Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01243/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01243-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daryl Becker
Petitioner
Surface Transportation Board
Respondent
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 20, 1997 Decided December 30, 1997 

No. 95-1481

DARYL BECKER,

PETITIONER

v.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

RESPONDENTS

T AND P RAILWAY, INC. AND 

AMERICAN TRAILS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

INTERVENORS

Consolidated with

No. 97-1243

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the 

Surface Transportation Board

Nels J. Ackerson argued the cause and filed the briefs for 

the petitioner. Lynn A. Bulan entered an appearance.

USCA Case #97-1243 Document #319532 Filed: 12/30/1997 Page 1 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Evelyn G. Kitay, Attorney, Surface Transportation Board, 

argued the cause for the respondent, with whom Henri F. 

Rush, General Counsel, Ellen D. Hanson, Deputy General 

Counsel, and M. Alice Thurston, Attorney, United States 

Department of Justice, were on brief. J. Carol Williams and 

Jeffrey P. Kehne, Attorneys, United States Department of 

Justice, entered appearances.

Fritz R. Kahn was on the brief for intervenors American 

Trails Association, Inc., et al.

Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge, HENDERSON and ROGERS, 

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: Petitioner 

Daryl Becker challenges decisions by the Surface Transportation Board (STB, Board) and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC, Commission) authorizing conversion of a railroad right-of-way to trail use under the National Trails 

System Act (Trails Act), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1241 et seq. See T and 

P RailwayAbandonment Exemptionin Shawnee, Jefferson and Atchison Counties, KS, Docket No. AB-381, 1997 

WL 68,211 (STB Feb. 7, 1997) (JA A302); T and P RailwayAbandonment Exemptionin Shawnee, Jefferson and 

Atchison Counties, KS, 1995 WL 424909 (ICC July 5, 1995) 

(JA A258).1 Becker, who claims a reversionary interest in 

the right-of-way, contends that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue a notice of interim trail use (NITU) on March 

30, 1994 because the right-of-way was abandoned before that 

date. We agree that the right-of-way had been abandoned 

and that the Commission therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue 

__________

1 The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 

803, abolished the ICC and created the STB to assume many of its 

functions. The proceeding below spanned the tenure of both bodies.

USCA Case #97-1243 Document #319532 Filed: 12/30/1997 Page 2 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the NITU.2

The facts are not in dispute. In 1991 T and P Railway, Inc. 

(T&P) acquired a 41-mile rail line in Kansas from the Atcheson, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. In September 1992 

T&P applied to the ICC for authorization to abandon the line. 

By decision served April 27, 1993 the ICC granted T&P an 

abandonment exemption pursuant to then 49 U.S.C. § 10505 

(current version at 49 U.S.C. § 10502) and imposed a 180-day 

public use condition on the proposed abandonment pursuant 

to 49 U.S.C. § 10906. The decision further directed T&P to 

notify the Commission within ten days if it was willing to 

negotiate for interim trail use and rail banking pursuant to 

the Trails Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d). After receiving an 

affirmative response, the Commission issued a NITU on May 

25, 1993 authorizing T&P to negotiate a trail use agreement 

with the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks during the 

180-day public use period. When the Kansas Department of 

Wildlife and Parks later withdrew, T&P agreed to negotiate 

with the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) until 

the end of the 180-day period but refused to extend negotiations beyond that time. Accordingly, the NITU expired on 

November 27, 1993 with no agreement having been reached. 

In the meantime T&P had canceled its tariffs and removed all 

of the rails and ties from the line.

More than three months later, on March 2, 1994, the 

American Trails Association, Inc. (ATA) filed with the Commission a statement of willingness to assume financial responsibility for interim trail use and rail banking of the right-ofway pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1152.29(a). On March 10, 1994 

T&P notified the Commission it had negotiated an agreement 

to sell the right-of-way to ATA and requested that another 

__________

2 The STB recently amended its regulations to require that 

railroads desiring to exercise abandonment authority "file a notice 

of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the 

authority granted and fully abandoned the line." 49 C.F.R. 

§ 1152.29(e)(2). The requirement of written notice of abandonment 

should eliminate uncertainty over whether a particular line has been 

abandoned.

USCA Case #97-1243 Document #319532 Filed: 12/30/1997 Page 3 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

NITU issue. By decision dated March 30, 1994, the Commission reopened the proceeding, determined it retained jurisdiction because T&P had never consummated abandonment of 

the right-of-way and issued the requested NITU. On April 

14, 1994 ATA and T&P informed the Commission that they 

had reached an interim trail use/rail banking agreement.

On April 27, 1994 Becker filed a petition to reopen the 

proceedings, to rescind the March 30, 1994 decision and to 

dismiss the trail use request for lack of jurisdiction on the 

ground, inter alia, that the right-of-way had been abandoned. 

The Commission denied the petition on July 5, 1995, again 

concluding there had been no abandonment. Becker filed a 

motion for reconsideration on August 8, 1995 and on September 18, 1995 petitioned this court for review of the denial. 

While the petition was pending the Board denied Becker's 

motion for reconsideration on February 7, 1997. On April 8, 

1997 Becker petitioned this court for review of that denial.

The sole issue before the court is whether the Board and 

the Commission correctly determined that T&P did not abandon the right-of-way before the March 30, 1994 NITU issued. 

We conclude that the determinations were unsupported by 

substantial evidence and that Becker's petition for review of 

the Board's decision should therefore be granted.

"In determining whether a railroad has abandoned a line, 

one must focus on the railroad's objective intent." Consolidated Rail Corp. v. STB, 93 F.3d 793, 799 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 

" 'In determining intent, we look at certain indicia: a line is 

fully abandoned when a certificate of public convenience and 

necessity ... is issued and has become effective, tariffs have 

been canceled and operations have ceased.' " Black v. ICC,

762 F.2d 106, 112 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Id. at 798 (quoting Iowa 

Power, Inc.Construction ExemptionCouncil Bluffs, IA, 8 

I.C.C.2d 858, 863 (1990)). Each of these indicia is present 

here. When the NITU expired, T&P had sought and been 

granted an exemption from the requirement of a certificate of 

public convenience and necessity, see 49 U.S.C. §§ 10505, 

10903, had ceased service and had canceled its tariffs. In 

USCA Case #97-1243 Document #319532 Filed: 12/30/1997 Page 4 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

addition, T&P had taken the further step of removing the 

rails and ties from the line. See Consolidated Rail Corp., 93 

F.3d at 798 ("Conrail had gone beyond the indicia of intent 

that the ICC found to be sufficient in Iowa Power ... it had 

... scheduled the commencement of salvage operations...."). Nevertheless, the Board, relying on Birt v. STB,

90 F.3d 580, 585 (D.C. Cir. 1996), asserted below that "while 

discontinued rail service, salvaged track, and tariff cancellation are actions often taken in connection with abandonment, 

they also are fully consistent with the lesser action of temporary cessation of rail operations or trail use" and "are entitled 

to little weight where, as here, the railroad's actions demonstrate an intent not to abandon by its continued willingness to 

negotiate." 1997 WL 68,211, at *3 (JA A305). The Board 

then concluded that "the railroad's expressed desire and 

intention to continue trail use negotiations beyond the 180-

day period shows that in this case, as in Birt, there was no 

intent to fully abandon the line." Id. Neither Birt nor the 

record supports the Board's position.

It is true that in Birt the court acknowledged that "cessation of operations, cancellation of tariffs, salvage of the track 

and track materials, and relinquishment of control over the 

right-of-way ... are equally consistent with temporary cessation of operations ('discontinuance'), which permits a rails-totrails conversion," as they are with permanent abandonment. 

90 F.3d at 585-86. The court then concluded that "to determine whether the railroad's conduct is abandonment or mere 

discontinuance, we must often look to additional behavior 

which signifies one or the other." Id. at 586. Here, additional behavior signifies abandonment. The sole indication of 

discontinuance cited by the Board is T&P's "expressed desire 

and intention to continue trail use negotiations beyond the 

180-day period," 1997 WL 68,211, at *3 (JA A305). 

T&P's "expressed" intent, however, was to the contrary. In 

its reply to KDOT's request to extend the negotiation period, 

T&P expressed its willingness to accept offers during the 

remainder of the 180-day period but stated unequivocally 

that KDOT's extension request had "come[ ] too late" and 

that T&P was "unprepared to agree to a further six month 

USCA Case #97-1243 Document #319532 Filed: 12/30/1997 Page 5 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

extension." JA A212.3 There is no evidence that T&P 

intended to negotiate further until its March 10, 1994 notification that it had reached an agreement with ATA. Given 

T&P's intent to abandon before that time and its expressed 

opposition to extension of the negotiation period, we must 

conclude that when the May 1993 NITU expired on November 27, 1993 abandonment was consummated and the Board 

lost jurisdiction over the line. See 49 C.F.R. § 1152.29(d)(1) 

("The NITU will permit the railroad to discontinue service, 

cancel tariffs, and salvage track and materials, consistent with 

interim trail use and rail banking, 30 days after the date it is 

issued, and permit the railroad to fully abandon the line if no 

agreement is reached 180 days after it is issued, subject to 

appropriate conditions, including labor protection, and environmental matters."); Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1, 5 n.3 

(1990) ("Once a carrier 'abandons' a rail line pursuant to 

authority granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission, 

the line is no longer part of the national transportation 

system, and although the Commission is empowered to impose conditions on abandonments, see, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 

§§ 10905(f)(4), 10906 (1982 ed.), as a general proposition ICC 

jurisdiction terminates.").4 The Board then was without jurisdiction to issue the second NITU on March 30, 1994.5

__________

3 Both the Commission's final decision and the Board's denial of 

reconsideration ignore these statements.

4 We cannot accept the Board's suggestion that T&P's silence 

indicated intent not to abandon. See 1997 WL 68,211, at 3. Not 

only is this view unsupported by precedent or logicits adoption 

would permit a railroad to sit on an unused line indefinitely with no 

indication of its status. The Board's new regulations requiring 

written notice of consummation avoid this result by providing for 

automatic expiration of abandonment authority after one year if no 

notice of consummation has been filed. See 49 C.F.R. 

§ 1152.29(e)(2).

5

In light of this conclusion we need not address Becker's challenge to the ATA's qualifications or the adequacy of the STB's 

review of them.

USCA Case #97-1243 Document #319532 Filed: 12/30/1997 Page 6 of 7
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

For the preceding reasons, the petition for review of the 

Board's February 7, 1997 denial of reconsideration is

Granted.

USCA Case #97-1243 Document #319532 Filed: 12/30/1997 Page 7 of 7