Opinion ID: 2973620
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exemption Revocation

Text: Terminal first argues that the STB erred in failing to revoke CSX’s abandonment exemption. A typical application to abandon a stretch of railway requires a number of steps. See 49 U.S.C. § 10903. If a carrier meets certain conditions, however, it can seek an exemption from the usual -3- No. 05-3788 Terminal Warehouse v. CSX Transportation abandonment requirements. See 49 U.S.C. § 10502. One requisite to exemption is the carrier’s certifying that no local traffic (that is, traffic that either originates or terminates within a particular stretch of rail)2 has moved over the line in the last two years. 49 C.F.R. § 1152.50(b). The carrier must further certify that the proposed abandoned line is not the subject of any pending complaints regarding an illegal embargo or other cessation of service and that no such complaints have been successful within the past two years. Id.
A granted exemption is void if the notice of exemption provided to the STB contains “false or misleading information.” 49 C.F.R. § 1152.50(d)(3). Terminal argues that such is the case here, because CSX certified that no traffic had moved over the line in two years but neglected to inform the Board that, for a year of that time, track damage and an embargo rendered such movement impossible. Prior to the damage, alleges Terminal, “the [line] was used on a regular basis.” Its support for this allegation is: (1) it used the line on January 20, 2001; (2) another shipper used the line on March 10, 2001; and (3) “it is likely that other shippers . . . shipped goods on this rail line.” Terminal maintains that the abandonment exemption is meant to apply to lines that are out of service because of lack of demand, not out of service because of track damage and embargoes. None of this, however, renders CSX’s notice of exemption false or misleading. First, the 2 Traffic that merely passes through the stretch is called “overhead” traffic, and the carrier, to obtain an exemption, must certify that all overhead traffic can be successfully rerouted. -4- No. 05-3788 Terminal Warehouse v. CSX Transportation regulations clearly contemplate the possibility that a carrier will seek an exemption after its line has sustained track damage or has been embargoed; they require that the carrier certify not only that no local traffic has moved over the line for two years, but also that in that time no party has successfully complained of an improper embargo or other service failure, and that no such complaint was pending. Thus CSX’s failure to disclose the embargo or the track damage to the STB does not render its certification false or misleading. In addition, Terminal concedes that it last used the line over thirteen months prior to the bridge damage, and no evidence supports Terminal’s contention that “another shipper used the line on March 10, 2001.” Terminal merely speculates that some other shipper must have used the line on that date because, two years later on March 10, 2003, CSX certified that no local traffic had moved over the line “for a period of at least two years.” And Terminal’s conjecture about the “likely” activity of other shippers likewise falls short.
In its reply brief, Terminal points to other statements in CSX’s Notice of Exemption that it believes contained false or misleading information. But we have “consistently held that we will not consider . . . arguments” raised for the first time on reply. Am. Trim, L.L.C. v. Oracle Corp., 383 F.3d 462, 477 (6th Cir. 2004). Absent a showing that any of CSX’s statements were false or misleading, the STB did not -5- No. 05-3788 Terminal Warehouse v. CSX Transportation abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Terminal’s petition for revocation of CSX’s abandonment exemption.