Source: https://www.stb.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/9855c1fb354da09b85257f1f000b5f79/190b951c78142f1f852583230081ffc4?OpenDocument
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:51:15+00:00

Document:
BOSTON AND MAINE CORPORATION & SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY-ADVERSE DISCONTINUANCE OF OPERATING AUTHORITY-MILFORD-BENNINGTON RAILROAD COMPANY, INC.
DECISION DENIED AN APPLICATION FILED BY BOSTON AND MAINE CORPORATION AND THE SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY FOR THIRD-PARTY, OR “ADVERSE,” DISCONTINUANCE OF THE OPERATING AUTHORITY OF MILFORD-BENNINGTON RAILROAD COMPANY, INC. OVER APPROXIMATELY 5.36 MILES OF RAIL LINE BETWEEN WILTON AND MILFORD, N.H.
BOSTON AND MAINE CORPORATION & SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY—APPLICATION FOR ADVERSE DISCONTINUANCE OF OPERATING AUTHORITY—MILFORD-BENNINGTON RAILROAD COMPANY, INC.
Digest: In this decision, the Board denies an application filed by Boston and Maine Corporation and the Springfield Terminal Railway Company for third‑party, or “adverse,” discontinuance of the operating authority of Milford‑Bennington Railroad Company, Inc. over approximately 5.36 miles of rail line between Wilton and Milford, N.H.
On April 13, 2018, Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) and Springfield Terminal Railway Company (Springfield Terminal) (collectively, Pan Am), filed an application under 49 U.S.C. § 10903 asking the Board to find that the public convenience and necessity (PC&N) require or permit the third-party, or “adverse,” discontinuance of operating authority held by Milford-Bennington Railroad Company, Inc. (MBR) over approximately 5.36 miles of rail line owned by B&M between milepost 16.36 in Wilton and milepost 11.00 in Milford, N.H. (the Line). Notice of Pan Am’s application was served and published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2018 (83 Fed. Reg. 19,591). MBR filed a protest in opposition to the discontinuance on May 29, 2018. On June 12, 2018, Pan Am filed a reply to MBR’s protest. Granite State Concrete Inc. (Granite State), the sole active shipper served by MBR on the Line, and Monadnock Paper Mills, Inc. (Monadnock), a potential rail shipper, as well as other business entities, members of the public, and affected communities, filed comments in opposition to Pan Am’s proposed discontinuance. For the reasons set forth below, the Board will deny Pan Am’s application.
In 1990, MBR filed a feeder line application under former 49 U.S.C. § 10910 to acquire the Line. (MBR Protest 3.) Pan Am opposed the application. Milford-Bennington R.R.—Feeder Line Acquis.—Bos. & Me. Corp. Hillsborough Branch, FD 31701 (ICC served July 6, 1992). In 1992, MBR and Pan Am voluntarily entered into a Trackage Rights Agreement (1992 TRA) as part of a settlement of the feeder line proceeding, granting MBR the trackage rights over the Line. In view of the settlement, MBR and Pan Am jointly requested that the feeder line application be withdrawn, which it was. Id.; (see also MBR Protest 4; Pan Am Appl. 3).
Under 49 U.S.C. § 10903(d), the standard governing any application to abandon or discontinue service over a line of railroad, including an adverse abandonment or discontinuance, is whether the PC&N require or permit the proposed abandonment or discontinuance. Under this standard, the Board balances the competing benefits and burdens of abandonment or discontinuance on all interested parties, including the railroad, the shippers on the line, the communities involved, and interstate commerce generally. Waterloo Ry.—Adverse Aban.—Lines of Bangor & Aroostook R.R. in Aroostook Cty., Me., AB 124 (Sub-No. 2) et al., slip op. at 4 (STB served May 3, 2004) (citing City of Cherokee v. ICC, 727 F.2d 748 (8th Cir. 1984)); see also N.Y. Cross Harbor R.R. v. STB, 374 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
“The function of the Board’s regulatory authority with respect to abandonments or discontinuance of rail service is to provide the public with a degree of protection against the unnecessary discontinuance, cessation, interruption, or obstruction of available rail service.” Waterloo Ry., AB 124 (Sub-No. 2) et al., slip op. at 5. Additionally, “the Board shall consider whether the abandonment or discontinuance will have a serious, adverse impact on rural and community development.” 49 U.S.C. § 10903(d). In an adverse discontinuance case, the burden of proof is on the applicant. State of S.D. ex rel. Dept. of Transp.—Adverse Discontinuance of Operating Auth.—Napa-Platte Reg’1 R.R. Auth., AB 1253 (STB served June 27, 2018). After considering the evidence presented and balancing the interests of all concerned, the Board concludes that Pan Am has failed to demonstrate that the adverse discontinuance of MBR’s authority to operate over the Line via trackage rights meets the PC&N standard, as explained below.
MBR also states that Pan Am has failed to support its claims related to the safety of MBR’s operations on the Line, that Pan Am’s allegations focus on issues that arose nearly a decade ago, (see MBR Protest 7), and that MBR complies with NORAC rules, (id. V.S. Leishman 10).
Interests of Shippers, Affected Communities, and the Public. The Board received comments from Granite State, Monadnock, business entities, members of the public, and affected communities in opposition to Pan Am’s proposed discontinuance.
PC&N Analysis. Both parties addressed the impact of Pan Am’s proposed rail service. As noted, Pan Am contends that its proposed operating plan would be equivalent to the service that Granite State currently receives from MBR. On the other hand, MBR, Granite State, Monadnock, and the other commenters are concerned about the harm the proposed discontinuance would cause to rail service in the area and the possibility that trucking could increase. As discussed below, Pan Am has not met its burden to show its proposed operating plan would not negatively impact rail service.
While Pan Am asserts that its proposed operating plan would result in essentially the same service to Granite State, the record before the Board does not support that assertion. Pan Am’s proposal to have MBR and Pan Am interchange multiple times a day to replace the on demand, single-line service MBR currently provides to Granite State would not be operationally similar to or as efficient as the existing service. Nor has Pan Am consulted with MBR on the details of joint-line service or reached out to Granite State to discuss the shipper’s requirements or whether the proposed change in operations would be feasible for the shipper. (Granite State Comment 3.) Indeed, MBR has raised valid questions about whether Pan Am’s proposed operations are even feasible. Further, Pan Am’s claim that it “is fully committed to providing service to all shippers,” (Pan Am Appl. 14), is not supported by the record. Monadnock, a potential shipper in the area, states that Pan Am has never solicited Monadnock’s interest in rail service, despite its continued investment and demonstrated interest in using rail. (Monadnock Comment 2, May 24, 2018.). Additionally, the fact that no other interested parties support Pan Am’s application belies Pan Am’s suggestion that MBR and Granite State are impeding service to other shippers. After balancing all the relevant interests in this matter, the Board cannot find that Pan Am has shown that the present or future public convenience and necessity justifies Pan Am’s proposed adverse discontinuance, and will deny Pan Am’s application.
Pan Am cites the decisions in Jacksonville and in Tacoma as examples of adverse discontinuance cases that were granted, based on facts it asserts are similar to the facts in this proceeding. However, those cases are inapposite. Both involved situations where the record showed that discontinuance would result in no change in operations, and neither discontinuance was opposed by shippers. See Tacoma, AB 548, slip op. at 7; Jacksonville, AB 469, slip op. at 4.
The Board also disagrees with Pan Am’s arguments that MBR’s operating authority should be discontinued because of Pan Am’s safety concerns about MBR’s operations. FRA has primary responsibility over rail safety matters and sets track standards based on the condition of the track. See Tyrrell v. Norfolk S. Ry., 248 F.3d 517, 523-24 (6th Cir. 2001); Granite State Concrete Co. v. Bos. & Me. Corp., FD 42083, slip. op at 3 (STB served Sept. 24, 2004). Here the track has been classified as FRA excepted track because of its condition, and there is nothing in the record showing that MBR is not complying with the FRA requirements that pertain to excepted track or that FRA has raised concerns about MBR’s safety practices. Moreover, the majority of the safety allegations that Pan Am alleges occurred nearly a decade ago or earlier, and the more recent claims of NORAC rule violations are insufficiently clear for the Board to conclude there are ongoing safety issues.
Finally, the Board rejects Pan Am’s argument that its application should be granted based on the fact that the 1992 TRA has expired and its assertion that MBR has failed to compensate Pan Am for the trackage rights. Pan Am cites to Fore River as support for the Board granting adverse discontinuance where an operator is not fulfilling its obligations and, as a result, has become a burden on the public and interstate commerce. (See Pan Am Appl. 19.) Fore River does not support Pan Am’s petition, however. Fore River involved a carrier that had a consistent pattern of failing to meet its obligations to its shippers, employees, and the owner of the line. The record here shows that a New Hampshire court determined that MBR owes Pan Am for MBR’s use of the Line from 2012 until 2016. However, the record also indicates MBR’s willingness to pay for this past amount due and for its use of the Line going forward. (MBR Protest, V.S. Leishman 8‑9.) Although the parties have made some attempts to negotiate terms for a new agreement, to date they have been unable to come to a resolution on their own. (Id. at 7-9.) Given these circumstances, as well as the prior findings that Pan Am’s operating plan would not meet Granite State’s shipping needs and that MBR’s relationship with Granite State is not impeding service to other shippers, the Board finds that Pan Am has not shown that the PC&N permits adverse discontinuance.
The Board favors the resolution of disputes, including the terms for trackage rights, through alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation and arbitration procedures, in lieu of formal Board proceedings, whenever possible. The Board reminds interested parties that they may contact the Board’s Rail Customer and Public Assistance (RCPA) office, for informal facilitation assistance. The RCPA office may be reached at (866) 254-1792; faxing to (202) 245‑0461; or by email at rcpa@stb.gov.
1. Pan Am’s application for adverse discontinuance is denied.
2. MBR’s motion to strike is denied as moot.
3. This decision is effective on its service date.
 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 Policy Statement on Plain Language Digests in Decision, EP 696 (STB served Sept. 2, 2010).
 An adverse discontinuance application seeks a Board finding that the PC&N require or permit the discontinuance of service by a carrier over a rail line, when that application is filed by someone other than that carrier. Such filings are also known as third-party applications and are termed “adverse” because they are often, though not always, opposed by the carrier holding the authority to operate.
 In a decision served on June 23, 2017, the Board granted in part Pan Am’s March 17, 2017 petition seeking waiver of certain Board regulations and exemptions.
 On June 22, 2018, MBR filed a motion to partially strike the contents of Pan Am’s reply. The Board will deny as moot the motion to strike because this decision does not rely on the information that MBR moves to strike.
 Comments were submitted by the following individuals and entities: Richard B. Putnam; Ronald Brown; Sopurkh Khalsa; Deana Darby; Jacqueline Kahle; Gail and Andrew Hoar; Edward and Joanne Wood; Matthew Cosgro; Lara Crandall; Donna Crane; Malissa Knight; Kevin Federico; Chalmers Hardenbergh; Elizabeth G. Torre; American Steel & Precast Erectors; Wilton Heritage Commission; Wilton N.H. Economic Development Team; Towns of Greenfield, Wilton, and Milford; and Nashua Regional Planning Commission. Some of the public comments were filed after the May 29, 2018 comment deadline, but in the interest of compiling a complete record the Board will accept these late-filed public comments.
 Approximately half of the move is on the NH Line and half on the Line.
 Additionally, unlike here, in Fore River the two shippers on the line supported the discontinuance. Fore River R.R., 8 I.C.C.2d at 311.

References: § 10903
 § 10910
 § 10903
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10903
 v. 
 v.