49 C.F.R. § 1150.31
Scope of exemption
(a) Except as indicated below, this exemption applies to all acquisitions and operations under section 10901 (See 1150.1, supra). This exemption also includes:
(1) Acquisition by a noncarrier of rail property that would be operated by a third party;
(2) Operation by a new carrier of rail property acquired by a third party;
(3) A change in operators on the line; and
(4) Acquisition of incidental trackage rights. Incidental trackage rights include the grant of trackage rights by the seller, or the assignment of trackage rights to operate over the line of a third party that occur at the time of the exempt acquisition or operation. This exemption does not apply when a class I railroad abandons a line and another class I railroad then acquires the line in a proposal that would result in a major market extension as defined at § 1180.3(c).
(b) Other exemptions that may be relevant to a proposal under this subpart are the exemption for control at § 1180.2(d)(1) and (2), and the exemption from securities regulation at 49 CFR part 1177.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2022 · leading case: Friends of Eel River v. North Coast Ry. Auth.
Friends of Eel River v. North Coast Ry. Auth. (2017)
“(See 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 (a)(3) (2016) [exemption from certification procedure for change in operators].”
United Transportation Union- Illinois Legislative Board v. Surface Transportation Board and United States of America (1999)
“§ 10502 and 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 (a). However, Board authorization is not required for the construction, acquisition, or operation of “spur, industrial, team, switching, or side traek[ ]” (hereinafter “spur” track).”
Snohomish County, Washington v. STB (2020)
“” 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 (a). And the Board exempts “acquisitions or operations by Class III rail carriers under section 10902,” including, as relevant here, “[o]peration[s] by a Class III carrier of rail property acquired by a third party.”
Csx Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union (1989)
“Shortly thereafter, B & P filed a notice of exemption with the ICC under 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 (1987) for. exemption from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.”
City of South Bend v. Surface Transportation Board (2009)
“See 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 . ** In supplemental briefing requested by the Court, CLS argued the Congress abrogated the Board's authority to require adverse abandonment when it revised the statute in 1995, but we can and do deny the petition for review without reaching that question.”
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Interstate Commerce Commission, Southrail Corporation, Intervenor (1990)
“; see also 49 C.F.R. §§ 1150.31 -.35 (1989). 3 . See 49 C.”
Railway Labor Executives' Association v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company (1987)
“On September 19, 1987 the purchasing company, Railco, filed a notice of exemption with the ICC pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 . RLEA filed a petition for a stay, a petition for rejection of the notice of exemption, and a complaint seeking an order preventing consummation of the…”
Decker v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (1988)
“Meanwhile, on September 16, 1987, CSXT entered into a letter of intent with B & P to sell the line, and on September 22, 1987, B & P filed a verified notice of exemption with the ICC under 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 and Ex Parte 392 for exemption from the prior approval requirements of…”
United Transportation Union-Illinois Legislative Board v. Surface Transportation Board (1999)
“The Union also points to 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 , which establishes procedures for the expedited approval of applications under § 10901 and “also includes”: (1) Acquisition by a noncarrier of rail property that would be operated by a third party; (2) Operation by a new carrier of…”
Railroad Ventures, Inc. v. Surface Transportation Board (2002)
“Thereafter, on January 3, 1997, RVI filed a notice of exemption invoking the class exemption provision at 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 (a)(1) for retroactive authorization of its purchase of the rail line, stating that it had been unaware of the need to obtain the STB’s approval to…”
City of Ottumwa v. Surface Transportation Board (1998)
“49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 (a)(4). The Board concluded that the trackage rights I & M obtained from Soo are “incidental” trackage rights and considered them together with the railroad lines in denying United’s petition to revoke the I & M acquisition exemption.”
Tishomingo Railroad v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. (2010)
“TRC filed a notice of exemption under 49 C.F.R. 1150.31 with the STB, and the STB’s exemption decree was published to become effective on October 28, 1999.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31(a) — 1 case
United Transportation Union- Illinois Legislative Board v. Surface Transportation Board and United States of America (1999)
“§ 10502 and 49 C.F.R. § 1150.31 (a). However, Board authorization is not required for the construction, acquisition, or operation of “spur, industrial, team, switching, or side traek[ ]” (hereinafter “spur” track).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.