|SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT|
|BRAMPTON ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A SAVANNAH RE-LOAD V. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY|
|Director Of Proceedings|
|DECISION: (1) HELD THIS PROCEEDING IN ABEYANCE UNTIL AUGUST 2, 2011; AND (2) DIRECTED THE PARTIES TO INFORM THE BOARD REGARDING ANY PROGRESS MADE IN THEIR DISCUSSIONS AND TO FILE A PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE BY AUGUST 2, 2011.|
| 9 KB|
|Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 14 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|
41678 SERVICE DATE – JUNE 7, 2011
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Docket No. NOR 42118
Decided: June 7, 2011
This decision holds the proceeding in abeyance while the parties discuss issues in the case and exchange information on a voluntary basis.
On March 29, 2010, Brampton Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a Savannah Re-Load (Brampton) filed a complaint against Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), alleging that provisions of NSR’s Tariff NS 6004-B constitute unreasonable practices in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 10702(2). On March 29, 2010, NSR filed both an answer to the complaint, generally denying Brampton’s allegations, and a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 31, 2010, Brampton filed a reply to NSR’s motion to dismiss. By decision served on March 16, 2011, the Board denied the motion to dismiss the complaint and ordered the parties to propose a joint procedural schedule by April 4, 2011. By decision served on April 12, 2011, the proceeding was held in abeyance until June 3, 2011, in order for the parties to discuss issues in the case and exchange information on a voluntary basis. By June 3, 2011, the parties were directed to inform the Board regarding any progress made in their discussions and to file a proposed procedural schedule pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1111.10(a).
On June 2, 2011, Brampton and NSR jointly filed a status report stating that they have voluntarily exchanged some information related to issues in the case. They assert that they believe it would be productive for them to engage in further discussions and to exchange additional information on a voluntary basis. They request that this proceeding and the requirement to file a proposed procedural schedule, which was to have been included in their report, be held in abeyance for an additional 60 days, until August 2, 2011.
joint request is reasonable, and the proceeding will be held in abeyance so
that the parties may continue to voluntarily exchange information and discuss
issues in the case. By
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. The proceeding is held in abeyance until August 2, 2011.
2. The parties are directed to inform the Board regarding any progress made in their discussions and to file a proposed procedural schedule by August 2, 2011, as discussed above.
3. This decision is effective on its date of service.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.