Federal Executive Branch
Here's a look at documents from the U.S. Executive Branch
Featured Stories
Surface Transportation Board Issues Decision Involving Sunflower State Industrial Railway
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board issued the following decision (Docket No. FD 36714, Sub-No. 1) entitled "Sunflower State Industrial Railway LLC - Petition For Declaratory Order":* * *
Digest:/1 This decision denies a request to reopen the Board's March 2025 decision declining to issue a declaratory order. It also rejects a notice that proposes to operate private track within a right-of-way subject to interim trail use.
On June 24, 2025, Sunflower State Industrial Railway, LLC (Sunflower),/2 filed a request to reopen the Board's March ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The U.S. Department of Transportation Surface Transportation Board issued the following decision (Docket No. FD 36714, Sub-No. 1) entitled "Sunflower State Industrial Railway LLC - Petition For Declaratory Order": * * * Digest:/1 This decision denies a request to reopen the Board's March 2025 decision declining to issue a declaratory order. It also rejects a notice that proposes to operate private track within a right-of-way subject to interim trail use. On June 24, 2025, Sunflower State Industrial Railway, LLC (Sunflower),/2 filed a request to reopen the Board's March2025 decision declining to issue a declaratory order. See Sunflower State Indus. Ry.--Pet. for Declaratory Ord. (March 2025 Decision), FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Mar. 28, 2025). Additionally, on June 23, 2025, Sunflower filed what it calls a "Notice [of] Intent to Operate Pvt Rail Track." Sunflower also filed a second request to reopen the March 2025 Decision on November 13, 2025. For the reasons discussed below, the Board will deny Sunflower's requests to reopen and reject Sunflower's notice.
BACKGROUND
On July 17, 2023, Sunflower filed a "Notice of Intent to Construct & Operate Private Rail Tracks" in Docket No. FD 36714. In that filing, Sunflower proposed to construct a 2.5-mile line, between milepost 83.+2185 and milepost 85.+0495, in Garnett, Kan. (the Line). Sunflower asserted that Board authority under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10901 was not required because the proposed track would be ancillary track under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10906 and that, regardless of the track's classification, construction of the trackage would not result in Sunflower becoming a common carrier. (Notice 1, July 17, 2023.) Additionally, although Sunflower titled its filing as a "Notice of Intent to Construct & Operate Private Rail Tracks," it nevertheless stated that it was "[n]ot planning to construct private tracks." (Id.) Sunflower also claimed that Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) was "agreeable to constructing a[n] interchange in Garnett," and that Sunflower's "sole customer on the line" would be East Kansas Agri Energy, LLC (EKAE), an ethanol plant owner. (Id.)
By decision served on September 19, 2023, the Board rejected the notice because it provided insufficient information to determine the nature of the proposed project and whether Board authorization would be required. See Sunflower State Indus. Ry.--Constr. & Operation in Garnett, Kan. (September 2023 Decision), FD 36714, slip op. at 1 (STB served Sept. 19, 2023). The Board noted, among other things, that the notice contained sparse and contradictory information about the proposed track and provided "little indication as to how the track would connect to the rail network beyond a vague indication" that UP was "'agreeable' to construction of an interchange at Garnett." Id. at 2 (quoting Notice 1, July 17, 2023)./3 The Board also observed that it was unclear "whether EKAE actually intend[ed] to use the industrial spur as described by Sunflower." Id.
On June 18, 2024, Sunflower filed a petition for a declaratory order in Docket No. FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), asking the Board to find that "Sunflower qualifies to operate as a Class 3 [Private Railroad]." March 2025 Decision, FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 1 (quoting Pet. 1). Sunflower again stated that it intended to serve EKAE as its sole customer and added that the track also would be used for a private dining car service, rail car storage, and accessing Sunflower's maintenance garage. Id. (citing Pet. 3-4). Sunflower asserted that it and UP would "enter into an [a]greement . . . whereby UP switches [rail] cars to [and] from Sunflower's rails" at "the Garnett interchange." Id. (quoting Pet. 2).
On July 16, 2024, the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) filed a reply in opposition to Sunflower's petition. Id. at 2. KDWP stated that Sunflower sought to construct the Line in a right-of-way subject to interim trail use that was implemented in 1992 in Docket No. AB 335 (Sub-No. 2X) and for which KDWP serves as the interim trail sponsor. (KDWP Opp'n 1, July 16, 2024); see March 2025 Decision, FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 2 (citing KCT Ry.--Aban. Exemption--in Franklin, Anderson, & Allen Cntys., Kan., 7 I.C.C.2d 1035 (1991) (granting KDWP's request for issuance of a notice of interim trail use/rail banking))./4
The Board in its discretion declined to issue a declaratory order "given the speculative and vague nature of the petition." March 2025 Decision, FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 2 (citing Delegation of Auth.--Declaratory Ord. Proc., 5 I.C.C.2d 675, 676 (1989)). Among other things, the Board noted that it was unclear what exactly Sunflower was asking the Board to declare. Id. at 4. The petition included inconsistent statements about how the proposed track should be categorized and whether the Line would be used to support common carrier operations. Id. at 2, 4. Additionally, despite Sunflower's representations, EKAE had not provided any indication that it intended to use the Line. Id. at 2. Furthermore, it was unclear "whether Sunflower has any right vis-a-vis KDWP, or how it might obtain the right, to construct and operate 'private' track (i.e., not under the Board's jurisdiction) within an existing right-ofway subject to interim trail use." Id. at 2. While the Board declined to issue a declaratory order, it nevertheless offered guidance about the Board's jurisdiction, the categories of track generally recognized by the Board, and when Board authority should be sought for the construction and operation of a rail line. Id. at 3-4.
On June 23, 2025, Sunflower filed a "Notice [of] Intent to Operate Pvt Rail Track" (June 23 Notice)./5 Sunflower repeats certain information from its prior filings, including that Sunflower intends to serve a single customer, that Sunflower is not, and does not intend to become, a common carrier, and that Sunflower can access the rail network by interchanging with UP at Garnett. (June 23 Notice 1.)/6 Sunflower further asserts, among other things, that it also plans to use the Line for "dining car operations, caboose rides, [and] excursion services." (Id.) Sunflower also states that "a Federal Court will hear a lawsuit" to "resolve" Sunflower's ability "to access [and] use an ex railbanked [right-of-way]" subject to interim trail use with a trail manager who is "unwilling to vacate."/7 (Id. at 2.)
On June 24, 2025, Sunflower filed a "Motion & Brief to Re-open" the March 2025 Decision (June 24 Motion). Sunflower states that it seeks to reopen the March 2025 Decision to "ADD/CORRECT problems the Board had issue with," and further asserts that "[r]eopening [and] repairing will give the Courts a much better understanding of the [p]roblems [Sunflower has] encountered with the STB and the Trail Manager in the involved case." (June 24 Mot. 1.) Sunflower asserts that it is "try[ing] ONE last time" to urge the Board to "reach some kind of [d]ecision on Sunflower being: A PRIVATE RAILWAY." (Id. at 2.) Sunflower's argument focuses on "railbanking law" and Sunflower's purported "reactivation rights" over the railbanked right-of-way for which KDWP serves as trail manager. (Id. at 6-7.) Specifically, Sunflower argues that the right to reactivate a railbanked line "belongs to [a]ny RR [railroad] that now / later may need the right of way," and accordingly, "Sunflower, even as a private RR can automatically [a]cquire those [right-of-way] rights." (Id. at 7.) According to Sunflower, any railroad has a right to reactivate even if the trail manager for the railbanked line "[r]efus[es] to vacate the needed [right-of-way] . . . ." (Id.) Sunflower acknowledges the Board's prior skepticism about whether EKAE intends to be served by Sunflower and confirms that "EKAE doesn't [and] hasn't public[ly] had anything to say regarding its use of Sunflower's service." (Id. at 6.) Nevertheless, Sunflower states that it "makes sense" to "[a]sk the Board to prohibit any interference in the matter by KDWP to EKAE's personnel," as KDWP has "been an antagonist to [Sunflower]'s rail plans . . . all the way back to 1992." (Id.)/8
On November 13, 2025, the Board received from Sunflower an additional "motion" to reopen the March 2025 Decision (Nov. 13 Motion). The contents of the filing are largely duplicative of prior filings. Among other things, Sunflower asserts that the Line should be deemed a "[p]rivate [railway]," that it plans to serve EKAE, and that KDWP is an "adversary opponent." (Nov. 13 Mot. 3-5.) Sunflower claims that the Board "generally (more so as a Rule) disapproves of shortline Petitions," citing its "[o]wn experience" as "proof." (Id. at 4.) After noting that the March 2025 Decision cited KDWP's objection to Sunflower's petition for declaratory order, Sunflower argues that KDWP has no "standing to participate in rail reactivation talks." (Id. at 5.) Sunflower also cites cases in which the Board declined to find that a petitioning railroad qualified as a "bona fide petitioner" for purposes of reinstituting rail service on railbanked lines. (See id. at 5-6 (citing Ballard Terminal R.R.--Acquis. & Operation Exemption--Woodinville Subdivision, FD 35731 et al. (STB served Dec. 30, 2014); GNP Rly, Inc.--Acquis. & Operation Exemption--Redmond Spur & Woodinville Subdivision, FD 35407 et al. (STB served June 15, 2011)).)/9
For the reasons discussed below, Sunflower's requests to reopen the March 2025 Decision will be denied and its June 23 Notice will be rejected.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Sunflower's requests to reopen the March 2025 Decision. Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1322(c) and 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1115.4, the Board may reopen a proceeding because of "material error, new evidence, or substantially changed circumstances." The party seeking to reopen "must state in detail the respects in which the proceeding involves material error, new evidence, or substantially changed circumstances and must include a request that the Board make such a determination." 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1115.4. The alleged grounds for reopening, if accepted, must be sufficient to "warrant[] a different outcome" for the prior decision. Montezuma Grain Co. v. STB, 339 F.3d 535, 541-42 (7th Cir. 2003); see Canadian Nat'l Ry.--Control--EJ&E W. Co., FD 35087 (Sub-No. 8), slip op. at 5 (STB served Dec. 21, 2018) (petitioner must present a basis for reopening "that would 'mandate a different result' from the one the Board reached in the [prior decision]") (quoting Montezuma Grain, 339 F.3d at 542).
Sunflower does not cite the standard for reopening, let alone "state in detail" how the proceeding involves material error, new evidence, or substantially changed circumstances (nor does Sunflower make the required accompanying "request that the Board make such a determination"). 49 C.F.R. Sec. 1115.4. Sunflower appears to suggest that the Board erred by not declaring that Sunflower may construct and operate private track within an existing right-of-way subject to interim trail use. (See June 24 Mot. 7 ("In Summary, for Sunflower (as Pvt RR) to gain use of ex railbanked ROW. . . & the ROW Trail Mgr is Refusing to vacate the needed ROW: did the Board wade into the issue? Not! a Decision was Needed by Board and it decided to kick the can down the road."); Nov. 13 Mot. 4-5 (referring to "'[a]n issue' the STB chose to side step: The right of way is Railbanked. The STB did mention [KDWP] as Trail Manager - But KDWP doesn't own it.").) Sunflower also seems to suggest that the Board's primary basis for denying Sunflower's request for a declaratory order was KDWP's objection thereto. (See June 24 Mot. 4-5 (describing KDWP as an "adversar[y]," arguing that trail sponsors have no right to block reactivation of railbanked lines, and implying that KDWP impermissibly "sway[ed]" the Board); Nov. 13 Mot. 5-6 (suggesting that the Board's reference to KDWP's opposition improperly "allowed a [non-rail] entity entry into the matter").)/10
Sunflower's vague allegations of error are unsupported and do not establish a basis for reopening the proceeding. To begin with, the Board does not license or have jurisdiction over the operation of private track. See B. Willis, C.P.A., Inc.--Pet. for Declaratory Ord., FD 34013, slip op. at 2 (STB served Oct. 3, 2001); March 2025 Decision, FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 2, 4. Accordingly, Sunflower cannot use Board processes to reactivate a railbanked common carrier rail line/11 as private track (i.e., not licensed by the Board or otherwise within the Board's jurisdiction). See Norfolk & W. Ry.--Aban. Between St. Marys & Minster in Auglaize Cnty., Ohio, 9 I.C.C. 2d 1015, 1018 (1993) ("The right to reinstitute rail service is a common carrier interest . . . ."); see also March 2025 Decision, FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 2 (noting that it was not "clear whether Sunflower has any right vis-a-vis KDWP, or how it might obtain the right, to construct and operate 'private' track (i.e., not under the Board's jurisdiction) within an existing right-of-way subject to interim trail use")./12 The reactivation cases that Sunflower cites are not relevant to Sunflower's position because they involved the reactivation of track as common carrier (mainline) track, not private track. See Ballard Terminal R.R., FD 35731 et al., slip op. at 3 (STB served Dec. 30, 2014) (noting that the petitioner sought "to acquire the residual common carrier rights and obligations on the [l]ine, including the right to reinstitute freight rail service"); GNP Rly, Inc., FD 35407 et al., slip op. at 2 (STB served June 15, 2011) (referring to trail sponsor's prior acquisition of railroad's "residual common carrier rights and obligations" and petitioner's desire to reactivate service to serve shippers)./13
Additionally, Sunflower's suggestion that the Board's denial of the requested declaratory order largely hinged on KDWP's objections is inaccurate, as the Board cited other reasons for denying the request. See March 2025 Decision, FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 2, 4 (explaining that the petition was "speculative and vague," it provided no indication that EKAE intended to use the Line, and it was "unclear what exactly Sunflower [was asking] the Board to declare" due to inconsistent statements about how the proposed track should be categorized). Moreover, Sunflower fails to recognize that the Board has broad discretion in determining not to issue a declaratory order. See March 2025 Decision, slip op. at 2 (citing Bos. & Me. Corp. v. Town of Ayer, 330 F.3d 12, 14 n.2 (1st Cir. 2003); Delegation of Auth.--Declaratory Ord. Proc., 5 I.C.C.2d 675 (1989)). The Board properly exercised that broad discretion in denying Sunflower's request.
Because Sunflower has not shown any material error, new evidence, or substantially changed circumstances that would "warrant[] a different outcome" for the March 2025 Decision, Montezuma Grain Co., 339 F.3d at 541-42, the Board will deny Sunflower's requests to reopen.
Sunflower's June 23 Notice. Additionally, Sunflower's June 23 Notice will be rejected. The notice describes Sunflower as a "[p]rivate rail entity with plans for rail service over" a line with a trail manager who is "UNWILLING to [v]acate." (June 23 Notice 1-2.) As explained above, Sunflower has failed to explain how a party could use Board processes to reactivate a railbanked common carrier rail line as something other than section 10901 rail line--whether private track (not licensed by the Board or otherwise within the Board's jurisdiction) or ancillary track (subject to the Board's jurisdiction but excepted from Board licensing). Additionally, while Sunflower continues to assert that it will serve a customer (presumably referring to EKAE) and that it can access the national railroad system by interchanging with UP at Garnett, (id. at 1), neither EKAE nor UP have ever indicated to the Board an intention to engage with Sunflower. See September 2023 Decision, FD 36714, slip op. at 1 (rejecting a similar notice and referring to Sunflower's "vague" assertions about plans to interchange with UP and serve EKAE). Indeed, Sunflower has confirmed that "EKAE doesn't [and] hasn't public[ly] had anything to say regarding its use of Sunflower's service." (Nov. 13 Motion 6.) This is in stark contrast to the Devens case cited by Sunflower, where it was the shipper who owned the track that sought a declaration that its exclusive contract for rail service would not require authority from the Board, and thus it was "clear that the track at issue would be private track." See Devens Recycling Ctr., LLC--Pet. for Declaratory Order, FD 34952, slip op. at 2-3 (STB served Jan 10, 2007). For these reasons, the notice will be rejected.
It is ordered:
1. Sunflower's June 24, 2025 and November 13, 2025 requests to reopen are denied.
2. Sunflower's June 23, 2025 notice is rejected.
3. This decision is effective on its service date.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, and Schultz.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ The digest constitutes no part of the decision of the Board but has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It may not be cited to or relied upon as precedent. See Pol'y Statement on Plain Language Digs. in Decisions, EP 696 (STB served Sept. 2, 2010).
2/ Sunflower represented in a June 2025 federal court filing that "Sunflower State Industrial Railway, LLC was officially [d]is[s]olved" and that Mr. Steven Gorsline had converted the business into a "sole proprietorship." See Sunflower State Indus. Ry. v. STB, No. 5:25-cv-04056, Pl.'s Answer to Show Cause Order, ECF No. 6 (D. Kan. June 23, 2025). The Board takes no position on this representation. References to "Sunflower" in this decision refer to the entity involved in this proceeding regardless of its corporate form.
3/ In the same docket, on November 13, 2023, Sunflower supplemented its "Notice of Intent to Construct & Operate Private Rail Tracks." The supplement made many of the same arguments raised in Sunflower's June 2024 petition for declaratory order, which is discussed below. See March 2025 Decision, FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 1 n.2.
4/ On July 16, 2024, Sunflower filed a motion for leave to "amend" its petition to provide "missing information" addressing issues raised by KDWP. The Board denied the motion, finding that the "amended petition" was a prohibited reply to a reply. March 2025 Decision, FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 2 n.3. The Board nevertheless reviewed the "amended petition" and clarified that even if the filing had been accepted into the record, it would not change the outcome of the decision because it did not provide clarity on the issues. Id.
5/ Prior to this filing, the Board received from Sunflower a "Notice of Intent to Construct & Operate Private RR Tracks," but without the required certificate of service. Board staff contacted Sunflower regarding the omission, but Sunflower did not subsequently provide a certificate of service, so that submission is not part of the record. Even if it were, however, the contents of that submission do not add in any material way to the arguments presented in the June 23 Notice or other filings discussed below and would not change the outcome of this decision.
6/ The June 23 Notice, as well as submissions by Sunflower on June 24 and November 13, 2025 (discussed below) lack page numbers. The page numbers cited in this decision refer to the .pdf pages of the filings.
7/ On June 12, 2025, Sunflower filed a complaint against the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Sunflower State Indus. Ry. v. STB, No. 5:25-cv-04056 (D. Kan.). Sunflower sought a court order that would "direct the Board" to "act fairly in its management" of requests for the reactivation of rail service on rail lines that have been converted to interim trail use (i.e., railbanked), and "cease allowing trail managers to play decision making roles when new [railroad] entities seek entry to railbanked [rights-of-way]." Complaint, ECF No. 1-1 at 1, 4 (D. Kan. June 12, 2025) (cleaned up). On September 2, 2025, the Board moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 10 (D. Kan. Sept. 2, 2025). On September 17, 2025, Sunflower voluntarily moved to dismiss its complaint. Pl.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 13 (D. Kan. Sept. 17, 2025). The Court dismissed Sunflower's complaint and closed the case by order dated December 18, 2025. Mem. & Order, ECF No. 15 (D. Kan. Dec. 18, 2025).
8/ The Board subsequently received from Sunflower an "'Amended' Notice of Intent to Construct & Operate Pvt Rail Tracks," which, like its original notice of intent, did not include the required certificate of service. On July 14, 2025, Board staff contacted Sunflower regarding the omission and did not receive a response. Accordingly, although the contents of that submission do not add in any material way to the arguments presented in the June 23 Notice, the June 24 Motion, or the Nov. 13 Motion and would not change the outcome of this decision if considered, that submission is not part of the record.
9/ Sunflower states that it would discuss three cases in the motion, but the motion cuts off mid-sentence in the discussion of what appears to be the second case. (See Nov. 13 Mot. 6.)
10/ Sunflower does not appear to advance any "new evidence" or "substantially changed circumstances" arguments. Rather, Sunflower repeats assertions made in prior filings in this proceeding and the main docket, which the Board has already adequately considered. See, e.g., March 2025 Decision, FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 2 (addressing, among other things, Sunflower's assertions that it intends to build a private track and serve EKAE); September 2023 Decision, FD 36714, slip op. at 2 (referring to Sunflower's "vague" and "unclear" assertions about its plans to interchange with UP at Garnett and serve EKAE).
11/ See KCT Pet. for Exemption 1, KCT Ry.--Aban. Exemption--in Franklin, Anderson, & Allen Cntys., Kan., AB-335 (Sub-No. 2X) (Aug. 1, 1990) (stating that KCT seeks "abandonment of rail common carrier operations over approximately 50.2 route miles of rail line," that in May 1990 "KCT acquired this rail line . . . and commenced operations as a rail common carrier," and that "KCT acquired the line with the intent to operate the Rail Line and to provide common carrier service . . . .").
12/ As prior decisions have observed, Sunflower has provided conflicting descriptions of the proposed track, sometimes referring to it as private track and sometimes as ancillary track (i.e., track subject to the Board's jurisdiction but excepted from Board licensing under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10906). See September 2023 Decision, FD 36714, slip op. at 2 (filing described proposed track as ancillary track and private track); March 2025 Decision, FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 2, 4 (similar). As Sunflower notes, the March 2025 Decision "define[d]" and "detailed" the different categories of track generally recognized by the Board. (June 24 Mot. 2; Nov. 13 Mot. 3.) For clarity, the Board notes that a party could not use Board processes to convert railbanked mainline track to reactivated ancillary track without that mainline track having first been abandoned. See, e.g., Sunrise Indus. Rail, FD 36876 et al., slip op. at 2 (STB served Aug. 29, 2025) (rejecting party's assumption that it could operate certain track that appeared to be mainline track as ancillary track by noting that section 10901 track "remains as such until abandonment of it under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10903 is sought, approved, and consummated") (citing City of Creede, Colo.--Pet. for Declaratory Ord., FD 34376, slip op. at 8 (STB served May 3, 2005); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry.--Aban. Exemption--in Lyon Cnty., Kan., AB 52 (Sub- No. 71X), slip op. at 4 (ICC served June 17, 1991)). Moreover, as the Board previously explained, "a track segment that constitutes a carrier's entire line of railroad cannot be a siding or spur and is not statutorily excepted under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10906." March 2025 Decision, FD 36714 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 3 (citing Effingham R.R.--Pet. for Declaratory Ord.--Constr. at Effingham, Ill., FD 33468, slip op. at 5 (STB served Sept. 18, 1998)).
13/ Sunflower also cites a decision that explains that "an interim trail use arrangement is subject to being cut off at any time by the reinstitution of rail service," and that "[i]f and when the railroad wishes to restore rail service on all or part of the property, it has the right to do so, and the trail user must step aside." Nov. 13 Mot. 6 (citing Georgia Great So. Division--Aban. & Discon. of Service (Georgia Great Southern), 6 S.T.B. 902, 906 (2003)). Georgia Great Southern held that "[n]o authority under 49 U.S.C. 10901 is required to reactivate rail service where . . . the carrier who would have been the abandoning railroad had there not been rail banking and interim trail use, or its successor, is the one who decides to restore active rail service." Georgia Great Southern, 6 S.T.B. at 906 (citing Iowa Power--Constr. Exemption-- Council Bluffs, Iowa, 8 I.C.C.2d 858, 866-67 (1990)). Georgia Great Southern does not stand for the proposition that a party can use Board processes to reactivate a railbanked mainline track as private track.
* * *
Original text here: https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/DCMS_External_PROD/1771623474665/52889.pdf
State Dept.: U.S. and India Sign Pax Silica Declaration
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The U.S. State Department issued the following news release on Feb. 20, 2026:* * *
United States and India Sign Pax Silica Declaration
On February 20, the United States and India signed the Pax Silica Declaration, hailing a growing geopolitical consensus that economic security is national security, and national security is economic security. India brings to Pax Silica a deep talent pool, processing and refining capacity for critical minerals, investments in AI infrastructure, and an understanding of the importance of trusted technologies.
The declaration reflecting India's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The U.S. State Department issued the following news release on Feb. 20, 2026: * * * United States and India Sign Pax Silica Declaration On February 20, the United States and India signed the Pax Silica Declaration, hailing a growing geopolitical consensus that economic security is national security, and national security is economic security. India brings to Pax Silica a deep talent pool, processing and refining capacity for critical minerals, investments in AI infrastructure, and an understanding of the importance of trusted technologies. The declaration reflecting India'sjoining of Pax Silica was signed by U.S. Ambassador to India Sergio Gor, Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Jacob Helberg, and Indian Secretary of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology Shri S. Krishnan. The United States and India affirmed their commitment to promote pro-innovation regulations that foster AI innovation and promote the rapid buildout of secure and trusted AI ecosystems in both countries.
The U.S.-India Pax Silica Declaration is a critical step towards realizing the ambitious vision President Trump and Prime Minister Modi outlined for U.S.-India relations under the Transforming the Relationship Utilizing Strategic Technology (TRUST) initiative.
The United States welcomed India as the tenth Pax Silica signatory. It joins fellow signatories Australia, Israel, Japan, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. Additional members are expected to follow.
The United States and India also formalized a landmark commitment to a pro-innovation regulatory framework. This partnership is particularly significant as a strategic counter-narrative to the rising global trend of restrictive, fear-based regulatory regimes. While some regions move toward stifling AI through over-regulation and trepidation, the United States and India are doubling down on free enterprise and private sector creativity. By facilitating cross-border investments and lowering barriers for startups and builders, this alliance can ensure that the world's oldest and largest democracies remain the primary architects of the AI revolution, fostering an era of prosperity, security, and technological optimism.
Pax Silica is a positive-sum partnership of nations who want to remain competitive and prosperous.
For more information, visit Pax Silica (https://www.state.gov/pax-silica).
Read Under Secretary Helberg's Remarks on the Joining of India to Pax Silica (https://www.state.gov/releases/under-secretary-for-economic-affairs/2026/02/under-secretary-of-state-jacob-helberg-at-the-joining-of-india-to-pax-silica/).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/02/united-states-and-india-sign-pax-silica-declaration/
FMC Assigns Presiding Officer to Gator Fabrication Technology Vs. Flador Global Logistics
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Federal Maritime Commission has appointed a presiding officer to oversee a legal challenge involving international logistics providers. Jamie L. Mendelson will preside over hearings and the presentation of evidence in the matter of "Gator Fabrication Technology, LLC v. Flador Global Logistics a/k/a Flador Global Uluslararasi Tasimacilik Loj. Distic Ltd. Sti and NTG Air & Ocean, LLC" (Docket No. 26-03).The assignment follows a February 12, 2026, notice of filing. Chief Administrative Law Judge Erin M. Wirth issued the order designating Mendelson to lead the proceedings ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Federal Maritime Commission has appointed a presiding officer to oversee a legal challenge involving international logistics providers. Jamie L. Mendelson will preside over hearings and the presentation of evidence in the matter of "Gator Fabrication Technology, LLC v. Flador Global Logistics a/k/a Flador Global Uluslararasi Tasimacilik Loj. Distic Ltd. Sti and NTG Air & Ocean, LLC" (Docket No. 26-03). The assignment follows a February 12, 2026, notice of filing. Chief Administrative Law Judge Erin M. Wirth issued the order designating Mendelson to lead the proceedingsand eventually issue an initial decision or dispositive ruling.
Gator Fabrication Technology, LLC, a shipper based in Port Orange, Florida, filed the complaint against two logistics entities. The respondents include Flador Global Logistics, located in Izmir, Turkiye, and NTG Air & Ocean, LLC, headquartered in Franklin Square, New York. The complainant alleges that the respondents violated the Shipping Act and federal regulations. According to the filing, the dispute involves claims that the logistics providers withheld cargo, imposed detention charges, and asserted a maritime lien to coerce payment on an unrelated shipment. The Federal Maritime Commission maintains jurisdiction over this matter as the respondents allegedly acted as ocean transportation intermediaries.
Under the current schedule, the respondents are required to file an answer to the allegations within 25 days of the service date. The presiding judge is expected to issue an initial decision by Feb. 12, 2027. A final decision from the Commission is anticipated by Aug. 26, 2027. The Office of Administrative Law Judges serves as an independent adjudicatory body within the Commission, conducting hearings and resolving disputes involving the oceanborne commerce of the United States.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/docs/26-03/(05)%2026-03%20Order%20Designating%20Administrative%20Law%20Judge.pdf/
FEC Issues Digest for Week of Feb. 16-20, 2026
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Litigation
Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 26-106) On February 6, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Giffords v. FEC (Case No. 25-5188) On February 19, Plaintiff-Appellee Giffords filed a Brief and the Commission filed a Brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
* ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest: * * * Commission meetings and hearings No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week. * * * Litigation Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 26-106) On February 6, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Giffords v. FEC (Case No. 25-5188) On February 19, Plaintiff-Appellee Giffords filed a Brief and the Commission filed a Brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ** *
Reports Due in 2026
The Commission has posted the 2026 Congressional Pre-Election Reporting Dates. Reporting schedules for all filers in 2026 are also available.
* * *
Outreach
On February 17-18, the Commission hosted a webinar for candidate committees.
* * *
Election Dates
The Commission has posted a list of 2026 Congressional Primary Dates.
* * *
Employment opportunities
The Commission is accepting applications for the position of Attorney-Adviser in the Office of General Counsel. This vacancy announcement is a standing register, open continuously for one year. The next cut-off date is February 23, 2026. Future cut-off dates are at the hiring manager's discretion.
The Commission is accepting applications for the position of IT Specialist (APPSW/ENTARCH) in the Office of the Chief Information Officer through March 4, 2026.
* * *
Upcoming educational opportunities
March 3-4, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host a webinar for political party committees.
March 18, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host a webinar for Nonconnected PACs.
March 25, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host a FECFile webinar for PACs and party committees.
April 1, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host a FECFile webinar for candidate committees.
For more information on upcoming training opportunities, see the Commission's Trainings page.
* * *
Upcoming reporting due dates
February 20: February Monthly Reports are due. For more information, see the 2026 Monthly Reporting schedules.
The Commission has posted filing information regarding the Georgia 14th District Special General Election, scheduled for March 10, 2026, and Special Runoff Election (if necessary), scheduled for April 7, 2026.
The Commission has posted filing information regarding the New Jersey 11th District Special General Election, scheduled for April 16, 2026.
The Commission has posted filing information regarding the California 1st District Special General Election, scheduled for June 2, 2026, and Special Runoff Election (if necessary), scheduled for August 4, 2026.
* * *
Additional research materials
Contribution Limits: In addition to the current limits, the Commission has posted an archive of contribution limits that were in effect going back to the 1975-1976 election cycles.
Federal election results are available. The data was compiled from the official vote totals published by state election offices.
FEC Notify: Want to be notified by email when campaign finance reports are received by the agency? Sign up here.
The Combined Federal State Disclosure and Election Directory is available. This publication identifies the federal and state agencies responsible for the disclosure of campaign finances, lobbying, personal finances, public financing, candidates on the ballot, election results, spending on state initiatives, and other financial filings.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Tax Checkoff Chart provides information on balance of the Fund, monthly deposits into the Fund reported by the Department of the Treasury, payments from the Fund as certified by the FEC, and participation rates of taxpayers as reported by the Internal Revenue Service. For more information on the Presidential Public Funding Program, see the Public Funding of Presidential Elections page.
The FEC Record is available as a continuously updated online news source.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/week-of-february-16-20-2026/
BLS: Taking Charge! Jobs for Leaders on Leadership Day
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (TNSLrpt) -- The U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics issued the following document on Feb. 20, 2026, from Economics Daily:* * *
Taking charge! Jobs for leaders on Leadership Day
Do you like to lead? Are you good at helping others achieve goals by mentoring them, offering direction, building teams, and taking charge? In recognition of Leadership Day, February 20, let's look at some occupations with large projected job growth for which leadership skills are especially important.
Of the 10 leadership occupations that are projected to add the most jobs over ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (TNSLrpt) -- The U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics issued the following document on Feb. 20, 2026, from Economics Daily: * * * Taking charge! Jobs for leaders on Leadership Day Do you like to lead? Are you good at helping others achieve goals by mentoring them, offering direction, building teams, and taking charge? In recognition of Leadership Day, February 20, let's look at some occupations with large projected job growth for which leadership skills are especially important. Of the 10 leadership occupations that are projected to add the most jobs overthe 2024-34 decade, 5 are management occupations and 2 are nursing occupations. The job gains projected for these 10 occupations range from 166,100 for registered nurses to 59,800 for managers, all other.
* * *
Chart: Occupations with the largest job growth for which leadership skills are "very important" or "extremely important", employment change, projected 2024-34
* * *
Many of the 10 leadership occupations projected to add the most jobs are projected to grow faster or much faster than the 3.1-percent average growth projected for all occupations. These fast-growing occupations include nurse practitioners (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/nurse-anesthetists-nurse-midwives-and-nurse-practitioners.htm) (40.1 percent) and medical and health services managers (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/medical-and-health-services-managers.htm) (23.2 percent). General and operations managers (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm) (4.4 percent) and managers, all other (4.5 percent) are projected to grow about as fast as the average over the decade.
Nine of the 10 leadership occupations with the largest projected job growth had annual mean wages above the U.S. average of $67,920 in May 2024, including computer and information systems managers (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/computer-and-information-systems-managers.htm) ($187,990) and financial managers (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/financial-managers.htm) ($180,470). These high wages may reflect high educational requirements. One of the nine occupations with above-average wages, nurse practitioners, typically requires a master's degree for entry. Seven of the nine typically require a bachelor's degree, including management analysts (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/management-analysts.htm), and one, electricians (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/electricians.htm), typically requires a high school diploma or the equivalent. First-line supervisors of food preparation and serving workers (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/about/data-for-occupations-not-covered-in-detail.htm#351012), which had an annual mean wage of $44,900, typically requires a high school diploma or the equivalent for entry.
This TED highlights occupations with the largest projected job growth for which leadership skills are "very important" or "extremely important"', based on skills data (https://www.bls.gov/emp/data/skills-data.htm) from the Employment Projections program. See our video on Using Skills Information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (https://www.bls.gov/video/?video=GCUb1v0rRjI). Projected 2024-34 employment change and typical entry-level educational requirements (https://www.bls.gov/emp/documentation/education-training-system.htm) are from Employment Projections and wage estimates are from Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (https://www.bls.gov/oes/).
* * *
SUGGESTED CITATION
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, The Economics Daily, Taking charge! Jobs for leaders on Leadership Day at https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2026/taking-charge-jobs-for-leaders-on-leadership-day.htm (visited February 21, 2026).
* * *
View original text plus charts and tables here: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2026/taking-charge-jobs-for-leaders-on-leadership-day.htm
BLS Mid-Atlantic Region Issues Report on Changing Compensation Costs in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area December 2025
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Feb. 21 (TNSLrpt) -- Changing Compensation Costs in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area December 2025 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Mid-Atlantic Region - Feb. 19, 2026* * *
Compensation costs for private industry workers increased 3.1 percent in the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD, Combined Statistical Area (CSA) for the year ending in December 2025, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Regional Commissioner Alexandra Hall Bovee noted that one year ago, Philadelphia experienced an annual gain of 3.6 percent ... Show Full Article PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Feb. 21 (TNSLrpt) -- Changing Compensation Costs in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area December 2025 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Mid-Atlantic Region - Feb. 19, 2026 * * * Compensation costs for private industry workers increased 3.1 percent in the Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD, Combined Statistical Area (CSA) for the year ending in December 2025, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Regional Commissioner Alexandra Hall Bovee noted that one year ago, Philadelphia experienced an annual gain of 3.6 percentin compensation costs. (See chart 1 and table 1.) Nationwide, compensation costs rose 3.4 percent in December 2025.
* * *
Chart 1. Twelve-month percent changes in total compensation for private industry workers in the United States and Philadelphia, not seasonally adjusted
* * *
Locally, wages and salaries, the largest component of compensation costs, advanced at a 2.6-percent pace for the 12-month period ended December 2025. (See chart 2.) Nationwide, wages and salaries rose 3.3 percent over the same period.
* * *
Chart 2. Twelve-month percent changes in wages and salaries for private industry workers in the United States and Philadelphia, not seasonally adjusted
* * *
Philadelphia is 1 of 15 metropolitan areas in the United States and 1 of 3 areas in the Northeast region of the country for which locality compensation cost data are available. Among these 15 largest areas, over-the-year percentage changes in compensation costs ranged from 4.9 percent in Chicago-Naperville to 1.9 percent in Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor in December 2025; for wages and salaries, Chicago registered the largest increase (4.8 percent), and Washington-Baltimore-Arlington registered the smallest (2.4 percent). (See chart 3.)
* * *
Chart 3. Twelve-month percent changes in total compensation and wages and salaries for private industry workers by area, not seasonally adjusted, December 2025
* * *
The annual increase in compensation costs in Philadelphia was 3.1 percent in December 2025, compared to 3.6-percent advance in Boston-Worcester-Providence and a 3.4-percent rise in New York-Newark. Philadelphia's 2.6-percent gain in wages and salaries over this 12-month period compared to a 3.6-percent increase in Boston and a 3.3-percent rise in New York. (See table 2.)
* * *
The Employment Cost Index for March 2026 is scheduled to be released on Thursday, April 30, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. (ET).
* * *
Technical Note
Locality compensation costs are part of the national Employment Cost Index (ECI), which measures quarterly changes in compensation costs (wages and salaries and employer costs for employee benefits) free from the influence of employment shifts among occupations and industries. More information can be found in the national Employment Cost Index Technical Note. For information on survey concepts, coverage, methods, nonresponse adjustment, and imputation see the Employment Cost Index Handbook of Methods.
In addition to the data presented here, ECI national data by industry, occupational group, and union status, as well as data for civilian, private, and state and local government employees, are available on the Employment Cost Index website. The national Employment Cost Index Summary is also available online. Additional information for regions, states, and local areas may be accessed via our Mid-Atlantic Information Office regional homepage.
The substate area data published in this news release reflect the Office of Management and Budget Bulletin No. 23-01, dated July 21, 2023. See the Tracking Wage Growth in American Cities page for more information on available geographies and their historical timelines.
The Philadelphia-Reading-Camden, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA includes Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania; Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, and Salem Counties in New Jersey; Kent and New Castle Counties in Delaware; and Cecil County in Maryland.
Information in this release will be made available to individuals with sensory impairments upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; Telecommunications Relay Service: 7-1-1.
* * *
Table 1. Employment Cost Index 12-month percent changes for total compensation and for wages and salaries, private industry workers, United States, Northeast Census region, and the Philadelphia area, not seasonally adjusted
Table 2. Employment Cost Index 12-month percent changes for total compensation and for wages and salaries, private industry workers, United States, Census regions, and localities, not seasonally adjusted
* * *
View original text plus charts and tables here: https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/news-release/2026/employmentcostindex_philadelphia_20260219.htm
BLS Issues Report on Major Work Stoppages in 2025
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (TNSLrpt) -- Major Work Stoppages in 2025 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics - Feb. 20, 2026 (3 pages)* * *
In 2025, there were 30 major work stoppages beginning in the year, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The lowest annual total of major work stoppages was 5 in 2009 and the highest was 470 in 1952. Between the years 2006-2025, there have been an average of 17.8 work stoppages beginning in the year. A major work stoppage involves 1,000 or more workers and lasts at least one shift during the work week, Monday through Friday ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (TNSLrpt) -- Major Work Stoppages in 2025 - A report from U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics - Feb. 20, 2026 (3 pages) * * * In 2025, there were 30 major work stoppages beginning in the year, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The lowest annual total of major work stoppages was 5 in 2009 and the highest was 470 in 1952. Between the years 2006-2025, there have been an average of 17.8 work stoppages beginning in the year. A major work stoppage involves 1,000 or more workers and lasts at least one shift during the work week, Monday through Fridayexcluding Federal holidays. (See chart 1.)
* * *
Chart 1. Number of major work stoppages, 2006-2025
* * *
There were 306,800 workers involved in major work stoppages that began in 2025. Serviceproviding industries accounted for 300,600 workers, or 98.0 percent of idled workers over the year. Within service-providing industries, the education and health services sector accounted for the idling of 196,500 workers, the public administration sector for 82,300 workers, and the other services sectors for 21,800 workers.
In 2025, work stoppages in the manufacturing sector within goods-producing industries accounted for 6,200 workers, or 2.0 percent of idled workers over the year. (See chart 2.)
* * *
Chart 2. Number of workers idled by industry, in thousands, beginning in 2025
* * *
Six local government and 11 state government work stoppages began in 2025, idling 232,800 workers and resulting in 711,600 cumulative days of idleness. In the private industry, 74,000 workers were idled beginning in the year, resulting in 784,400 cumulative days of idleness. (See chart 3.)
* * *
Chart 3. Number of idled workers involved in work stoppages by ownership, in
thousands, 2006-2025
* * *
TECHNICAL NOTE
The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides information on major (1,000 workers or more) work stoppages in the United States, excluding U.S. territories. Because of the complexity of most labor-management disputes, the Work Stoppages program makes no attempt to distinguish between strikes and lockouts in its statistics. The workers involved in a strike or lockout may or may not be members of a union.
The number of workers includes those idled for one shift or longer in the establishment(s) directly involved in the dispute, as well as those in the establishment idled for related reasons, such as their facility closed down during the stoppage. This number does not account for secondary idleness-- that is, the effects of a stoppage on other establishments or industries whose employees may be made idle as a result of shortages of material or services.
A day of idleness is a day that an employee is scheduled to work (Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays) but does not work due to a work stoppage. The number of total days of idleness is computed by multiplying the number of workers idled by the number of lost workdays during the reference month.
An attempt is made to contact the parties involved in the work stoppage (employer, employer group, and union) to determine whether the duration and number of workers idled by the stoppage meet the thresholds for inclusion in this report. For additional information on the concepts, data sources, design, measures, and history of the work stoppages program, see www.bls.gov/opub/hom/wsp/home.htm. Detailed monthly work stoppage data since 1993 are available at www.bls.gov/web/wkstp/monthly-listing.htm and include organizations involved, location, beginning and ending dates, industry, ownership, the number of workers, and total days of idleness.
Annual historical major work stoppages data from 1947 to present, including the number of work stoppages, workers idled, and total days of idleness, are available at www.bls.gov/web/wkstp/annual-listing.htm.
Historical Bureau of Labor Statistics work stoppages publications are available from 1880 to 1980 at www.bls.gov/wsp/questions-and-answers.htm.
The latest Union Members report is available at www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
* * *
View original text plus charts and tables here: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkstp.pdf