By TIM ALEXANDER
Illinois Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Citing the need to provide greater public access to its processes, the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) announced earlier this month a reduction of fees charged to freight railroad shippers filing a railroad rate complaint or unreasonable practice grievance, from $20,600 to $350.

High fees for the filing of formal complaints may have discouraged shippers and others from bringing complaints before the board in the past, the STB stated in a news release announcing the decision. The decision was foreshadowed by STB Chair Daniel R. Elliott’s statement in the board’s Feb. 15 “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.”

“Charging a small business more than $20,000 to bring a complaint is not right,” Elliott said, adding that some meritorious cases may not have been filed with the STB because of the high fee.

The STB’s decision to drastically slash complaint filing fees could serve to chip away at the monopoly enjoyed by the nation’s Class 1 freight railroads, according to proponents of rail reform. Much work remains before meaningful rail reform is achieved, however, according to Bob Szabo, executive director and lead counsel for the Washington, D.C.-based Citizens United for Rail Equity (CURE).

“(The announcement) is very good news,” Szabo said July 15, while down the street from CURE’s offices hundreds of representatives of the rail industry rallied on Capitol Hill for the annual rail legislative day. “In the (recent) appropriations bill Congress had capped the filing fee, but did not address other kinds of complaints filed with the STB, such as unreasonable rail practice complaints including fuel surcharges.”

While capping grievance filing fees for shippers and other rail users was one of the reforms outlined by Elliott when he testified to the Senate Commerce Committee in September last year, two other items the board promised to initiate proceedings on have yet to be fulfilled.

“The first is whether commodity exemptions – a number of which apply to the ag community – should be removed. These exemptions make it impossible for a rail shipper to go to the STB with a complaint unless they first ask the STB to waive the exemption. To us, that is a needless barrier to entry at the STB,” Szabo said.

“The second issue concerns competition in the rail industry. The last date for follow-up testimony to the STB’s June hearing on rail competition is July 25.” The STB could rule on either or both issues sometime this fall, Szabo predicted.
In Ankeny, Iowa, the Soy Transportation Coalition (STC) issued a statement calling the STB decision “welcome news” to agricultural and other shippers who rely heavily on the rail industry to satisfy customers’ demands.
“In reducing the filing fees for shippers to seek relief from potentially unreasonable practices, the STB has restored some balance between the interests of railroads and rail customers,” said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the STC.

“Government agencies should never erect excessive obstacles between them and the individuals and organizations they were created to serve. Chairman Elliott and the STB should be applauded for making themselves more accessible and accountable.”

A number of organizations, including the National Grain and Feed Assoc., deserve credit for advocating for ag shippers before the STB, Steenhoek added.

“The efforts of many to reach out to the STB commissioners and better acquaint them with the concerns of agricultural shippers have certainly been helpful in ensuring the agricultural perspective is better taken into account at the STB,” he said.

When issuing the ruling, Elliott urged rail shippers to first avail themselves of the free informal mediation service offered through the agency’s Rail Customer and Public Assistance Program. The STB also offers a formal mediation program. The STB’s decision, “Regulations Governing Fees for Services, Docket No. EP 542 (Sub-No.18),” can be viewed in its entirety at www.stb.dot.gov

Rail reform proponents are also monitoring the progress of U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl’s (D-Wis.) Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act (S.49), which proposes to repeal antitrust exemptions enjoyed by railroads under the Staggers Act of 1980. The bill would allow the U.S. government, states and private parties to file suit to enjoin anti-competitive rail mergers and acquisitions, while transferring rail merger reviews to the Department of Justice’s antitrust division and eliminating rail antitrust exemptions for rail “ratemaking.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee has reported the bill with a 15-1 “yes” vote, according to Szabo. “It is ready for consideration, but of course nothing is passing these days in Congress,” he said.

“I think Mr. Kohl’s intention is to offer (S.49) as an amendment to a bill that is moving. Everyone is working towards a debt ceiling bill now, but in the fall Congress can hopefully start legislating again.”

The freight rail industry stands in solid opposition to S.49, instead calling for “balanced” industry regulation that ensures freight rail can continue to meet the nation’s transportation needs, according to the Assoc. of American Railroads.