41425                                   SERVICE DATE – FEBRUARY 10, 2011

DO

 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

 

DECISION

 

Docket No. NOR 42117

 

CARGILL, INC.; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; JONES-HAMILTON CO.; PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.; REAGENT CHEMICAL AND RESEARCH, INC.; TAMINCO METHYLAMINES, INC.

v.

Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad Company; Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad Company; BNSF Railway Company; Boston and Maine Corporation; Buffalo and Pittsburgh Railroad, Inc.; Canadian National Railway; Canadian Pacific Railway; Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway Company; Central Washington Railroad Company; CSX Transportation Inc.; Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company; Gary Railway Company; Indiana & Ohio Railway Company; Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Railroad Corporation; Iowa Northern Railway Company; Kansas City Southern Railway Company; Maine Central Railroad Company; Montana Rail Link, Inc.; New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway Corp.; Norfolk Southern Railway Company; Pan Am Railways Inc.; Portland Terminal Company; Rochester and Southern Railroad, Inc.; SANDERSVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY; Springfield Terminal Railway Co.; Union Pacific Railroad Company; Association of American Railroads; Railinc

 

Decided:  February 9, 2011

 

Cargill, Inc., E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Jones-Hamilton Co., PPG Industries, Inc., Reagent Chemical and Research, Inc. and Taminco Methylamines, Inc. (collectively, complainants), have filed a complaint against the above-named parties[1] (collectively, defendants), requesting that the Board determine the reasonableness of certain rail practices and prescribe reasonable rail practices for the future.  Specifically, complainants allege that, with respect to the calculation of “mileage equalization” charges set forth in Freight Tariff RIC 6007-Series (Tariff), Item 187 and Item 190, defendants have charged complainants unreasonable amounts due to interpretations and applications of the Tariff that were not justified either by the Tariff or decisions of the Board’s predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and that are thus unlawful.  Complainants also filed a petition for mediation simultaneously with their complaint. 

 

In its June 8 decision, the Board resolved several pending matters and held this proceeding in abeyance to allow for mediation among the parties.  The mediation was to take place for a period of 30 days from the appointment of a mediator, subject to requests for an extension.  By decisions served on June 15, August 30, October 12, and November 22, 2010, the mediation period was extended, with the latest extension expiring on February 10, 2011.

 

On February 7, 2011, complainants filed a motion to extend the mediation period to May 13, 2011, to allow the parties to continue to seek a negotiated resolution of their differences.  Complainants state that AAR defendants have authorized complainants to represent that they concur with this request.[2]  Further, no opposition to the requested extension has been filed.  Accordingly, the mediation period will be extended until May 13, 2011, and may be extended further based upon the consent of the parties and the recommendation of the mediator.

 

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

 

            It is ordered:

 

1.  Complainants’ request to extend the mediation period to May 13, 2011, is granted.

 

2.  This decision is effective on the date of service.

 

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