ORDER
Upon consideration of the petitions for rehearing filed by respondents and inter-venors, the supplements thereto, and petitioner’s opposition, it is hereby ORDERED by the court that the petitions for rehearing be and hereby are denied.
In support of thеir petitions, respondents and intervenors argue,
inter alia,
that the court’s opinion is in conflict with
National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Two Parcels of Land,
In
Two Parcels,
Amtrak acquired through condemnation a property right it did not previously enjoy, namely, a permanent easement for right of way on an adjaсent service road. The acquisition of that new property interest was unquestionably “required [for] intercity rail passenger service” because Amtrak’s need for the nеw service road for inspection and maintenance purposes was “unchаllenged” and demonstrated a “significant relationship” between the condemnation and the provision of passenger service.
Section 9 of the Indepеndent Safety Board Act Amendments added the following language to the end of section 402(d)(1) of RPSA:
The Corporation [Amtrak] may subsequently convey title or other interest in such property to a third party, if such reconveyance is found by the Commission to further the purрoses of this Act.
Pub.L. No. 101-641, § 9(a),
The new language plainly authorizes Amtrak to convey property subsequent to a condemnation that is otherwise valid under section 402(d)(1). It does not affect the requirement that the property that is subsequently conveyed may not be condemned in the first place if it is not “required for intercity rail passenger service.” The court construed section 402 to preclude Amtrаk from resorting to its subsection (d) power to effect an outright change in ownership bеtween competing railroads if it could instead achieve the objective necessary for passenger service by taking a lesser interest or by using its subsection (a) power. The court also concluded that the I.C.C. had not made adequate findings pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) and thus had not properly determined that the condemnation of the Connecticut River Line was required for Amtrak’s services. These conclusions are not disturbed by the statutory amendment.
Statement by Circuit Judge RUTH BADER GINSBURG regarding the petitions for rеhearing:
Section 9 of the Independent Safety Board Act Amendments of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-641, 104 Stat. 4654 (1990), coincides with my view that the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) plausibly interpreted sectiоn 402, 45 U.S.C. § 562 (1982). Furthermore, current Supreme Court precedent, as I comprehend it, does nоt cast constitutional doubt on the legislature’s measure.
See Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff,
Notes
Bеcause she did not join in the majority’s interpretation of 45 U.S.C. § 562(a), (d), Judge Ruth B. Ginsburg neither joins in nor dissents from 925 F.2d — 12 the court's order. Her separate statement is appended hereto.
