Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01305/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01305-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company
Intervenor
Keokuk Junction Railway Co.
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 May 14, 2002 Decided June 14, 2002

No. 01-1305

Keokuk Junction Railway Co.,

Petitioner

v.

Surface Transportation Board and

United States of America,

Respondents

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company,

Intervenor

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Surface Transportation Board

William A. Mullins argued the cause and filed the briefs

for petitioner.

Theodore K. Kalick, Attorney, Surface Transportation

Board, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the

USCA Case #01-1305 Document #683573 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 1 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

brief were Ellen D. Hanson, General Counsel, Craig M.

Keats, Deputy General Counsel, John P. Fonte and Robert B.

Nicholson, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice.

Michael E. Roper and Robert M. Jenkins III were on the

brief for intervenor. Richard E. Weicher entered an appearance.

Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Randolph and Tatel,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Ginsburg.

Ginsburg, Chief Judge: After the Keokuk Junction Railway

Company terminated the long-standing agreement whereby

trains of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway

Company crossed its track, the BNSF convinced the Surface

Transportation Board to order that the crossing be allowed.

The KJRY now petitions this court for review. We grant the

petition because the BNSF has not received from the Board

the certificate without which the Board lacks authority to

order a crossing.

I. Background

In 1881 the predecessor of the Burlington Northern and

Santa Fe Railway Company contracted with the predecessor

of the Keokuk Junction Railway Company to cross the latter's

track at Keokuk, Iowa, just west of Bloody Run Creek, a

tributary of the Mississippi River. The BNSF's main line

runs parallel to and south of the KJRY's main line, but the

BNSF also owns a line of track (the Mooar Line) to the north

of the KJRY's main line. The BNSF's trains therefore must

cross the KJRY's track to get from the Mooar Line to the

BNSF's main line.

From 1881 until 1993, the BNSF crossed the KJRY via a

"crossing diamond" whereby the BNSF track directly overlapped that of the KJRY, forming a large "X" at the intersection. After a significant flood in 1993, one of the BNSF's

customers requested that the BNSF access the Mooar Line

at a location east of Bloody Run Creek to avoid future

problems and damage from flooding. Under this plan, the

USCA Case #01-1305 Document #683573 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 2 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

BNSF's trains would use a quarter mile of the KJRY's track

in order to travel from the BNSF main line to the Mooar

Line. The two companies entered into a "Crossing Agreement" with respect to this plan in 1996.

In 1998 the KJRY tried to buy the Mooar Line from the

BNSF. When the BNSF declined to sell, the KJRY informed the BNSF of its intention to terminate the crossing

agreement. Soon thereafter, the BNSF petitioned the Board

for a declaratory order requiring the KJRY to let its trains

cross the KJRY's track. The Board granted the order, of

which the KJRY now petitions for review.

II. Analysis

The Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, provides that

no rail carrier may "construct an extension to any of its

railroad lines" unless the Surface Transportation Board "issues a certificate authorizing such activity." 49 U.S.C.

s 10901(a). The statute goes on to provide, at s 10901(d)(1):

When a certificate has been issued by the Board under

this section authorizing the construction or extension of a

railroad line, no other rail carrier may block any construction or extension authorized by such certificate by

refusing to permit the carrier to cross its property.

By its terms, therefore, s 10901(d)(1) prohibits a rail carrier

from blocking a crossing only "[w]hen a certificate has been

issued by the Board."

The Board has not issued the BNSF a certificate for

construction or operation of the track that runs north and

south across the KJRY's line. Why? The original track was

constructed in 1881, before the enactment of the certificate

requirement; and when the BNSF relocated the crossing

after the flooding in 1993 by laying new track, it did not

obtain a certificate because it was merely rebuilding track

that had been lawfully constructed without one. The KJRY

USCA Case #01-1305 Document #683573 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 3 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

now argues that because the statute authorizes the Board to

order a crossing only upon its issuance of a certificate, and

the Board has not issued one, it erred in ordering the KJRY

to allow the BNSF's trains to cross the KJRY's line.

The Board in its decision did not explain why, despite not

having issued a certificate, it considered itself authorized to

issue the order. Instead, it merely referred to the issuance

of a certificate as "a formality that, in a case such as this one,

we do not believe is necessary." The Board in its brief gives

similarly short shrift to the KJRY's argument, writing only

that "even requiring the issuance of a certificate for an

existing line constructed prior to the advent of regulation

would be a needless formality, elevating form over substance." The BNSF's brief does no better, acknowledging

that s 10901(d)(1) on its face requires the Board to issue a

certificate before it orders a crossing; maintaining that "[t]he

Board could issue, or re-issue, a construction certificate in a

[sic] face of a dispute regarding an existing crossing"; and

resisting that course on the ground that it "would be an

empty formality." We take the view, however, that the

issuance of a certificate, formality or not, is the condition

precedent the Congress prescribed.

Indeed, in this case the issuance of a certificate may not be

a mere formality -- if there is merit in any of the several

grounds upon which the KJRY opposes it. The KJRY argues

that (1) the Board may not lawfully issue a certificate for

track built before the enactment of s 10901; (2) because the

track at issue is switching track, it is exempt from the

Board's authority to impose a crossing right, see 49 U.S.C.

s 10906 ("Notwithstanding section 10901 ..., [t]he Board

does not have authority under this chapter over ... switching, or side tracks"); and (3) the BNSF's trains operate over

rather than "cross" the KJRY's track. We will not have

occasion to deal with these arguments, however, unless and

until the Board issues the BNSF a certificate following a

proceeding in which the KJRY presents its objections anew.

USCA Case #01-1305 Document #683573 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 4 of 5
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is granted and the order of the Board is

Vacated.

USCA Case #01-1305 Document #683573 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 5 of 5