View original at www.logisticsmgmt.com

State of Logistics 2016: Pursue mutual benefit Differing comments prevail for STB’s proposed reciprocal switching regulations AAR reports mixed carload and intermodal volumes for week ending October 22 NAM to lead coordination and production of Manufacturing Day XPO Logistics sells North American truckload business to TransForce More News Far from unexpected, replies regarding the Department of Transportation’s Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) proposed reciprocal switching regulations, which the STB proposed in late July, were very mixed. As previously reported, the impetus for the proposed reciprocal switching regulations stems from a petition for rulemaking submitted by the National Industrial Transportation League in July 2011. The STB said the proposed regulations would augment the availability of reciprocal switching, allowing a rail shipper to gain access to another railroad if the shipper makes certain showings. And it added that these proposed regulations create an avenue for the STB to impose a reciprocal switching arrangement. As defined by the STB, reciprocal switching is a situation in which a railroad that has physical access to a specific shipper facility switches rail traffic to the facility for another railroad that does not have physical access. And the second railroad compensates that railroad that has physical access in the form of a per car switching charge, with the shipper facility gaining access to an additional railroad. In order for the proposed reciprocal switching to come to fruition, the STB said that a shipper must show that the arrangement is “practicable and in the public interest” or “necessary to provide competitive rail service.” STB’s findings would be based on evidence presented by the shipper and the railroad, while the existing standard that was adopted by the STB’s predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1985 requires a showing that reciprocal switching is necessary to prevent an uncompetitive act. STB […]