SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT
    Decision Information

Docket Number:  
NOR_42123_0

Case Title:  
M&G POLYMERS USA, LLC V. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.

Decision Type:  
Decision

Deciding Body:  
Director Of Proceedings

    Decision Summary

Decision Notes:  
DECISION GRANTED A MOTION TO MODIFY THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE AND SET A NEW PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE FOR THIS PROCEEDING.

    Decision Attachments

10 KB
18 KB
38 KB

Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 31 Seconds

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

SERVICE DATE –

41452                                 SERVICE DATE – FEBRUARY 24, 2011

DO

 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

 

DECISION

 

Docket No. NOR 42123

 

M&G POLYMERS USA, LLC

v.

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.

 

Decided:  February 23, 2011

 

This decision grants a motion to modify the procedural schedule and sets a new procedural schedule for this proceeding.[1]  

 

On June 18, 2010, M&G Polymers USA, LLC (M&G) filed a complaint challenging the reasonableness of rates established by CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), for the transportation of polyethylene terephthalate between 69 origin and destination pairs.  M&G alleges that CSXT possesses market dominance over the traffic and requests that maximum reasonable rates be prescribed using the Board’s Stand-Alone Cost (SAC) test.  By a decision served on August 4, 2010, a procedural schedule and a protective order were established.  On August 16, 2010, M&G filed an amended complaint, which deleted 6 lanes from the challenged traffic and added 5 more, resulting in a total of 68 origin and destination pairs. 

 

On October 18, 2010, M&G filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which, among other things, joined South Carolina Central Railroad Company (SCRF) as a defendant.  On January 27, 2011, M&G filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against SCRF with prejudice, stating that those parties reached a settlement agreement.  M&G filed a third amended complaint on January 31, 2011, and filed a corrected third amended complaint on February 1, 2011.  In a decision served February 4, 2011, the Board granted M&G’s motion to dismiss SCRF.

 

On January 10, 2011, M&G filed a motion to modify the procedural schedule.  M&G states that CSXT does not oppose the motion.  M&G proposes the following procedural schedule:

 

Joint Submission of Operating Characteristics                       May 11, 2011

Complainant’s Opening                                                          June 29, 2011

Defendant’s Reply                                                                  October 28, 2011

Complainant’s Rebuttal                                                          March 7, 2012

Closing Briefs                                                                         April 7, 2012

 

M&G’s unopposed motion to modify the procedural schedule will be granted, and the procedural schedule set forth above will be adopted for this proceeding.

 

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

 

It is ordered:  

 

1.      M&G’s motion to modify the procedural schedule is granted, and the schedule

described above is adopted for this proceeding.

 

2.      This decision is effective on its service date.

 

By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.



            [1]  CSXT’s motion for expedited determination of jurisdiction over the challenged rates, filed on January 27, 2011, will be ruled on in a separate decision.  The Board will also separately address CSXT’s February 11, 2011 request to disallow the addition of 2 lanes in M&G’s third amended complaint, filed on January 31, 2011.