BROTH. OF RR SIGNALMEN v. Surface Transp. Bd.
638 F.3d 807
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- MassDOT agreed to buy CSXT track and real estate assets but MassDOT would hold a permanent, exclusive freight easement with CSXT retaining dispatch and maintenance rights.
- MassDOT filed for an exemption under §10502 and sought dismissal arguing the Railroad Assets do not constitute a railroad line under §10901(a)(4).
- STB dismissed MassDOT’s exemption motion, relying on State of Maine precedent that a noncarrier acquiring assets without relinquishing common carrier rights is not acquiring a railroad line.
- Unions challenged the STB decision, arguing Maine was inconsistent with the statute and with other precedents, seeking review in this court.
- Board reasoned Maine’s framework promotes freight and commuter service and aligns with policy benefits of facilitating planning and service continuity.
- Court reviews the Board’s interpretation of 'railroad line' under Chevron, ultimately upholding the STB’s decision and denying review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 'railroad line' include the right to operate as a common carrier? | Unions contend 'railroad line' is limited to physical assets. | MassDOT argues 'railroad line' includes the right to provide common carrier service. | Chevron step 2 permissible interpretation; 'railroad line' includes carrier rights. |
| Is State Maine consistent with ICCTA and other precedents? | Unions claim Maine conflicts with statutory language and other decisions. | MassDOT asserts Maine aligns with policy to preserve service and commuter operations. | State Maine is consistent with the statutory framework and long-standing Board policy. |
| Do the decisions cited by Unions undermine the Board’s Maine-based approach? | Unions argue Maine and related cases are distinguishable or wrongly decided. | MassDOT and Board distinguish cases by facts and purposes, preserving Maine’s approach. | No reversible inconsistency; Maine-based approach remains reasonable. |
| Does reliance on State Maine constitute an improper extension of Board jurisdiction post-ICCTA? | Unions argue post-ICCTA broadened jurisdiction beyond interstate transport. | Board limits to where freight rights are transferred; here they are not. | Board’s jurisdictional interpretation remains prudent and within ICCTA framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- State of Maine Acquisition & Operation Exemption, 8 I.C.C.2d 835 (I.C.C.1991) (state acquisition without relinquishing common carrier rights not a 10901 line)
- Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Auth. v. ICC, 718 F.2d 533 (2d Cir.1983) (municipality becomes common carrier due to freight responsibilities)
- Common Carrier Status of States, State Agencies & Instrumentalities, 363 I.C.C. 132 (I.C.C. 1982) (distinguishes abandoned vs active lines for jurisdiction)
- United Transp. Union-Illinois Legislative Bd. v. ICC, 52 F.3d 1074 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (longstanding deference to agency interpretation of 10901)
- Detroit/Wayne County Port Auth. v. ICC, 59 F.3d 1314 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Chevron step 2 review and agency interpretation of statute)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requirements and redressability discussed)