Opinion ID: 2973620
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Movement on the Line

Text: 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.