C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER X—SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD › SUBCHAPTER B—RULES OF PRACTICE › PART 1180—RAILROAD ACQUISITION, CONTROL, MERGER, CONSOLIDATION PROJECT, TRACKAGE RIGHTS, AND LEASE PROCEDURES › Subpart A—General Acquisition Procedures

49 C.F.R. § 1180.2

Types of transactions

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

Transactions proposed under 49 U.S.C. 11323 involving more than one common carrier by railroad are of four types: Major, significant, minor, and exempt.

(a) A major transaction is a control or merger involving two or more class I railroads.

(b) A significant transaction is a transaction not involving the control or merger of two or more class I railroads that is of regional or national transportation significance as that phrase is used in 49 U.S.C. 11325(a)(2) and (c). A transaction not involving the control or merger of two or more class I railroads is not significant if a determination can be made either:

(1) That the transaction clearly will not have any anticompetitive effects, or

(2) That any anticompetitive effects of the transaction will clearly be outweighed by the transaction's anticipated contribution to the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs. A transaction not involving the control or merger of two or more class I railroads is significant if neither such determination can clearly be made.

(c) A minor transaction is one which involves more than one railroad and which is not a major, significant, or exempt transaction.

(d) A transaction is exempt if it is within one of the nine categories described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (9) of this section. The Board has found that its prior review and approval of these transactions is not necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 10101; and is of limited scope or unnecessary to protect shippers from market abuse. See 49 U.S.C. 10502. A notice must be filed to use one of these class exemptions. The procedures are set out in § 1180.4(g). These class exemptions do not relieve a carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of employees. See 49 U.S.C. 10502(g) and 11326. The enumeration of the following categories of transactions as exempt does not preclude a carrier from seeking an exemption of specific transactions not falling into these categories.

(1) Acquisition of a line of railroad which would not constitute a major market extension where the Board has found that the public convenience and necessity permit abandonment.

(2) Acquisition or continuance in control of a nonconnecting carrier or one of its lines where (i) the railroads would not connect with each other or any railroads in their corporate family, (ii) the acquisition or continuance in control is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect the railroads with each other or any railroad in their corporate family, and (iii) the transaction does not involve a class I carrier.

(3) Transactions within a corporate family that do not result in adverse changes in service levels, significant operational changes, or a change in the competitive balance with carriers outside the corporate family.

(4) Renewal of leases and any other matters where the Board has previously authorized the transaction, and only an extension in time is involved.

(5) Joint projects involving the relocation of a line of railroad which does not disrupt service to shippers.

(6) Reincorporation in a different State.

(7) Acquisition of trackage rights and renewal of trackage rights by a rail carrier over lines owned or operated by any other rail carrier or carriers that are: (i) based on written agreements, and (ii) not filed or sought in responsive applications in rail consolidation proceedings.

(8) Acquisition of temporary trackage rights by a rail carrier over lines owned or operated by any other rail carrier or carriers that are: {i} based on written agreements, {ii} not filed or sought in responsive applications in rail consolidation proceedings, {iii} for overhead operations only, and {iv} scheduled to expire on a specific date not to exceed 1 year from the effective date of the exemption. If the operations contemplated by the exemption will not be concluded within the 1-year period, the parties may, prior to expiration of the period, file a request for a renewal of the temporary rights for an additional period of up to 1 year, including the reason(s) therefor. Rail carriers acquiring temporary trackage rights need not seek authority from the Board to discontinue the trackage rights as of the expiration date specified under 49 CFR 1180.4(g)(1)(ii). All transactions under this paragraph (d)(8) will be subject to applicable statutory labor protective conditions.

(9) Acquisition of emergency temporary trackage rights by a rail carrier over lines owned or operated by any other rail carrier or carriers that are: {i} Based on written agreements, {ii} not filed or sought in responsive applications in rail consolidation proceedings, {iii} for overhead operations only, {iv} scheduled to expire on a specific date not to exceed three months from the effective date of the exemption, and {v} sought in response to an unforeseen track outage and expected to last more than seven days where there is no reasonable alternative to maintain pre-outage levels of service. If during the exemption period, the outage is resolved and use of the temporary emergency trackage rights ceases to be necessary to maintain service at pre-outage levels, the rail carrier must file a notice stating that the outage has been resolved and that use of the trackage rights has ceased and identifying the date on which use of the trackage rights ceased. Such a notice should be filed within 5 business days of the date on which use of the trackage rights ceased. The emergency temporary trackage rights authority expires upon the official filing date of the notice. If the operations contemplated by the exemption will not be concluded within the initial exemption period, the rail carrier may, prior to expiration of the period, file a request for a renewal of the temporary rights for an additional period of up to 3 months, including the reason(s) therefor. Rail carriers acquiring temporary trackage rights need not seek authority from the Board to discontinue the trackage rights as of the expiration date specified under § 1180.4(g)(1)(ii). All transactions under this paragraph (d)(9) will be subject to applicable statutory labor protective conditions.

[47 FR 9844, Mar. 8, 1982. Redesignated at 47 FR 49592, Nov. 1, 1982, and amended at 50 FR 15751, Apr. 22, 1985; 51 FR 24669, July 8, 1986; 58 FR 63104, Nov. 30, 1993; 62 FR 9716, Mar. 4, 1997; 68 FR 28140, May 23, 2003; 86 FR 68930, Dec. 6, 2021]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: United Transp. Union v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 528 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United Transp. Union v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 528 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 8× “1 On June 6, 2006, LSC filed a Verified Notice of Exemption with the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”) pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2 (d)(7). The parties attached a copy of the Agreement and stated that BNSF and LSC were agreeable to the imposition of the STB’s standard labor…”
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. STB, 72 F.4th 297 (D.C. Cir. 2023). · cites it 10× “” 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2 (d). Of relevance here, section 1180.”
Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union, Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers v. Winona Bridge Ry. Co., 862 F.2d 1266 (7th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. §§ 1180.2 (d)(7) and 1180.4(g)(2).”
Soo Line R.R. Co. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 965 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2020). “” 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2 (d)(7); see also 49 U.”
Eldridge v. City of Greenwood, 503 S.E.2d 191 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998). “” See 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2 (d)(5). However, exemptions are "expressly available only to railroads and [are] not self-executing.”
United Transp. Union v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 822 F.2d 1114 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “§ 10505 , pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2 (d)(3), which exempts as a class "[t]ransactions within a corporate family that do not result in adverse changes in service levels, significant operational changes, or a change in the competitive balance with carriers outside the…”
M.M. Winter v. Interstate Com. Comm'n & United States of Am., 851 F.2d 1056 (8th Cir. 1988). “at 275-76; see also 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2 (d)(7) (1987). The trackage rights class exemption allows a transaction between two rail carriers to be consummated seven days after the railroad files a notice with the Commission.”
Holland v. Delray Connecting R.R., 311 F. Supp. 2d 744 (N.D. Ind. 2004). “Steel was able to obtain exemption simply by filing a notice of exemption pursuant to 49 CFR § 1180.2 (d)(2). 11 . 49 U.S.C. § 11341 was the nearly identical statutory predecessor to the provision under consideration here, § 11321.”
Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers v. United States of Am. & Surface Transp. Bd., United Transp. Union, Intervenors, 101 F.3d 718 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “49 C.F.R. § 1180.2 (d) (1995). Two of the challenged transactions in these eases involve the Union Pacific Railroad’s Omaha-Council Bluffs terminal area.”
Burlington N. R.R. v. United Transp. Union Int'l, 688 F. Supp. 1261 (N.D. Ill. 1988). · cites it 2× “§ 10505 (a) 1 and its implementing regula *1264 tion, 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2 (d)(7). 2 As is standard procedure, the ICC automatically granted the exemption on November 25, 1987, with the accompanying mandatory labor protective conditions of Mendocino Coast Railway Company —Lease…”
United Transp. Union-Gen. Comm. of Adjustment v. Surface Transp. Bd., 363 F.3d 465 (D.C. Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “28,139 (May 23, 2003) (“final rule”), codified at 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2 (d)(8); see also Decision, STB Ex parte No.”
United Transp. Union v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 627 F. Supp. 1008 (D.D.C. 1985). “§ 10101 ; 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2 (d)(3). ICC’s exemption order required, however, as follows: As a condition to use of this exemption, any employees affected by N & W-Southern contract to operate the properties of Interstate will be protected pursuant to Mendocino Coast Ry.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2(d)(2) — 3 cases
City of Ottumwa v. Surface Transp. Bd., 153 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 1998).
City of Ottumwa Patrick C. Hendricks Joseph C. Szabo v. Surface Transp. Bd. United States of Am., I & M Rail Link, LLC Soo Line R.R. Co., Intervenor on Appeal. United Transp. Union v. Surface Transp. Bd. United States of Am., I & M Rail Link, LLC Soo Line R.R. Co., D/B/A Canadian Pac. Ry., Intervenor on Appeal. City of Ottumwa Patrick C. Hendricks Joseph C. Szabo v. Surface Transp. Bd. United States of Am., Soo Line R.R. Co. I & M Rail Link, LLC United Transp. Union, Intervenor on Appeal. United Transp. Union v. Surface Transp. Bd. United States of Am., Soo Line R.R. Co. Intervenor on Appeal, 153 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 1998).
City of Ottumwa v. STB (8th Cir. 1998).
— 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2(d)(3) — 1 case
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. STB, 72 F.4th 297 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “” 49 C.F.R. § 1180.2 (d). Of relevance here, section 1180.”
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.