| SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT | |||
| Decision Information | |||
Docket Number:   | EP_704_0 | ||
Case Title:   | REVIEW OF COMMODITY, BOXCAR, AND TOFC/COFC EXEMPTIONS | ||
Decision Type:   | Corrected Notice | ||
Deciding Body:   | Director Of Proceedings | ||
| Decision Summary | |||
Decision Notes:   | PROVIDED A CORRECTED NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS PROCEEDING. | ||
| Decision Attachments | |||
| 17 KB 47 KB | |||
| Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 50 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 | |||
|
41201 SERVICE DATE – OCTOBER 25, 2010 DO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD CORRECTED NOTICE* Docket No. EP 704 REVIEW OF COMMODITY, BOXCAR, AND TOFC/COFC EXEMPTIONS AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) will
hold a public hearing beginning at 9:30 a.m. on December 9, 2010, in the
Hearing Room on the first floor of the Board’s headquarters in DATES: The public hearing will take place on December
9, 2010. Any person wishing to speak at
the hearing should file with the Board a combined notice of intent to
participate (identifying the party, the proposed speaker, the time requested,
and the topic(s) to be covered) and the person’s written testimony by November
30, 2010. Written submissions by
interested persons who do not wish to appear at the hearing are also due by November
30, 2010. ADDRESSES: All filings may be submitted either via the
Board’s e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a
document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the “E-FILING” link on
the Board’s “www.stb.dot.gov” website.
Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should
send an original and 10 copies of the filing
to: Surface Transportation Board,
Attn: Docket No. EP 704, 395 E
Street, S.W., Copies
of written submissions will be posted to the Board’s website and will be
available for viewing and self-copying in the Board’s Public Docket Room, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,
CONTACT: Julia Farr at (202) 245-0359. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: (800) 877-8339.] SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION: The exemption provisions pertaining
to railroads first adopted in the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform
Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-210, 90 Stat. 31 (1976) (4R Act), and later modified
in the Staggers Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-448, 94 Stat. 1895
(1980) (Staggers Act), fundamentally changed the economic regulation of
the railroad industry by the Board’s predecessor, the Interstate Commerce
Commission (the Commission). Prior to
1976, the Commission heavily regulated the industry. The Commission focused its regulation on
ensuring equal treatment of shippers, which in some instances, led to railroad
pricing decisions based on factors other than market considerations. By the early 1970s, the railroads were in financial
decline. In an effort to revitalize the
struggling railroad industry, Congress enacted the 4R Act and, 4 years later,
the Staggers Act. In both statutes,
Congress reduced the Commission’s oversight of railroads through various means,
including the statutory exemption provisions of 49 U.S.C. § 10505. Under § 10505, which was enacted in the
4R Act and modified in the Staggers Act, Congress directed the Commission to
exempt railroad activities when it found that regulation was not necessary to
carry out the national rail transportation policy (RTP) of 49 U.S.C. § 10101,
and either: (1) the exemption was of
limited scope; or (2) regulation was not necessary to protect shippers
from abuse of market power. (These
exemption provisions are now contained in 49 U.S.C. § 10502.[1]) In the Staggers Act, Congress directed the
Commission to pursue exemptions aggressively, and to correct any problems
arising as a result of the exemption through its revocation authority.[2] Consistent
with that Congressional directive, the Commission exempted numerous
commodities, services, and types of transactions from regulation. In its first “commodity” exemption, in Rail
General Exemption Authority—Fresh Fruits & Vegetables, 361 I.C.C.
211 (1979), the Commission exempted certain fresh fruits and vegetables from
its regulations, based largely on its conclusion that the rail market share of movements
of these goods, which were subject to strong competitive forces, was minimal
and declining. Since then, the agency
has exempted numerous other individual commodities, listed in 49 C.F.R. §§
1039.10 and 1039.11, after finding that traffic for these individual
commodities was sufficiently competitive and that railroads lacked sufficient market
power such that abuse of shippers was not a substantial threat.[3] The Commission also exempted rail (and truck) operations
provided in connection with intermodal (TOFC/COFC) services, under 49 C.F.R.
pt. 1090,[4] and the
rail transportation of all commodities in single-line boxcar service, under 49 C.F.R.
§ 1039.14.[5] These agency exemption
decisions were instrumental in the As long as 30 years have passed since
the adoption of many of these exemptions. In recent years, the Board has received informal
inquiries questioning the relevance and/or necessity of some of the existing commodity
exemptions, given the changes in the competitive landscape and the railroad
industry that have occurred over the past few decades. The Board will,
therefore, hold a hearing to explore the continuing utility of and the issues
surrounding the categorical exemptions under § 10502, specifically the various commodity
exemptions under 49 C.F.R. §§ 1039.10 and 1039.11, the boxcar exemptions
under 49 C.F.R. § 1039.14, and TOFC/COFC exemptions under 49 C.F.R. pt. 1090. The Board seeks comments as to the effectiveness
of these exemptions in the marketplace; whether the rationale behind any of
these exemptions should be revisited; and whether the exemptions should be
subject to periodic review. DATE OF HEARING: The hearing will
begin at 9:30 am on December 9, 2010, in the 1st floor hearing room at the
Board’s headquarters at 395 E Street, S.W., in NOTICE OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE AND TESTIMONY: Any
person wishing to speak at the hearing should file with the Board a combined
notice of intent to participate (identifying the party, the proposed speaker,
the time requested, and the topic(s) to be covered) and the person’s written
testimony, by November 30, 2010. Also, any interested person who wishes to
submit a written statement without appearing at the December 9, 2010 hearing
should also file that statement by November 30, 2010. BOARD RELEASES AND LIVE VIDEO STREAMING AVAILABLE VIA THE INTERNET: Decisions and
notices of the Board, including this notice, are available on the Board’s
website at “www.stb.dot.gov.” This
hearing will be available on the Board’s website by live video streaming. To access the hearing, click on the “Live
Video” link under “ This action will not
significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the
conservation of energy resources. Dated: October 21, 2010. By the
Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office
of Proceedings. * This decision corrects the decision served on
October 21, 2010. That decision
inadvertently omitted a phrase in describing
the comments sought by the Board for this hearing. As stated herein, the
Board seeks comments as to the effectiveness of these exemptions in the
marketplace; whether the rationale behind any of these exemptions should be
revisited; and whether the exemptions should be subject to periodic review. The October 21, 2010 decision
remains unchanged in all other respects.
[1] 49 U.S.C. § 10505, Pub. L. No. 95-473, 92 Stat. 1361, has
been omitted by Pub. L. No. 104-88, Title I, § 102(a).
[2] H.R. Rep. No. 96-1430, at 105 (1980). [3] See, e.g.,
Rail Gen. Exemption Auth.—Nonferrous Recyclables, 3 S.T.B. 62 (1998); Rail
Gen. Exemption Auth.—Petition of AAR to Exempt Rail Transp. of Selected
Commodity Groups, 9 I.C.C. 2d 969 (1993); Exemption from Regulation—Rail
Transp. Frozen Food, 367 I.C.C. 859 (1983); Liquid Iron Chloride,
367 I.C.C. 347 (1983); Rail Gen. Exemption Auth.—Miscellaneous Agric.
Commodities, 367 I.C.C. 298 (1983).
[4] See Central States Motor Freight Bureau v. ICC, 924 F.2d 1099 (D.C. Cir. 1991), for a summary of the agency’s several actions in connection with the progressive deregulation of TOFC/COFC services through the exemption process. [5] See Brae Corp. v. [6] See Pejepscot
Indus. Park—Pet. for Declaratory Order, 6 S.T.B. 886, 891, reconsideration
granted in part, 7 S.T.B. 220 (2003).
[7] See Consol.
Rail Corp.—Declaratory Order—Exemption, 1 I.C.C. 2d 895, 898 (1986). | |||