2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-1-2010 

# V ic t or Wheele r v

. M ate ri al Recove ry of E rie Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-4344

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " V ict or Whe ele r v

. M at e ri al Re c ove ry of E rie Inc " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 508. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/5081 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 4344

___________ VI CT OR WHEE L E R; S ANDR A J . WHEE L E R; J AM E S K. S I S S ON; NANC Y A. S ISS O N ; B R U C E D . R E D F IEL D , II I; T A M E R A J. R E D F IEL D ; V IN C E N T J. BARTOS EK; P ATT Y BARTOS EK; DAV I D W ARNER; TI NA M . W ARNER v. M A TER I A L R EC O V ER Y O F ER I E I N C. ; RI CH A RD A . SO M M ER S; N O RT H W EST PENN SYLV AN I A TR AI LS ASS OC I ATI ON ; KA THY SCHREC KEN GO ST; P E NNS YL VANI A E L E CT RI C C OM P ANY; F I RS T E NE RG Y C OR P . ; CA NADI AN NATI ONA L RAI LWAY COM P ANY ; S URF ACE T RANSP ORTATI ON BOA RD V ict o r W h ee ler; S an d ra J. W h ee ler; Ja m e s K . S iss o n ; N a n c yA . S iss o n , A p p e llan ts

____________________________________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 00085) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember27, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober1, 2010 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________T h e S T B is th e a g e n c yc h a rg e d u n d e r t h e In te rs ta te C o m m e rc e A c t, 4 9 U .S .C . § 1 10101, ets eq. , w i th r egul at i ng r ai l carr i er s thatpr ovi de tr ans por t at i on overanypartof the in te rs ta te ra il n e tw o rk . S e e 4 9 U .S .C . § 1 0 5 0 1 . T h e T ra ils A c t w a s e n a c te d in 1 9 6 8 to e s ta b lis h a n a tio n w id e s y s te m o f n a tu re tr a ils . 2 I n 1983, C ongr es s added a r ai l s ect i on, codi fi ed at16 U . S. C . § 1247( d) , t o s erve the dual purpos e of pr es ervi ng unus ed r ai l r oad r i ght s - of- w ayforpos s i bl e futur e r ai l us e and p ro m o tin g n a tu re tra ils. S e e P re se a u lt v . I.C .C , 4 9 4 U .S . 1 , 5 -7 (1 9 9 0 ). “R a ilb a n k in g ” is the “pr es erv[at i on] of unus ed r ai l w ayr i ght s - of- w ayforfutur e us e” unde rthe t erm s of the statu te. E ll am ae P h il li p s C o . v . U n it ed S tat es, 56 4 F . 3 d 1 3 6 7 , 1 3 6 9 (F ed . C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 2 P E R C UR I AM A ppel l ant s , l andow ner s fr om E r i e C ounty , Penns y l vani a, appea l fr om an or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdeny i ng A ppel l ant s ’ pet i t i on forr evi ew of a de ci s i on of the Sur fac e T r ans por t at i on B oar d ( “ST B ” orthe “Boar d”) , i n w hi ch the B oar d, upon r efe rr al , deni ed 1 A p p e llan ts’ re q u e st th a t th e S T B re o p e n its e a rlier d e ter m in a tio n th a t a 5 .7 3 -m ile ra il r i ght - of- w ayhad bee n pr oper l y“r ai l banked” fori nt er i m tr ai l us e i n 1990 underthe N at i onal T r ai l s Sy s t em A ct( the “Tr ai l s A ct ”) . T he ST B ’ s deci s i on al s o deni ed 2 A ppel l ant s ’ r eques tforor al ar gum entand di s covery , and gr ant ed the j oi ntm ot i on of A ppel l ees M at er i al R ecove r yand N or thw es tPenns y l vani a Tra i l s A s s oci at i on t o r eopen the mat t erforthe l i m i t ed purpos es of al l ow i ng the s ubs t i tut i on of one tr ai l s pons orfor a n o th e r. F o r t h e f

o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m . I. A ppel l ant s ar e the ow ner s of par cel s of l and adj ace ntt o a 5. 73- m i l e s tr i p of l and ( the “Tr ai l ”) that , pr i ort o 1973, s erved a r ai l w ayl i ne ow ned and ope r at ed byPennPenn C entr al di d nothol d t i t l e t o the l and i n fee s i m pl e, l eas i ng i ti ns t ead f r om the 3 E ri e & P itts b u rg h R a ilr o a d C o m p a n y . T he R ai l banki ng A cti s tr i gger ed w hen a r ai l r oad des i r es t o t erm i nat e i t s comm on 4 carr i erobl i gat i on t o pr ovi de fr ei ghtr ai l s ervi ce on a l i ne, an ac t i on r equi r i ng appr oval fr om the ST B . 49 U . S. C . § 10903. W hen a qua l i fi ed ent i tydes i r es t o negot i at e w i th a ra ilro a d c o n c e rn in g th e p re se rv a tio n o f a c o rrid o r f

o r f u tu re ra il an d in ter im tra il u se , it m us tr eques tthatthe ST B i s s ue a r ai l banki ng or derknow n as a ce r t i fi cat e, ornot i ce, of in te ri m tr a il u s e . S e e 4 9 C .F .R . § 1 1 5 2 .2 9 (a ). 3 C entr al R ai l r oad. A ppel l ant s al s o hol d a r ever s i onaryi nt er es ti n the Tra i l . I n 1973, t he 3 I nt er s t at e C om m er ce Com m i s s i on ( “I C C ”) , the ST B ’ s pr edec es s oragenc y , i s s ued a d ec isi o n au tho ri zing P en n C en tr al t o ab an d o n o p era ti o n s o n the ra il roa d li n e. T h e IC C ’s o rde r t o ce ase o p era ti o n s w as su b seq u en tl ystay ed b yP en n C en tr al’s ba n k rup tcy . In 1974, C ongr es s pas s ed the R egi onal R ai l R eor gani zat i on A ctof 1973, Pub. L . N o. 93- 236, 87 St at . 985 ( 1974) ( the “3R A ct ”) , w hos e purpos e w as t o r eor gani ze the bankrupt P e n n C e n tra l (a n d o th e r f a ili n g c a rrie rs) a n d e sta b lish p ro c e d u re s f o r d isp o sin g o f

ra il l i nes oper at ed bythos e ca r r i er s . Pur s uantt o thes e pr ocedur es , the r i ght - of- w ayovert he p o rtio n o f

th e ra il th a t in c lu d e d th e T ra il w a s tra n sf e rre d to th e B e ss e m e r & L a k e E rie R a ilro a d C o m p a n y(“ B & L E ” ), a s u b sid iar yo f C a n a d ian N a tio n a l R a ilw a y . F ro m 1 9 7 6 to 1 9 8 9 , th e T ra il r e m a in e d u n u s e d . I n A ugus t , 1989, B & L E ent er ed i nt o a cont i ngentagr eementw i th M at er i al R ecove ryof Eri e, I nc. ( “M R ”) t o conveyi t s i nt er es ti n the Tra i l t o M R as partof the pr oces s of r ai l banki ng the Tra i l underthe R ai l banki ng A ct . U pon appl i cat i on t o the 4 ST B , the B oar d gr ant ed M R a N ot i ce of I nt er i m T r ai l U s e ( “N I T U ”) pur s uantt o 49 C . F. R . § 1152. 29( a) . See D ocketN o. A B - 88 ( Sub- N o. 5X ) , J an. 8, 1990 D eci s i on ( the4

“ 1 9 9 0 N IT U ” ). N o p a rt ys o u g h t ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f th e 1 9 9 0 N IT U . In 1 9 9 7 , M R f

ile d f o r b a n k ru p tc y . A s p a rt o f th e b a n k ru p tc yp ro c e e d in g , M R s o u g h t to c o n v e yits in te re s t in th e T ra il to P e n n s y lv a n ia E le c tr ic C o m p a n y(“ P e n e le c ” ). T he A ppel l ant s , as adj ace ntpr opertyow ner s , i nt ervened i n the bankrupt cypr ocee di ng an d o b jected to the p rop o sed sale, argu ing that their rev ersion aryinterests i n the T rail ’s rig h t-o f -w a yh a d v e ste d . T h e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt re f e rre d th e iss u e to th e S T B . P u rsu a n t to thatr efe rr al , M R fi l ed a pe t i t i on t o r eopen a nd cl ar i fythe 1990 N I T U . T he ST B r eopene d th e 1 9 9 0 N IT U a n d iss u e d a d e c isio n c o n c lu d in g th a t th e rig h t-o f -w a yh a d b e e n p ro p e rly tr ans ferr ed and thatthe Tra i l had bee n pr oper l yr ai l banked. See D ocketN o. A B - 88 ( SubN o. 5X ) , M ay21, 1997 D eci s i on ( the “1997 STB O r der ”) . T he ST B i s s ued i t s deci s i on as “advi s ory , ” how ever , beca us e the bankrupt cycourtr et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on overthe Tra i l and anyfi nal det erm i nat i on of l egal ow ner s hi p. T he ST B fur theri ndi cat ed that , s houl d the bankrupt cycourtappr ove a s al e of the r i ght - of- w ayt o Penel ec, Penel ec w oul d be re q u ire d to c o m p lyw ith th e p ro c e d u re s a t 4 9 C .F .R . § 1 1 5 2 .2 9 (f ) to e n su re th a t th e rig h to f -w a yw o u ld c o n tin u e to b e ra ilb a n k e d p u rs u a n t to th e T ra ils A c t. T he bankrupt cycourtul t i m at el yperm i t t ed M R t o gr anta ut i l i tyeas ementovert he T r ai l r i ght - of- w ayt o Penel ec ( as oppos ed t o an outr i ghts al e) , butm ade no de t erm i nat i on o f th e a d jo in in g p ro p e rt yo w n e rs ’ r ig h ts . S e e In re M a te ri a l R e c o v e ry o f E ri e , In c ., B a n k ru p tcy N o . 9 4 -1 0 8 1 2 , N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 9 9 D e c isio n . A p p e llan ts d id n o t ap p e a l. In 2 0 0 5 , M R e n ter e d in to a n a g re e m e n t w ith th e N o rth w e st P e n n sy lv a n ia T ra il A s s oci at i on ( “N W PT A ”) forN W PT A t o pur chas e pr opertyfr om M R unr el at ed t o the2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 6 p ro v id e s th a t th e d istric t co u rts s h a ll h a v e ju risd ictio n in a n yc iv il 5 act i on t o “enf

or ce, i n w hol e ori n part , anyor derof the Sur fac e Tra ns por t at i on B oar d. ” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 6 (a ). 5 T r ai l . I n addi t i on, the part i es ent er ed i nt o a s epar at e “D onat i on A gr eement ” that c o n tem p late d th e f

u tu re d o n a tio n o f

th e T ra il t o N W P T A . S e e D o n a tio n A g re e m e n t, A ppel l ee’ s Suppl ement al A pp. 216- 219. I n A pr i l , 2006, A ppel l ant s fi l ed an a ct i on i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a t o enfor ce the 1997 STB Or d e ru n d e r2 8 U. S. C. § 1 3 3 6 ( a ) . Th e c o mpl a i n ta l l e g e d th a tM R a n d th e NW PTA 5 h a d v io la te d th e 1 9 9 7 S T B O rd e r b yf a ilin g to c o m p ly w ith th e p ro v is io n s o f 4 9 C .F .R . § 11 52 . 29 (f) , res ult i ng i n an aban do nm ent of the p ropertyand the tr i gg eri ng of A pp el l ants ’ rev ersion aryinterests i n the righ t- o f-w ay . P u rsua n t t o the d o ctri n e o f p ri m ary j ur i s di ct i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tr efe rr ed the mat t ert o the ST B i n M ar ch 2007. See 28 U . S. C . § 1336( b) ; U ni on Paci fi c R . C o. v. A m et ek, I nc. , 104 F. 3d 558, 561 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( expl ai ni ng thata di s tr i ctcourtm ayr efe ri s s ues t o the ST B fordet erm i nat i on w hen the ques t i on fal l s w i thi n t he ST B ’ s pr i m aryj ur i s di ct i on) . A ppel l ant s then fi l ed a pe t i t i on b e f o re th e S T B s e e k in g a d e c la ra to ry ju d g m e n t c o n c e rn in g th e irle g a l r ig h ts to th e T ra il. See Pet i t i on of V i ct orW heel er , etal . , forD ecl ar at oryO r der( ST B Fi nance D ocketN o. 3 5 0 8 2 ), f ile d S e p te m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 (t h e “ P e titio n f o r D e c la ra to ry O rd e r” ). M R and N W PT A s ubs equent l yfi l ed a s epar at e ac t i on as ki ng the ST B t o r eopen th e 1 9 9 0 N IT U d o c k e t, va c a te th e e x istin g N IT U , an d su b stitu te N W P T A a s th e tra il s pons orpur s uantt o t he tr ans ferpr ovi s i ons of 49 C . F. R § 1152. 29( f) . See J oi ntM ot i on of N W PT A and M R forSubst i tut i on of N ew I nt er i m T r ai l U s er( D ocketN o. A B - 88 ( Sub-6

N o. 5X ) ) , O ct ober9, 2007 ( the “M ot i on forSubst i tut i on”) . A ppel l ant s oppos ed the m ot i on and r eques t ed di s covery , or al ar gum ent , and conc urr entand expe di t ed c o n s id e ra tio n o f

b o th m a tte rs . T he ST B gr ant ed A ppel l ant s ’ m ot i on t o have the tw o cas es cons i der ed concurr ent l yand i n A ugus t2008, i s s ued a s i ngl e dec i s i on w i th r es pectt o the i s s ues r ai s ed byboth the Pet i t i on forD ecl ar at oryO r derand M ot i on forSubst i tut i on. See ST B Fi nance D ocketN o. 35082, A ugus t27, 2008 D eci s i on ( “2008 ST B O r der ”) . T he ST B r ej ect ed A p p e llan ts’ re q u e st f

o r d isc o v e ry , n o tin g th a t d isc o v e ryis n o t typ ica llyc o n d u c ted in d ec laratoryo rde r pro ce ed ing s, that A p p ell an ts ha d am p le op p o rtu n ityto p u rsue d isco v ery i n the D i s tr i ctC our t , and thatA ppel l ant s had noti ndi cat ed w hataddi t i onal m at er i al s t hey w i s hed t o obt ai n. R egar di ng A ppel l ant s ’ r eques tforor al ar gum ent , the ST B not ed that u n d er 4 9 C . F . R . § 1 1 1 4 . 6 , itco u ld tak e jud ici al no ti ce o f th e re co rds in p ri o r B o ard pr ocee di ngs pert ai ni ng t o t he Tra i l , and ther efor e had “ s uffi ci enti nform at i on w i th w hi ch t o r es ol ve the i s s ues ” r efe r r ed t o i tbythe D i s tr i ctC our t . T he B oar d al s o not ed that A ppel l ant s “had notdemonstr at ed thatther e ar e anym at er i al m att er s i n di s put e that c a n n o tb e a d e q u a t e l yc o n s i d e r e d a n d r e s o l v e d b a s e d o n wr i t t e n s u b mi s s i o n s . ” 2 0 0 8 STB O rd e r a t 6 . T urni ng t o t he mer i t s , the ST B det erm i ned thatA ppel l ant s ’ cl ai m thatthe Tra i l had been a bandoned pr i ort o bei ng r ai l banked i n 1990 w as es s ent i al l ya cha l l enge t o the B o a rd ’s 1 9 9 7 d e c is io n w ith re s p e c t to th e ra ilb a n k e d s ta tu s o f th e ri g h t- o f

-w a y . Th e r e f o r e , th e STB tr e a t e d App e l l a n t s ’ mot i o n a s a p e t i t i o n t o r e o p e n th e 1 9 9 7 STB7

O r derand appl i ed the s t andar d governi ng m ot i ons t o r eopen, w hi ch r equi r es a s how i ng of new evi dence , change d ci r cumst ance s , orm at er i al err or . See 49 U . S. C . § 772( c) ; 49 C . F. R . § 1115. 4. T he ST B found thatA ppel l ant s offe r ed no new evi dence orchange d ci r cumst ance s i n s uppor tof thei rcl ai m , butcons i der ed w hethertheyhad demonstr at ed m at er i al err or . T he ST B cons i der ed A ppel l ant ’ s ar gum ent s and conc l uded thatther e w as n o m a te ri a l e rr o r t o ju s tif yre o p e n in g th e 1 9 9 7 S T B O rd e r. T h e S T B tr ea ted th e re m aind er o f A p p ell an ts’ p lead ing as a p eti ti o n fo r a d e c lar a to ryo rd e r d e c lar in g th a t M R h a d v io late d th e 1 9 9 7 S T B O rd e r b yf a ili n g to c re a te a tr ai l aft eri thad bee n author i zed t o acqui r e the r i ght - of- w ayfori nt er i m tr ai l us e. T he S TB d e c l i n e d t o f

i n d a v i o l a t i o n o n th e s e g r o u n d s b e c a u s e th e Tr a i l s Ac ts p e c i f i e s n o t i me l i m i ti n w hich a trai l m ustbe d eveloped or i t s i ntended l evel of use. T he S T B al so re jec ted A p p e llan ts’ a rg u m e n t th a t M R h a d v io late d th e o rd e r b yf a ili n g to m e e t it s fi nanci al and l egal obl i gat i ons w i th r es pectt o the Tra i l . A ccor di ngl y , the ST B deni ed A p p e lla n ts ’ p e titio n f

o r a d e c la ra to ry o rd e r. I n the s ame opi ni on, the ST B appr oved the s epar at el yfi l ed j oi ntm ot i on of M R and N W PT A t o s ubs t i tut e the l att eras the new tr ai l s pons or . I n or dert o eff ectthe s ubs t i tut i on, the ST B w as r equi r ed bys t atut e t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs i n D ocketN o. A B - 88 ( Sub- N o. 5X ) forthe l i m i t ed purpos e of r epl aci ng the N I T U s erved on J anuary8, 1990, w i th a r epl ace m entN I T U s ubs t i tut i ng N W PT A as i nt er i m tr ai l s pons or . See 49 C .F .R . § 1 1 5 2 .2 9 (f

)( 2 ). Fol l ow i ng the B oar d’ s deci s i on, A ppel l ant s fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew i n t heT he not i ce of appea l fi l ed bySandr a W heel er , J ames Si s s on, and N ancySi s s on, w as 6 nott i m el yfi l ed w i thi n t he 60- dayt i m e l i m i ts etfor th i n Fed. R . C i v. P. § 4( a) ( 1) ( B ) and 28 U . S. C . § 2107( b) . W e ther efor e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overthos e appe al s , w i th the exce pt i on of the appe al of V i ct orW heel er ’ s s pous e, Sandr a W heel er , overw hi ch w e have ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 (c )( 2 ). 8 D i s tr i ctC our tpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1336( b) , w hi ch pr ovi des thata di s tr i ctcourthas j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew an ac t i on t o “enf or ce, enj oi n, s etas i de, annul , ors us pend” a nyor der of the B oar d “ar i s i ng outof” the court ’ s r efe rr al . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the pet i t i on on S eptem ber 10, 2009 . T he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s order al so grant ed the m oti on s t o d i sm i ss f ile d b yA p p e lle e s N W P T A , K a th yS c h re c k e n g o s t, P e n e le c , M R a n d R ic h a rd S o m m e rs . A p p e llan t W h e e ler , p ro c e e d in g p ro se , ti m e lyf iled a n o tice o f

a p p e a l. 6 II W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W h en rev iew ing a d istri ct co u rt ’s aff i r m ance of an a gencydeci s i on, w e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on de novo , w h ile appl y i ng the “appr opr i at e s t andar d of r evi ew t o the age ncy ’ s deci s i on. ” See Concerned C i t i zens A l l i ance , I nc. , v. Sl at er , 176 F. 3d 686, 693 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( quot at i ons and c ita tio n s o m itte d ); s e e a ls o F e rt iliz e r I n s t. v . B ro w n e r, 1 6 3 F .3 d 7 7 4 , 7 7 7 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). U n d e r th is d e f

e re n tial sta n d a rd w e m a yse t as id e a n a g e n c yd e c isio n o n lyif it i s “ f o u n d to be arbi tr ary , capr i ci ous , an abus e of di s cr et i on, orotherw i s e noti n acc or dance w i th l aw . ” I d. ( ci t i ng 5 U . S. C . § 706( 2) ( A ) ) . “The sc ope of r evi ew underthe ‘ arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous ’ s t andar d i s narr ow and a c our ti s nott o s ubs t i tut e i t s j udgm entforthatof the a g e n c y .” M o to r V e h ic le M f rs . A s s ’n o f

th e U .S ., In c . v . S ta te F a rm M u t. A u to . In s . C o ., 463 U . S. 29, 43 ( 1983) ; s ee a l s o Fer t i l i zer , 163 F. 3d at777. W e mustonl ydet erm i neTh e S TB i s th e s u c c e s s o ra g e n c yt o th e I CC. 7 9 “w hetherthe dec i s i on w as bas ed on a c ons i der at i on of the r el evantfac t or s and w hether ther e has been a cl earerr orof j udgm ent . ” M ot orV ehi cl e M fr s . , 463 U . S. at43 ( quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A n agenc ydeci s i on i s notarbi tr aryorcapr i ci ous w her e i thas art i cul at ed a “ r at i onal connec t i on betw een the fa ct s found and the choi ce m ade. ” I d. at52. Fur therm or e, court s m us tbe def er ent i al t o an age ncy ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of a s t atut e i n s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch “Congre s s has been e i ther‘ s i l entorambi guous ’ ” on the ques t i on undercons i der at i on. Sout hw es t ern Pa. G r ow th A l l i ance v. B r ow ner , 121 F. 3d 1 0 6 , 1 1 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( q u o tin g C h e v ro n , U .S .A ., In c . v . N a tu ra l R e s . D e f. C o u n c il, I n c ., 4 6 7 U .S . 8 3 7 , 8 4 3 (1 9 8 4 )) . III . A ppel l ant s ar gue thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n hol di ng thatthe ST B ’ s deci s i on nott o r eopen i t s ear l i erdet erm i nat i ons thatthe Tra i l had bee n pr oper l yr ai l banked w as non- r evi ew abl e underthe Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n I . C . C . v. B r otherhood of L ocomot i ve Engi neer s , 482 U . S. 270, 284 ( 1987) ( “B L E ”) . B L E hel d thata courtm ay notr evi ew the I C C ’ s r efus al t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs unl es s the mot i on t o r eopen w as bas ed on new evi dence of cha nged ci r cumst ance s . I d. B eca us e A ppel l ant s ’ m ot i on t o r eopen 7 w as bas ed on the gr ound of m at er i al err or , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thati tw as not r evi ew abl e. I d. at279. A ppel l ant s ar gued that , underthi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n Fr i ends of the A t gl en- Susque hanna Tr ai l , I nc. , v. S. T . B . , w hen the ST B r eopene d the 1990 N I T U for the l i m i t ed purpos e of s ubs t i tut i ng N W PT A as tr ai l s pons or , i tm ade the r eopeni ng or derW e mayaff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our ton anygr ound s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. See 8 T rav elers In d em n ityC o . , v . D am m an n & C o . , Inc . , 5 9 4 F . 3 d 2 3 8 , 2 5 6 n . 1 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). 10 r evi ew abl e “f

oral l purpos es . ” 252 F. 3d 246, 260 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( concl udi ng thatw hen the ST B expl i ci t l yr eopens a ca s e, even f ora l i m i t ed purpos e, i tm akes everyas pectof the r eopeni ng or ders ubj ectt o r evi ew ) ; s ee a l s o B L E , 482 U . S. at278 ( hol di ng thatw hen the agenc y“r eopens a pr ocee di ng foranyr eas on and, aft err econs i der at i on, i s s ues a new and f in a l o rd e r se tti n g f

o rth th e rig h ts a n d o b lig a tio n s o f th e p a rties , tha t o rd e r – e v e n if it m e re lyre a f

f irm s th e rig h ts a n d o b lig a tio n s s e t f o rth in th e o rig in a l o rd e r – is re v iew a b le on i t s m er i t s ”) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent , di s t i ngui s hi ng A t gl en on the bas i s thatthe r eopeni ng ati s s ue i n thi s cas e w as a “pur el ym i ni s t er i al actthatdi d not t ouch on the mer i t s w hat s oever . ” D i s tr i ctC our tO p. 19. W i thoutr eac hi ng the ques t i on w h e th e r a “ p u re lym in iste ria l” r e o p e n in g c a n b e d istin g u ish e d u n d e r A tg len , w e w ill aff i r m i t s concl us i on thatthe ST B ’ s deci s i on i n thi s cas e w as unr evi ew abl e on al t ernat i ve groun ds. 8 A ppel l ant s ’ ar gum entfai l s beca us e theyar e conf l at i ng s epar at e ac t i ons t aken by th e S T B in tw o se p a ra te c a se s. A t A p p e llan ts’ re q u e st, th e 2 0 0 8 S T B O rd e r d e a lt concurr ent l yw i th t he i s s ues pr es ent ed bythe part i es i n tw o s epar at e ac t i ons : ( 1) M R and NWP T A’ s j o i n tM o t i o n f o rS u b s t i tu t i o n ( f

i l e d u n d e rS T B D o c k e tNo . AB - 8 8 ( S u b - No 5X ) ) , and ( 2) A ppel l ant s ’ Pet i t i on forD ecl ar at oryO r der( fi l ed underST B Fi nance D ocket N o . 3 5 8 0 2 ). A s d isc u ss e d , su p ra , the S T B d e n ied th e re lief so u g h t b yA p p e llan ts in th e ir P eti ti o n fo r D ec laratoryO rde r, inclu d ing their i m p li citch all en g e to th e 1 9 9 7 S T B O rde r,T he B oar d’ s r ol e underthe Tra i l s A cti s l i m i t ed w i th r es pectt o admi ni s t er i ng not i ces 9 o f in ter im tra il u se . W h e n a re q u e st f o r a n N IT U is f

iled , the B o a rd ’s o n lyre sp o n sib ili ty i s t o confi r m thatthe tr ai l s pons oragr ees t o as s um e ful l l i abi l i tyforthe pr opertydur i ng 11 w hi ch the ST B tr eat ed as a mot i on t o r eopen on the gr ounds of m at er i al err or . I n the sa m e o p in io n th e S T B a lso g ra n ted M R a n d N W P T A ’s m o tio n f o r su b stitu tio n o f

in ter im tr ai l us er , w hi ch had or i gi nal l ybeen f i l ed as a s epar at e ac t i on. T he A ppel l ant s oppos ed the M ot i on forSubst i tut i on i n a s epar at el yfi l ed r epl y , s ee A ppel l ee’ s Suppl ement al A ppendi x 230- 242, and the tw o cas es w er e neve rcons ol i dat ed. A l though both act i ons ari se out of t he sam e facts and ci rcum st ances, theyw ere fi l ed as separat e act i on s and rai se di s t i nctcl ai m s . T he ST B ’ s l i m i t ed r eopeni ng of the 1990 N I T U i n the s ubs t i tut i on act i on does notm ake the ST B ’ s deci s i on nott o r eopen pr ocee di ngs i n the s epar at el yfi l ed decl ar at oryact i on open t o r evi ew . A ppel l antpr es ent ed no new evi dence oral l egat i ons of c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s in su p p o rt o f its a rg u m e n t b e f

o re th e S T B . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e S T B ’s d e n ial o f A p p e llan t’s m o tio n to re o p e n b a s e d o n m a te ri a l e rr o r i s u n re v ie w a b le . S e e B L E , 4 8 2 U .S . a t 2 8 0 . W e w i l l al s o aff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatthe ST B di d notact arbi tr ar i l yorcapr i ci ous l yi n det erm i ni ng thatN W PT A and M R had notvi ol at ed 49 C .F .R . § 1 1 5 2 .2 9 (f

) b ye n te ri n g in to th e D o n a tio n A g re e m e n t. S e e M o to r V e h ic le M f rs ., 4 6 3 U . S . at 42 ; 5 U . S . C . § 7 0 6 (2)(A ) (ex p lai n ing that co u rt s sh o u ld ap p lyan “a rbitrary and capr i ci ous s t andar d” of r evi ew t o agenc ydeci s i ons ) . Sect i on 1152. 9( f) s et s for th the re g u la to ry p ro v is io n s re la tin g to th e s u b s titu tio n o f a tr a il s p o n s o r. 4 9 C .F .R . § 1 1 5 2 .2 9 (f

). T o e f f e c t a s u b stitu tio n , the c u rre n t an d f u tu re tra il sp o n so r m u st jo in tlyf ile 9the i nt er i m tr ai l us e and t o keep the pr opertyavai l abl e forr eac t i vat i on of r ai l s ervi ce. 16

U .S .C . § 1 2 4 7 (d ); 4 9 C .F .R . § 1 1 5 2 .2 9 (a )(3 ). T h e B o a rd is th e n re q u ire d b ysta tu te to “ r e o p e n th e a b a n d o n me n to re x e mp t i o n p r o c e e d i n g , v a c a t e th e e x i s t i n g NI T U o rCI T U; a n d is s u e a n a p p ro p ri a te re p la c e m e n t N IT U o r C IT U to th e n e w tr a il u s e r.” 4 9 C .F .R . § 1 1 5 2 .2 9 (f

)( 2 ). 12 a c o p yo f th e e x istin g N IT U a n d th e n e w tra il u se r m u st f ile a sta tem e n t o f

w ill in g n e ss to as s um e fi nanci al r es pons i bi l i ty . O nce appr oved, the B oar d i s r equi r ed t o r eopen the abandonmentpr ocee di ng, vaca t e the exi s t i ng N I T U , and i s s ue an appr opr i at e r epl ace m ent N IT U . 4 9 C .F .R . § 1 1 5 2 .2 9 (f )( 2 ). T h e D o n a tio n A g re e m e n t p ro v id e d th a t M R ’s “ o b lig a tio n to tra n sf e r th e p ro p e rty [w as ] cont i ngenton . . . compl et i on of al l nece s s aryr ai l banki ng document s and fi l i ngs w ith th e [ S T B ] to p re se rv e th e p ro p e rty ’s in ter im tra il statu s.” D o n a tio n A g re e m e n t at ¶ 5 . Th e Don a t i o n Agr e e me n tf u r th e rp r o v i d e d th a tu n t i l s u c h t i me a s th e p r o p e rSTB author i zat i on coul d be obt ai ned, N W PT A w oul d l eas e and mai nt ai n the r i ght - of- w ay , pay th e re a l e s ta te ta x e s , a n d in d e m n if yM R f o r a n ylia b ility a s s o c ia te d w ith th e T ra il’ s u s e . T he ST B r evi ew ed the D onat i on A gr eementand conc l uded that49 C . F. R . § 1152. 29( f) had notbeen vi ol at ed bec aus e the agr eementexpl i ci t l ycondi t i oned the pr opos ed tr ans fer on obt ai ni ng B oar d appr oval , l eavi ng M R ul t i m at el yr es pons i bl e forthe Tra i l unt i l the r equi s i t e appr oval w as pr ocur ed. W e agr ee thatthe ST B ’ s deci s i on w as w el l - r eas oned and neither arbitraryno r capr i ci ou s. T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o aff i r m ed the B oar d’ s concl us i on thatM R ’ s s i ngl e t ax d e lin q u e n c yd id n o t co n stitu te a n a b a n d o n m e n t o f th e T ra il b e c a u se A p p e llan ts f a iled to m ake a s peci fi c s how i ng thatthe tr ai l s pons orhad notm eti t s fi nanci al obl i gat i onsW e have cons i der ed the A ppel l ant ’ s r emai ni ng ar gum entbutfi nd them 10 u n p e rs u a s iv e . pert ai ni ng t o t he Tra i l . T he A ppel l ant s ’ evi dence thatM R fai l ed t o m eeti t s fi nanci al r es pons i bi l i t i es cons i s t ed of one l ett erfr om the G i r ar d C ountyT ax C ol l ect or , dat ed N o v e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 9 9 , sta tin g th a t M R h a d n o t p a id tax e s f o r p ro p e rtyin th a t co u n tyin 1998. T he ST B concl uded thatw i thoutevi dence thatST B w as i n arr ear s r egar di ng any f in a n c ial o b lig a tio n re latin g to th e rig h t-o f -w a y , the lette r w a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt a fi ndi ng thatM R had fa i l ed t o m eeti t s fi nanci al and l egal obl i gat i ons pert ai ni ng t o the tr a i l . W e a g r e e wi th th e Di s tr i c tCou r tth a ti twas n o ta rb i tr a ryo rc a p r i c i o u s f o rth e STB t o hol d thatal l egedl ym i s s i ng one pr opertyt ax paym entover10 y ear s ago w as i ns uffi ci entt o demonstr at e a f ai l ur e t o m eetfi nanci al obl i gat i ons . See J os tv. S. T . B . , 194 F . 3 d 7 9 , 8 9 -90 (D . C . C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 10 I V. F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e d e c is io n o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .