Opinion ID: 213519
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reliance on State of Maine

Text: The Unions also attempt to undermine the STB's reliance on State of Maine. To begin, they distinguish State of Maine on the ground that, unlike MassDOT, Maine did not take over dispatching and maintenance responsibilities for the freight service. This is true but the STB adequately accounted for this distinction. The Board noted its policy that, even where freight rights are retained by the seller, the Board will find there has been a jurisdictional acquisition if the rights acquired by the purchaser are so extensive that the noncarrier has acquired control of the rail line, a determination it makes on a case by case basis. MassDOT Dec. at 8. Early on, the ICC applied a relatively strict standard but over time determined that reasonable restrictions on freight operations are acceptable if necessary to permit commuter operations and the freight carrier has sufficient access to conduct its existing and reasonably foreseeable freight operations so that it can satisfy its common carrier obligation. Id. at 9. With regard to maintenance and dispatching in particular, the Board explained that the public agency may assume responsibility for maintaining the line and dispatching freight operations if the operating procedures are reasonable and do not discriminate against freight service, and if the freight carrier has the right to inspect and to request prompt repair of any track defects. Id. at 9-10 (citing Metro Reg'l Transit Auth.Acquisition Exemption CSX Transp., Inc., Fin. Docket No. 33838, slip op. at 2-3, 2003 WL 22322034 (STB served Oct. 10, 2003); Utah Transit Auth.Acquisition ExemptionUnion Pac. R.R., Fin. Docket No. 35008, slip op. at 4, 2007 WL 2107123 (STB served July 23, 2007); Sacramento-Placerville Transp. Corridor Joint Powers Auth.Acquisition ExemptionCertain Assets of S. Pac. Transp. Co., Fin. Docket No. 33046, slip op. at 2, 1996 WL 616841 (STB served Oct. 28, 1996); Los Angeles County Transp. Comm'nPet. for ExemptionAcquisition from Union Pac. R.R. Co., Fin. Docket Nos. 32374 et al., slip op. at 2, 1996 WL 408632 (STB served July 23, 1996)). We find the Board's policy a reasonable one as it provides that the responsible jurisdictional carrierhere CSXThas the opportunity to ensure the tracks are being adequately maintained and available for interstate freight transportation. The Unions further fault the STB's emphasis on its longstanding and extensive application of State of Maine, noting that in the decision's progeny, there were no oppositions to the motions to dismiss, no participation by any other party, no additional analysis by the ICC/STB, and the ICC/STB merely repeated the State of Maine holding in discussions of the issue limited to ½ page to 1 page. Pet'rs' Br. 40. Thus, the Unions maintain: What the Board has characterized as a well-established, well-vetted line of precedent is merely the continuous echo of a ruling that was without foundation. Id. at 42. The combination of some 60 decisions and no challenge thereto in 20 years, however, suggests that potential opponents deemed such a challenge fruitless, perhaps in recognition that the Board's interpretation of section 10901(a)(4) is reasonable. In any event, that the Board has repeatedly interpreted the statute the same way for 20 years does indeed warrant deference. See Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212, 220, 122 S.Ct. 1265, 152 L.Ed.2d 330 (2002) ([T]his Court will normally accord particular deference to an agency interpretation of longstanding duration.) (citation omitted). [7] For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is denied. So ordered.