Major Shipper Groups Urge STB to Deny UP-NS Merger, Say Railroads Failed to Clear First Hurdle

Washington, D.C. (August 6, 2026) - The Alliance for Chemical Distribution (ACD), American Chemistry Council (ACC), American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), and the National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) today filed a joint motion asking the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to deny the proposed Union Pacific (UP)-Norfolk Southern (NS) merger application, arguing that the railroads have failed to provide enough information about the merger and its impact to enable the Board to find it meets the statutory public-interest standard.

This prima facie threshold is a preliminary screen based only on the sufficiency of the evidence UP and NS submitted in their application and supplemental filings, viewed in the most favorable light.

At this stage, the Board does not weigh the strength of the application or decide whether the merger should ultimately be approved. Even if a prima facie case has been made, the merits of the application will only be weighed after evidence and testimony are provided by stakeholders around the country over the next year.

The group's filing follows the STB's May decision ordering Applicants to submit supplemental information so the Board would have "the information necessary to thoroughly evaluate . . . whether the Transaction is in the public interest." The Board expressly noted that its review of the supplemental information "may include an evaluation as to whether Applicants have presented a prima facie case" that the proposed merger is consistent with the public interest.

In its filing the coalition argues the Applicants' supplemental filings failed to provide enough information to meet the STB's requirements for moving on to a full review proceeding:

"In 2001, the Board revised its merger rules (the "2001 Merger Rules") to reflect a fundamental shift that made future mergers harder to justify by placing a heavier burden on future merger applicants to demonstrate that their transactions meet the public interest standard. It also imposed new requirements and reweighted others.

"Among the more significant changes were a new focus on enhancing competition and assessing downstream and cumulative effects, the exclusion of benefits that could be obtained by alternative means, a more skeptical "show me" attitude towards benefit claims, and transitional service disruption plans. The objective of the 2001 Merger Rules was to codify the Board's concerns that any future mergers - with a particular focus on end-to-end, transcontinental mergers - could have transformative, serious, and irremediable consequences for the rail industry, its customers, and the North American rail network."

In summary, the groups argue that the application fails to address the full range of competitive harms, propose any conditions to enhance competition for rail shippers, present reasonable and documented benefit claims, remedy merger-related service failures, or account for the likely impact of future mergers.

Shipper Group Reactions

American Strength and Affordability at Stake

The organizations emphasized that the merger comes at a pivotal moment for the American economy, as the country moves to onshore production and supply chains.

According to the groups, those goals require a freight transportation network that promotes competition, innovation, and customer choice rather than increased market concentration and monopoly power. Their filing argues that further rail consolidation could leave manufacturers, farmers, energy producers, chemical companies, and other rail customers with fewer transportation options, and ultimately higher shipping costs and less service.

The coalition's filing asks the STB to deny the application before it proceeds further, arguing that UP and NS have failed to satisfy the basic threshold requirement necessary to advance to the next stage of the merger review process and warrant further consideration.

Related Content