|SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT|
|REVIEW OF COMMODITY, BOXCAR, AND TOFC/COFC EXEMPTIONS|
|Director Of Proceedings|
|PROVIDED A CORRECTED NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS PROCEEDING.|
| 17 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
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Docket No. EP 704
REVIEW OF COMMODITY, BOXCAR, AND TOFC/COFC EXEMPTIONS
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
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
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.) 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.
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. The Commission also exempted rail (and truck) operations provided in connection with intermodal (TOFC/COFC) services, under 49 C.F.R. pt. 1090, and the rail transportation of all commodities in single-line boxcar service, under 49 C.F.R. § 1039.14.
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.
 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).
 H.R. Rep. No. 96-1430, at 105 (1980).
 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).
 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.
 See Brae Corp. v.
 See Pejepscot Indus. Park—Pet. for Declaratory Order, 6 S.T.B. 886, 891, reconsideration granted in part, 7 S.T.B. 220 (2003).
 See Consol. Rail Corp.—Declaratory Order—Exemption, 1 I.C.C. 2d 895, 898 (1986).