Notice2025-04302

Macquarie Infrastructure Partners V GP, LLC, et al.-Continuance in Control-North Florida Industrial Railroad, LLC; North Florida Industrial Railroad, LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-Rail Line in Columbia County, Fla.

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published
March 18, 2025

Issuing agencies

Surface Transportation Board

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 51 (Tuesday, March 18, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 18, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12633-12634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-04302]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. FD 36823; Docket No. FD 36824]


Macquarie Infrastructure Partners V GP, LLC, et al.--Continuance 
in Control--North Florida Industrial Railroad, LLC; North Florida 
Industrial Railroad, LLC--Lease and Operation Exemption--Rail Line in 
Columbia County, Fla.

    By petition filed on January 7, 2025, in Macquarie Infrastructure 
Partners V GP, LLC--Continuance in Control--North Florida Industrial 
Railroad, LLC, Docket No. FD 36823, Macquarie Infrastructure Partners V 
GP, LLC (MIP GP), for the benefit of the Macquarie Infrastructure 
Partners V fund vehicle (MIP V); MIP V Rail, LLC (MIP Rail); Pinsly 
Holdco, LLC; and Pinsly Railroad Company, LLC (Pinsly), all non-
carriers (together, Petitioners), seeks an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 
10502 from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323 to 
continue in control of North Florida Industrial Railroad, LLC (NFIR), 
when NFIR becomes a Class III rail carrier.\1\ As discussed below, the 
Board will grant the petition for exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These proceedings are not consolidated. A single decision is 
being issued for administrative purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    NFIR is a noncarrier that has been organized to lease and operate 
4,891 feet of track in Columbia County, Fla. (the Line), connecting the 
North Florida Mega Industrial Park (Park) with a rail line operated by 
Florida Gulf & Atlantic Railroad, LLC (FG&A). (Pet. 2-3.) NFIR is owned 
by Pinsly.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to the Petition, ``Pinsly is wholly owned by 
Pinsly Holdco, LLC, which is wholly owned by MIP Rail, which in turn 
is wholly owned (indirectly) by MIP V, which is controlled by MIP 
GP.'' (Pet. 3 n.1.) In addition to NFIR, Pinsly currently controls 
seven rail common carriers. (Id. at 3.) Those seven rail carriers 
are FG&A; Grenada Railroad, LLC; Camp Chase Rail, LLC; Chesapeake 
and Indiana Railroad, LLC; Vermilion Valley Railroad Company LLC; 
Pioneer Valley Railroad Company, LLC; and Hondo Railway, LLC. (Id. 
at 3-4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a related transaction in North Florida Industrial Railroad, 
LLC--Lease and Operation Exemption--Rail Line in Columbia County, Fla., 
Docket No. FD 36824, NFIR filed a verified notice of exemption to lease 
and operate the Line. According to the verified notice, the Line is 
currently owned by Columbia County, Fla., a noncarrier, and is 
inactive. (Notice 2.) Notice of the exemption was served and published 
in the Federal Register on January 23, 2025 (90 FR 8088). The notice 
held the effective date of the exemption in abeyance pending review of 
the petition for exemption in Docket No. FD 36823.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On February 12, 2025, Steven Connolly filed a letter in 
Docket No. FD 36824. Mr. Connolly's letter was addressed to U.S. 
Representative Kat Cammack requesting her office's assistance in 
expediting these proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners explain that the proposed continuance in control 
transaction does not qualify for the class exemption under 49 CFR 
1180.2(d)(2) because the Line connects with FG&A's line at milepost 688 
near Lake City, Florida.\3\ (Pet. 4.); see 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2) 
(requiring that the subject line not connect with any other rail lines 
in the corporate family to qualify for a class exemption). Petitioners 
state that the transaction will only connect FG&A and NFIR; no other 
Pinsly railroad would interconnect with NFIR (or FG&A). (Pet. 4.) 
Petitioners further state that no current or future shippers will lose 
access or potential access to alternative rail service as a result of 
the transactions contemplated in the petition or related notice of 
exemption; instead, the transactions will ensure the availability of 
rail service to the Park's customers. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although the petition states that the connection will be 
located at milepost ``888,'' (Pet. 4), the maps attached to the 
notice show the milepost as being 688. (Pet., Ex. 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of their petition, Petitioners state that a full review 
of the continuance in control transaction is not needed to carry out 
the Rail Transportation Policy (RTP) of 49 U.S.C. 10101. (Pet. 5.) 
Specifically, Petitioners assert that their continuance in control of 
NFIR will either advance or have no effect on each of the RTP factors. 
(Id. at 6-10.) They argue that granting the petition for exemption will 
facilitate rail service to new customers, thereby expanding their 
transportation options; save Petitioners from having to incur the 
expense of filing a full application; save the Board from having to 
devote time and resources to considering a full application; and enable 
NFIR to benefit from Pinsly's operational expertise and experience. 
(Id.) Petitioners further state that this is a ``modest shortline 
transaction'' involving less than a mile of rail track and presents no 
threat of an abuse of market power. (Id. at 5.)

Discussion and Conclusions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 11323(a)(5), prior approval by the Board is 
required for the acquisition of control of a rail carrier by a person 
that is not a rail carrier but that controls any number of rail 
carriers. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(a), however, the Board, to the maximum 
extent consistent with 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV part A, must exempt a 
transaction from regulation when it finds that (1) regulation is not 
necessary to carry out the RTP, and (2) either (a) the transaction is 
limited in scope, or (b) regulation is not needed to protect shippers 
from the abuse of market power.
    In this case, an exemption from the prior approval requirements of 
49 U.S.C. 11323-25 is consistent with the standards of 49 U.S.C. 
10502(a). Detailed scrutiny of the proposed transaction through an 
application for review and approval under sections 11323-25 is not 
necessary to carry out the RTP. Permitting Petitioners to continue in 
control of NFIR without having to file an application would promote the 
RTP by minimizing the need for federal regulatory control over the 
proposed transaction, 49 U.S.C. 10101(2); reducing regulatory barriers 
to entry into and exit from the industry, 49 U.S.C. 10101(7); and 
providing for the expeditious resolution of this proceeding, 49 U.S.C. 
10101(15). Additionally, the transaction here will allow Petitioners--
including Pinsly, an experienced rail operator--to manage the 
introduction of rail service to new customers, thereby ensuring the 
continuation of a sound rail transportation system that would continue 
to meet the needs of the public, 49 U.S.C. 10101(4); fostering sound 
economic conditions in transportation, 49 U.S.C. 10101(5); and 
encouraging efficient management of railroads, 49 U.S.C. 10101(9). 
Other aspects of the RTP would not be adversely affected.
    Regulation of the control transaction is not needed to protect 
shippers from an abuse of market power.\4\ As noted, no rail service 
currently is provided over the Line, so NFIR's lease and operation of 
the Line and Petitioners' related continuance in control will provide 
shippers in the Park with a new transportation option. Additionally,

[[Page 12634]]

because the Line connects only to FG&A, (see Pet., Ex. 1-A), there is 
no risk that FG&A may foreclose interchange with other connecting 
carriers or that shippers will otherwise lose access to alternative 
rail service as a result of the transaction. Further, no shipper (or 
any other entity) has objected to the proposed control transaction or 
NFIR's lease and operation of the line in Docket No. FD 36824.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Given this finding, the Board need not determine whether the 
transaction is limited in scope. See 49 U.S.C. 10502(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption 
authority to relieve a carrier of its statutory obligation to protect 
the interests of employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide 
for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 and 11325 
that involve only Class III rail carriers. Therefore, because all of 
the carriers involved in the continuance in control transaction are 
Class III carriers, the Board may not impose labor protective 
conditions.
    The control transaction is exempt from environmental reporting 
requirements under 49 CFR 1105.6(c)(1)(i) because it will not result in 
any significant change in carrier operations. Similarly, the 
transaction is exempt from the historic reporting requirements under 49 
CFR 1105.8(b)(3) because it will not substantially change the level of 
maintenance of railroad properties.
    It is ordered:
    1. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board exempts from the prior approval 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 Petitioners' continuance in control 
of NFIR when NFIR becomes a Class III rail carrier.
    2. Notice of the exemption will be published in the Federal 
Register.
    3. The continuance in control exemption in Docket No. FD 36823 will 
become effective on April 11, 2025. Petitions for stay must be filed by 
March 24, 2025. Petitions to reopen must be filed by April 1, 2025.
    4. NFIR's lease and operation exemption in Docket No. FD 36824 will 
be effective on April 11, 2025. Petitions for stay must be filed by 
April 1, 2025.

    Decided: March 12, 2025.

    By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Primus, and Schultz.
Eden Besera,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2025-04302 Filed 3-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


</pre></body>
</html>
Indexed from Federal Register on March 18, 2025.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.