In its environmental legislation, the Council has adopted several categorical exclusions. As is relevant here, a joint use agreement is a classification of measures that do not normally require an environmental assessment when certain thresholds are not exceeded. [8] The rules of Start Printed Page 29809Board also provide that historical verification is not normally required for sharing agreements, which will not be subject to significant changes in operations and where real estate aged 50 and over will not be affected. 49 CFR 1105.8. And even if the Chamber`s presumed environmental analysis thresholds are met, the Commission may reclassify a particular transaction or amend the requirement to prepare an EIS or EA if the railway applicant demonstrates that the proposed transaction has no significant potential for environmental impact. 49 CFR 1105.6 (d). The designation of a Chief Operating Officer applies to all fellows who wish to operate the transport of passengers by rail or tram on common tracks (separation in time) with the transport of goods. Other projects, which have a large interface with the railways, can also benefit from this type of know-how. If grantee is not a commuter railway operating unit and already has an COO as part of its organization, this position would be part of the Grantee project development organization and the COO`s responsibilities will continue with the start of the Transit Line Revenue Service. 5.

The SCR has also maintained certain equipment that has been subject to funding agreements. The operation and control of these equipment has been assigned to CSXT or the NSR in accordance with aircraft sublease contracts and other operating agreements. The petitioners also claim that the company`s current structure is also responsible for the financial inefficiency and that it now constitutes an unnecessary degree of involvement between CSX and NS. The petitioners add that such tangles and inefficiencies imply the need for CSX and NS to participate in certain management activities, such as ownership. The petitioners state: Although all the day-to-day activities of the two railways in the operation of the two allocated asset groups and a number of other activities, including most real estate transfers, which can be carried out by the operating railway (CSXT or NSR) itself, fair value must also be transferred from real estate whose way of operation can properly dispose on an account which, in the end, is held to the respective advantage of CSX and NS, in accordance with their 42%-58%. It would be preferable, according to the petitioners, to avoid this unnecessary involvement. The petitioners point out that some of the agreements underlying Conrail`s existing obligations contain provisions requiring the agreement of different parties (or the majority of certain categories of debtors) for certain business transactions. According to the petitioners, most of these agreements require such consents under the NYC and PRR transfer proposal to CSX and NS.

The petitioners point out that the petitioners have considered a number of alternative approaches, including the implementation of the Keepwell agreements, to ensure that holders of Conrail`s existing bonds (and the credit ratings of these bonds) are not affected by the proposed transaction, as the proposed transaction transfers most of Conrail`s assets (its stake in NYC and PRR). [12] The petitioners also point out that they have concluded that the guarantees and/or assumptions of CSXT and NSR were the most desirable alternative for holders of Conrail`s existing bonds and therefore included these guarantees and/or assumptions in the proposed transaction.