| SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT | |||
| Decision Information | |||
Docket Number:   | FD_35685_0 | ||
Case Title:   | RAIL SWITCHING SERVICES INC.--OPERATION EXEMPTION--PEMISCOT COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY | ||
Decision Type:   | Decision | ||
Deciding Body:   | Chairman | ||
| Decision Summary | |||
Decision Notes:   | DECISION IMPOSED A BRIEF HOUSEKEEPING STAY OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE EXEMPTIONS. | ||
| Decision Attachments | |||
| 10 KB 23 KB | |||
| Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 16 Seconds | |||
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 | |||
|
42766 SERVICE
DATE – LATE RELEASE NOVEMBER 13, 2012 CO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION Docket No. FD 35685 RAIL SWITCHING SERVICES, INC.—OPERATION EXEMPTION—PEMISCOT
COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY Docket
No. FD 35686 PIONEER RAILCORP—CONTINUANCE
IN CONTROL EXEMPTION—RAIL SWITCHING
SERVICES, INC.[1] Decided: November 13, 2012 This decision imposes
a housekeeping stay, postponing the
effective date of the exemptions sought
in these proceedings. On October 15, 2012, Rail Switching
Services, Inc. (RSS), a noncarrier, filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 to operate approximately 4.9 miles of
rail line owned by Pemiscot County Port Authority (PCPA) between
the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) interchange at milepost 212.32, at Hayti, Mo., and milepost
217.22 at Pemiscot Port Harbor, on the Mississippi River between Hayti and
Caruthersville, Mo. (the Line). Pioneer Railcorp (Pioneer) concurrently filed a
verified notice of exemption under 49
C.F.R. § 1180.2(d)(2) to continue in control of
RSS upon RSS’s becoming
a Class III rail carrier. Notices of the exemptions
were served and published in the Federal Register, 77 Fed. Reg. 65,937, on
October 31, 2012. The exemptions are scheduled to become effective on November 14, 2012. On October 26, 2012, PCPA, the owner of the Line, filed a petition to reject the exemptions.
PCPA argues: (1) RSS lacks an agreement with PCPA to
provide common carrier railroad service over the Line and the notices of exemption
are therefore false or misleading and should be void ab initio;
(2) Board authority is unnecessary for the services that RSS
provides on the Line; and (3) the matter
involves unusual, complex, and
controversial issues not suitable for the Board’s expedited class exemption procedures. On November
1, 2012, PCPA filed a supplement to
its petition to reject and a petition to
stay wherein it requests that, if the notices are not rejected by the
effective date of the exemptions, the Board should stay the
effectiveness of the exemptions and
initiate a proceeding to determine
whether class exemptions are appropriate for these transactions. On November
5, 2012, RSS and Pioneer filed joint replies
to PCPA’s petitions. BNSF filed a letter in opposition to RSS’s
notice of exemption for operating authority on November 8, 2012. On the same date, PCPA filed a petition for leave to
reply to RSS and Pioneer’s joint
replies. On November 9, 2012, RSS and Pioneer filed a motion to strike and reply to PCPA’s
petition for leave to reply. RSS then filed a letter in response to BNSF’s letter, and PCPA filed a corrected version of its November 8, 2012
petition.
Later that day, BNSF filed a letter in response to RSS’s November
9, 2012 letter. A brief housekeeping stay of the effective date of the exemptions
will be imposed to provide the agency sufficient time to fully consider
the arguments presented. The effective date of both exemptions will be postponed
until further order of the Board. It is ordered: 1. The effective date
of the operation exemption in Docket
No. FD 35685 is postponed until further
order of the Board. 2. The effective date
of the continuance in control exemption in Docket No. FD 35686 is postponed until further order of the Board. 3. This decision is
effective on its date of service. By the Board,
Daniel R. Elliott III, Chairman. [1] These proceedings are not consolidated but are being addressed in the same decision for administrative convenience. | |||