaction relates only to the change in corporate control and
ownership of RailAmerica, no environmental impacts are anticipated and
that the thresholds established in 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(4) and (5) would
not be triggered.
Historic Preservation Impacts. Applicants contend that there is no
need for historic review under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470, because the Transaction involves only
a corporate change in control of RailAmerica and would not
substantially change the levels of operations over, or maintenance of,
rail lines of any of the GWI railroads or the RailAmerica railroads.
Labor Impacts. Applicants state that no employees of the subsidiary
railroads would be adversely affected. Applicants further acknowledge
that the Transaction would be subject to labor protective requirements
and other procedures of 49 U.S.C. 11326(b) and Wisconsin Central--
Acquisition Exemption--Lines of Union Pacific Railroad, 2 S.T.B. 218
(1997).
Application Accepted. The Transaction has characteristics that
suggest it might be classified as ``significant'' under 49 CFR
1180.2(b), given that it involves the merger of two large holding
companies that own railroads transacting business in 37 states. The
size of the Transaction alone, however, is insufficient to classify it
as significant. As provided for under 49 CFR 1180.2, rather than
meeting a size threshold, to be significant a transaction has to have
the potential for anticompetitive effects. Nothing in the record thus
far suggests that the Transaction would have any anticompetitive
effects, and any such effects that might result from the Transaction
would appear to be outweighed by its contribution to the public in
meeting significant transportation needs. A transaction that does not
involve the control or merger of two or more Class I railroads is not
of regional or national transportation significance and, therefore, is
classified as minor if: (1) The transaction clearly will not have any
anticompetitive effects, or (2) any anticompetitive effects will
clearly be outweighed by the anticipated contribution to the public
interest in meeting significant transportation needs. See 49 CFR
1180.2(b), (c). Therefore, based on the information provided in the
Application, the Board finds the proposed Transaction to be a minor
transaction under 49 CFR 1180.2(c).\2\ Such a categorization does not
mean that the proposed Transaction is insignificant or not of
importance. Indeed, the Board will carefully review the proposed
Transaction to make certain that it does not substantially lessen
competition, create a monopoly, or restrain trade and that any
anticompetitive effects are outweighed by the public interest. See 49
U.S.C. 11324(d)(1)-(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Because the Transaction proposed in the application is a
minor transaction, no responsive applications will be permitted. See
49 CFR 1180.4(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 9, 2012, Napa Valley Railroad Company (NVRR) and Yreka
Western Railroad Company (YW) filed replies in opposition to
Applicants' Motion To Establish a Procedural Schedule. On August 16,
2012, similar replies were filed by Samuel J. Nasca, for and on behalf
of United Transportation Union-New York State Legislative Board (UTU-
NY), and jointly by Winamac Southern Railway Company (WSRY) and US Rail
Corporation (URC). Opposing parties argue that the Board should treat
the Transaction as a significant transaction, pursuant to the
applicable statutes and regulations. For example, NVRR and YW argue
that, in terms of competition among holding companies, GWI's
acquisition of RailAmerica is of national transportation significance.
WSRY and URC infer from the numbers (e.g., post-merger GWI would
control more than 100 rail carriers, manage in excess of 15,000 miles
of track, and handle 1.835 million carloads per year) that this is a
matter of regional and national transportation significance. UTU-NY
claims that the Transaction would result in a reduction in competition
among
[[Page 54657]]
Class I rail carriers. Applicants filed a response to the replies on
August 28, 2012.
The Board finds the proposed Transaction to be a minor transaction,
because, as we have noted, on the face of the application there does
not appear to be a likelihood of any anticompetitive effects resulting
from the Transaction, if approved. Applicants state that the combined
GWI and RailAmerica railroads would handle only 2.8% of the carloads
handled by freight railroads in the United States and would earn only
1.1% of the total gross freight revenue earned by those railroads. The
Transaction involves the common ownership of individual shortlines,
each limited in its geographic scope and operating in different areas
of the United States. The Transaction, if approved, would alter matters
at the administrative level, but Applicants indicate that the existing
operating plans governing each railroad would continue unchanged. Thus,
those railroads would continue to operate and compete in their own
local markets.
Our analysis of the effect on competition appropriately examines
not how many railroad holding companies there are, or how many miles
they operate, but rather whether the combination would have an adverse
effect on shippers and communities. We perform that analysis by looking
at the individual serving rail carriers (here, shortline carriers that
are not interconnected, with few exceptions), rather than just the
holding companies. Based on a review of the application and the careful
description of the interchange points, it does not appear that any
shipper would have fewer competitive rail alternatives as a result of
the Transaction, even in the four localities where GWI interconnects or
interchanges with RailAmerica because, as addressed in the application
and supporting materials, the relevant lines either run in different
directions or the affected shippers are served by multiple
railroads.\3\ Lastly, the public would clearly benefit from GWI's
demonstrated commitment to safety and customer service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See e.g., App., V.S. of Kevin Neels 11-13 (stating that
common ownership of the Tazewell and Peoria Railroad and the Toledo,
Peoria and Western Railway (TPW) in Peoria, Illinois would not have
an anticompetitive effect because the affected customers are also
served by Union Pacific and a barge terminal); id. 13-15 (stating
that although the Illinois and Midland Railroad and TPW ``can
theoretically interchange traffic at Sommer[, Illinois], no traffic
has been interchanged between the railroads at that location in 15
years or more''); id. 19-20 (stating that the common ownership of
the Meridian and Bigbee Railroad and the Alabama and Gulf Coast
Railway would not negatively affect competition because one line
runs north-south and the other east-west); id. 22-23 (stating that
the railroads that would fall under common ownership in Columbus,
Mississippi, not only have multiple interchange partners, but
multiple Class I interchange partners); id. 27-28 (stating that
there is no overlap in territory currently served by the RailAmerica
line in Eugene, Oregon and territory currently served by the two GWI
lines in Eugene, Oregon.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board reiterates, however, that its findings regarding
anticompetitive impacts are preliminary. The Board will give careful
consideration to any claims that the Transaction would have
anticompetitive effects that are not apparent from the application
itself. The Board can also condition the Transaction to mitigate or
eliminate any deleterious effects on regional or national
transportation.
The Board accepts the application for consideration because it is
in substantial compliance with the applicable regulations governing
minor transactions. See 49 U.S.C. 11321-26; 49 CFR pt. 1180. The Board
reserves the right to require the filing of supplemental information as
necessary to complete the record.
Procedural Schedule. The Board has considered Applicants' request
(filed August 6, 2012) for an expedited procedural schedule under which
the Board would issue its final decision before the statutory deadline
of 180 days after the filing of the application. In the interest of
allowing time for the record to develop fully, the Board will not at
this time set a particular target date for its decision. Rather, after
reviewing the record developed, we will decide whether an expedited
procedural schedule is appropriate. For further information respecting
dates, see the Appendix A (Procedural Schedule).
Notice of Intent To Participate. Any person who wishes to
participate in this proceeding as a POR must file with the Board, no
later than September 19, 2012, a notice of intent to participate,
accompanied by a certificate of service indicating that the notice has
been properly served on the Secretary of Transportation, the Attorney
General of the United States, and Messrs. Hynes and Coburn.
If a request is made in the notice of intent to participate to have
more than one name added to the service list as a POR representing a
particular entity, the extra name will be added to the service list as
a ``Non-Party.'' The list will reflect the Board's policy of allowing
only one official representative per party to be placed on the service
list, as specified in Press Release No. 97-68 dated August 18, 1997,
announcing the implementation of the Board's ``One Party-One
Representative'' policy for service lists. Any person designated as a
Non-Party will receive copies of Board decisions, orders, and notices
but not copies of official filings. Persons seeking to change their
status must accompany that request with a written certification that he
or she has complied with the service requirements set forth at 49 CFR
1180.4, and any other requirements set forth in this decision.
Service List Notice. The Board will serve, as soon after September
19, 2012, as practicable, a notice containing the official service list
(the service-list notice). Each POR will be required to serve upon all
other PORs, within 10 days of the service date of the service-list
notice, copies of all filings previously submitted by that party (to
the extent such filings have not previously been served upon such other
parties). Each POR also will be required to file with the Board, within
10 days of the service date of the service-list notice, a certificate
of service indicating that the service required by the preceding
sentence has been accomplished. Every filing made by a POR after the
service date of the service-list notice must have its own certificate
of service indicating that all PORs on the service list have been
served with a copy of the filing. Members of the United States Congress
(MOCs) and Governors (GOVs) are not parties of record and need not be
served with copies of filings, unless any Member or Governor has
requested to be, and is designated as, a POR.
Service of Decisions, Orders, and Notices. The Board will serve
copies of its decisions, orders, and notices only on those persons who
are designated on the official service list as either POR, MOC, GOV, or
Non-Party. All other interested persons are encouraged to secure copies
of decisions, orders, and notices via the Board's Web site at
``www.stb.dot.gov'' under ``E-LIBRARY/Decisions & Notices.''
Access to Filings. Under the Board's rules, any document filed with
the Board (including applications, pleadings, etc.) shall be promptly
furnished to interested persons on request, unless subject to a
protective order. 49 CFR 1180.4(a)(3). The application and other
filings in this proceeding are available for inspection in the library
(Room 131) at the offices of the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E
Street SW., in Washington, DC, and will also be available on the
Board's Web site at ``www.stb.dot.gov'' under ``E-LIBRARY/Filings.'' In
addition, the application may be obtained from Messrs. Hynes and Coburn
at the addresses indicated above.
[[Page 54658]]
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. The application in FD 35654 is accepted for consideration.
2. The parties to this proceeding must comply with the procedural
schedule adopted by the Board in this proceeding as shown in Appendix
A.
3. The parties to this proceeding must comply with the procedural
requirements described in this decision.
4. This decision is effective on September 5, 2012.
Decided: August 30, 2012.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, and Commissioner Begeman. Vice
Chairman Mulvey dissented with a separate expression.
Vice Chairman Mulvey, dissenting:
Congress directed the Board to ensure that certain procedural
safeguards are followed when the Board reviews a rail transaction (not
involving at least two Class I railroads) that is of ``regional or
national transportation significance.'' 49 U.S.C. 11325(c). Presently
before the Board is a request to consolidate GWI and RailAmerica, the
two largest shortline holding companies in the country. If approved,
more than 100 shortline railroads, operating in 37 states, would be
consolidated under a single corporate umbrella. I believe that a
transaction of this magnitude is of regional or national transportation
significance and, accordingly, should have been classified by the Board
as ``significant'' rather than ``minor.'' A ``significant''
classification would have given interested parties and the Board more
information and opportunity to examine any concerns regarding the
transaction.
While I do not believe that every large transaction merits a
significant classification, the proposed transaction would greatly
change the ownership structure of the short line industry. In the past,
this agency has been criticized by some for allowing, over time and
many individual transactions, significant consolidation of the Class I
railroad industry. Although there remain many other shortline railroads
today, the present transaction would consolidate nearly 20% of the
shortlines in the country under a single owner.
This agency has only once found a transaction to be significant.\4\
Yet some purportedly ``minor'' transactions have resulted in
significant opposition and required significant agency resources.\5\
This disconnect is a result of the Board's current and restrictive
rules for classifying mergers, which base the determination solely on
competitive impact even though such a limitation is nowhere to be found
in 11325(c).\6\ Competitive issues are, without a doubt, the Board's
primary concern in merger review and I agree with the Board's
preliminary determination with regard to the likely competitive impact
of this merger. But because the Board's review of minor and significant
mergers is not limited to just competitive issues, we should not so
severely limit the analysis we employ to determine a merger's
significance. See Village of Barrington et al. v. Surface
Transportation Board, 636 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Board has the
authority to condition minor mergers on environmental grounds); 49 CFR
1180.6 (requiring minor and significant merger applicants to submit
information regarding environmental issues, total fixed charges,
impacts on commuter/passenger rail transportation, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Canadian Pacific Ry.--Control--Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern
R.R., FD 35081 (STB served Dec. 27, 2007).
\5\ In Canadian National Ry.--Control--EJ&E West Co., FD 35087
(STB served Nov. 26, 2007) (Cmr. Mulvey, dissenting), the Board
classified the transaction as minor, but subsequently acknowledged
that the high level of public participation in the merger review was
``unprecedented.'' Canadian National, slip op. at 3 (STB served Dec.
24, 2008).
\6\ Section 11325(c) provides that certain procedures are to be
followed ``[i]f the application involves a transaction other than
the merger or control of at least two Class I railroads, as defined
by the Board, which the Board has determined to be of regional or
national transportation significance * * *''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I would have classified the merger as being of regional or
national transportation significance, based on the current record, I do
not see an issue that would have prevented the Board from completing
its review in less time than allotted for significant mergers.
Derrick A. Gardner,
Clearance Clerk.
Procedural Schedule
August 6, 2012 Motion for Protective Order filed. Application and
Motion to Establish Procedural Schedule filed.
September 5, 2012 Board notice of acceptance of application published
in the Federal Register.
September 19, 2012 Notices of intent to participate in this proceeding
due.
October 5, 2012 All comments, protests, requests for conditions, and
any other evidence and argument in opposition to the application,
including filings of DOJ and DOT, due.
October 26, 2012 Responses to comments, protests, requests for
conditions, and other opposition due. Rebuttal in support of the
application due.
TBD A public hearing or oral argument may be held.
TBD Close of evidentiary proceeding.
TBD Date by which a final decision will be served.
TBD Date by which a final decision will become effective.
Holdings
According to GWI, it controls, within the United States, one Class
II rail carrier, Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc., and 59 Class III
rail carriers:
Allegheny and Eastern Railroad, LLC;
The Aliquippa and Ohio River Railroad Co.;
AN Railway, LLC;
Arizona Eastern Railway Company;
Arkansas Louisiana & Mississippi Railroad Co.;
Atlantic and Western Railway, LP;
The Bay Line Railroad, LLC;
Chattahoochee Bay Railroad, Inc.;
Chattahoochee Industrial Railroad;
Chattooga and Chickamauga Railway Co.;
Columbus & Chattahoochee Railroad, Inc.;
Columbus and Greenville Railway Co.;
The Columbus and Ohio River Rail Road Co.;
Commonwealth Railway, Inc.;
Corpus Christi Termini Railroad, Inc.;
The Dansville and Mount Morris Railroad Co.;
East Tennessee Railway, LP;
First Coast Railroad Inc.;
Fordyce and Princeton RR Co.;
Galveston Railroad, LP;
Genesee and Wyoming Railroad Co.;
Georgia Central Railway, LP;
Georgia Southwestern Railroad, Inc.;
Golden Isles Terminal Railroad, Inc.;
Hilton & Albany Railroad, Inc.;
Illinois & Midland Railroad, Inc.;
KWT Railway, Inc.;
Little Rock & Western Railway, LP;
Louisiana and Delta Railroad, Inc.;
Luxapalila Valley Railroad, Inc.;
The Mahoning Valley Railway Co.;
Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad, LLC;
Maryland Midland Railway, Inc.;
Meridian & Bigbee Railroad, LLC;
Ohio and Pennsylvania Railroad Co.;
Ohio Central Railroad, Inc.;
Ohio Southern Railroad, Inc.;
Pittsburg & Shawmut Railroad, LLC;
The Pittsburgh & Ohio Central Railroad Co.;
[[Page 54659]]
Portland & Western Railroad, Inc.;
Riceboro Southern Railway, LLC;
Rochester & Southern Railroad, Inc.;
Salt Lake City Southern Railroad Co., Inc.;
Savannah Port Terminal Railroad Inc.;
South Buffalo Railway Co.;
St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad Co.;
Talleyrand Terminal Railroad Co., Inc.;
Tazewell & Peoria Railroad, Inc.;
Tomahawk Railway, LP;
Utah Railway Co.;
Valdosta Railway, LP;
The Warren & Trumbull Railroad Co.;
Western Kentucky Railway, LLC;
Willamette & Pacific Railroad, Inc.;
Wilmington Terminal Railroad, LP;
York Railway Co.;
Yorkrail, LLC;
The Youngstown & Austintown Railroad, Inc.; and
Youngstown Belt Railroad Co.
GWI explains that Allegheny & Eastern Railroad, LLC and Pittsburg &
Shawmut Railroad, LLC are non-operating carriers that own rail lines
operated by Buffalo Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc.; and, Maryland and
Pennsylvania Railroad, LLC and Yorkrail, LLC are also non-operating
carriers that own rail lines operated by York Railway Company. The
Board recently granted Western Kentucky Railway, LLC authority to
abandon all of its remaining rail lines that have been inactive since
prior to 2005.
According to RailAmerica, it operates the following Class III
railroads:
Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway LLC;
Arizona & California Railroad Co.;
Bauxite & Northern Railway Co.;
California Northern Railroad Co.;
Carolina Piedmont Division;
Cascade and Columbia River Railroad Co.;
Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad, Inc.;
The Central Railroad Company of Indiana;
Central Railroad Company of Indianapolis;
Chesapeake & Albemarle Railroad Co., Inc.;
Chicago, Ft. Wayne & Eastern;
Conecuh Valley Railway;
Connecticut Southern Railroad, Inc.;
Dallas, Garland & Northeastern Railroad, Inc.;
Eastern Alabama Railway, LLC;
Grand Rapids Eastern Railroad Inc.;
Huron & Eastern Railway Company, Inc.;
Indiana & Ohio Railway Company;
Indiana Southern Railroad, LLC;
Kiamichi Railroad Co., LLC;
Kyle Railroad Co.;
Marquette Rail, LLC;
The Massena Terminal Railroad Co.;
Mid-Michigan Railroad, Inc.;
Michigan Shore Railroad, Inc.;
Missouri & Northern Arkansas Railroad Co., Inc.;
New England Central Railroad, Inc.;
North Carolina & Virginia Railroad Co., LLC;
Otter Tail Valley Railroad Co., Inc.;
Point Comfort & Northern Railway Co.;
Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad; Rockdale,
Sandow & Southern Railroad Co.;
San Diego & Imperial Valley Railroad Co., Inc.;
San Joaquin Valley Railroad Co.;
South Carolina Central Railroad Co., LLC;
Texas Northeastern Railroad;
Three Notch Railway, LLC;
Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway Corp.;
Ventura County Railroad Corp.;
Wellsboro & Corning Railroad, LLC; and
Wiregrass Central Railway, LLC.
RR Acquisition Holding, LLC, a noncarrier affiliate of Fortress
Investment Group, currently owns approximately 60% of RailAmerica's
publicly traded shares.
[FR Doc. 2012-21846 Filed 9-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P