49 C.F.R. § 1150.32

Procedures and relevant dates—transactions that involve creation of Class III carriers

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) To qualify for this exemption, applicant must file a verified notice providing details about the transaction, and a brief caption summary, conforming to the format in § 1150.34, for publication in the Federal Register.

(b) The exemption will be effective 30 days after the notice is filed. The Board, through the Chief Counsel, will publish a notice in the Federal Register within 16 days of the filing. A change in operators would follow the provisions at § 1150.34, and notice must be given to shippers.

(c) If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. A petition to revoke under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) does not automatically stay the exemption. Stay petitions must be filed at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective.

(d) Applicant must preserve intact all sites and structures more than 50 years old until compliance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 is achieved.

(e) If the projected annual revenue of the carrier to be created by a transaction under this exemption exceeds $5 million, applicant must, at least 60 days before the exemption becomes effective, post a notice of intent to undertake the proposed transaction at the workplace of the employees on the affected line(s) and serve a copy of the notice on the national offices of the labor unions with employees on the affected line(s), setting forth the types and numbers of jobs expected to be available, the terms of employment and principles of employee selection, and the lines that are to be transferred, and certify to the Board that it has done so.

[51 FR 2504, Jan. 17, 1986, as amended at 53 FR 4626, Feb. 17, 1988; 53 FR 5982, Feb. 29, 1988; 62 FR 47584, Sept. 10, 1997; 69 FR 58366, Sept. 30, 2004; 71 FR 62212, Oct. 24, 2006]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1987–2020 · leading case: Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 491 U.S. 490 (1989).
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 491 U.S. 490 (1989). · cites it 4× “The regulatory procedure, see 49 CFR § 1150.32 (b) (1987), involved the filing of an application for exemption which would become effective seven days after filing absent contrary notice from the Commission.”
Snohomish Cnty., Washington v. STB, 954 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2020). · cites it 4× “” 49 C.F.R. §§ 1150.32 (c), 1150.42(c). Here, petitioner Snohomish County sought to revoke two exemptions the Board granted with respect to a freight rail easement over the County’s property, alleging that both notices misrepresented the easement’s ownership.”
Hi Tech Trans, LLC David Stoller v. State of New Jersey, Dep't of Env't Prot. Wolfgang Skacel, C.H.M.M. Bradley M. Campbell., 382 F.3d 295 (3rd Cir. 2004). “The district court notes that “on July 3, 2000, Hi Tech filed a Notice of Exemption in accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 1150.32 in an attempt to ‘commence common carrier rail service over 641 miles of Canadian Pacific rail track, [but] Hi Tech withdrew its Notice of Exemption on July…”
Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, United Transp. Union, W. Maryland Ry. Co. v. Csx R.R. Corp., 893 F.2d 584 (3rd Cir. 1990). “§ 11343 (West Supp.1989). However, the ICC granted Emons an exemption, under § 10505, from the § 11343 approval requirement.”
Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co., Interstate Com. Comm'n, Intervenor, 845 F.2d 420 (3rd Cir. 1988). “Under Ex Parte 392, an exemption becomes effective and a transaction is deemed approved after seven days following the filing of a notice by the acquiring entity, 49 C.F.R. § 1150.32 (b); 1 I.C.C.2d at 820, unless a petition to revoke the exemption has been filed and granted or…”
Chicago & North W. Transp. Co., Frvr Corp., & Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Ry. Labor Executives Ass'n, 855 F.2d 1277 (7th Cir. 1988). “49 CFR 1150.32(b). In Ex Parte No. 392 the ICC announced its intention to exempt “substantially all" sales of rail lines to non-carriers from regulation under § 10901 procedures.”
Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, Southrail Corp., Intervenor, 909 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1990). “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 1150.32 -.34. 4 . See id. at 1150 .”
Berkshire Scenic Ry. Museum, Inc. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 52 F.3d 378 (1st Cir. 1995). · cites it 3× “In short, because we find that Housatonic did not proffer “false or misleading information” within the meaning of that phrase as interpreted by the ICC, Housatonic’s exemption is not void ah initio under 49 C.F.R. § 1150.32 (c). C. The ICC’s Historic Preservation and…”
Decker v. CSX Transp., Inc., 672 F. Supp. 674 (W.D.N.Y. 1987). · cites it 2× “49 C.F.R. § 1150.32 (b). Finally, CSXT notes that plaintiffs’ petition to the ICC to stay or reject the operation of B & P’s Notice of Exemption was denied on October 13, 1987 (Item 9).”
Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R., 677 F. Supp. 830 (W.D. Pa. 1987). “49 C.F.R. § 1150.32 . *833 On September 19, 1987, Railco filed a notice of exemption with the ICC under the Ex Parte 392 procedures.”
Decker v. CSX Transp., Inc., 688 F. Supp. 98 (W.D.N.Y. 1988). “Under Ex Parte 392, an exemption becomes effective, and a transaction deemed approved, seven days after the acquiring entity files notice of exemption with the ICC, 49 C.F.R. § 1150.32 (b); 1 I.C.C.2d at 820, unless a petition to revoke the exemption has been filed or the…”
Burlington N. R.R. v. United Transp. Union, 848 F.2d 856 (8th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 1150.32 (b). Several parties requested a stay of the exemption.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 1150.32(b) — 1 case
Chicago & North W. Transp. Co., Frvr Corp., & Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Ry. Labor Executives Ass'n, 855 F.2d 1277 (7th Cir. 1988). “49 CFR 1150.32(b). In Ex Parte No. 392 the ICC announced its intention to exempt “substantially all" sales of rail lines to non-carriers from regulation under § 10901 procedures.”
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.