United States Department of Energy and United States Department of Defense v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, et al.; United States Department of Energy and United States Department of Defense v. Aberdeen & Rockfish Railroad Company, et al.

leness of other railroad parties' rates or their common carrier obligations. (Id.) Movants contend that the Agreement is in their interests and in the public interest (id.) and that it is consistent with the Rail Transportation Policy (RTP), 49 U.S.C. 10101, asserting that it: allows to the maximum extent possible for competition and the demand for service to establish reasonable rates, Sec. 10101(1); minimizes federal regulatory control, Sec. 10101(2); promotes an efficient rail transportation system, Sec. 10101(3); ensures the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system, Sec. 10101(4); and fosters sound economic conditions in transportation, Sec. 10101(5) (Joint Mot. 15, Dec. 1, 2025). Movants also point out that the Agreement affirms the Board's policy favoring the private settlement of disputes. (Id. at 16.) Movants assert that the ``Agreement also serves the public interest by not prejudicing the Government's right of action against any remaining defendant.'' (Joint Mot. 17, Dec. 1, 2025.) In this regard, Movants note that, while some of the movements covered by the Settlement Agreement are and will be local movements on CSX, the majority of the movements under the Agreement are expected to be interline movements involving two or more rail carriers. (Id. at 16.) Citing Ford Motor Company v. ICC, 714 F.2d 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1983) and U.S. Department of E