State Of West Virginia v. Interstate Commerce Commission

841 F.2d 1162, 268 U.S. App. D.C. 337, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3604
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMarch 22, 1988
Docket87-1244
StatusPublished

This text of 841 F.2d 1162 (State Of West Virginia v. Interstate Commerce Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Of West Virginia v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 841 F.2d 1162, 268 U.S. App. D.C. 337, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3604 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

Opinion

841 F.2d 1162

268 U.S.App.D.C. 337

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, ex rel. A. James MANCHIN, Treasurer
of State, Petitioner,
v.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and United States of America,
Respondents,
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co., Intervenor.

No. 87-1244.

United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Feb. 26, 1988.
Decided March 22, 1988.

J. Bradley Russell, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., State of W. Va., Charleston, W. Va., for petitioner.

Michael Martin, Atty., I.C.C., with whom Robert S. Burk, Gen. Counsel, Ellen D. Hanson, Associate Gen. Counsel, I.C.C., John J. Powers III and David Seidman, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for respondents.

Lawrence H. Richmond and Peter J. Shudtz, Baltimore, Md., were on the brief for intervenor, Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co.

Before WALD, Chief Judge, and SILBERMAN and BUCKLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion Per Curiam.

PER CURIAM:

In this case we review the decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission ("ICC" or "Commission") exempting from its full regulatory review a request by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad ("CSX") to abandon a 60.57 mile segment of track between Walker and Wilsonburg, West Virginia. The Walker-Wilsonburg segment was at one time part of an important east-west main line with a history stretching back to before the Civil War. Despite its past, the line has recently fallen into disuse, primarily because nine tunnels on the line are too low to accommodate the larger boxcars now in favor with the railroad and its shippers. Consequently, CSX has rerouted all east-west through traffic formerly carried by this line to another line capable of handling taller boxcars. Moreover, within the past three years, no local revenue traffic has originated or terminated on the line.

The ICC originally granted CSX's request for an exemption in December 1986, but later granted the State of West Virginia's petition for reconsideration and stayed its prior decision. In April 1987, after receiving numerous submissions opposing the exemption and a response from CSX, the ICC reaffirmed its original decision granting the exemption.1 West Virginia then petitioned this court for review. We review the Commission's action here to see if it was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706 (1982); Brae Corp. v. United States, 740 F.2d 1023, 1038 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct. 2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505 (1985). As we find the Commission's decision reasonable and not contrary to law, we affirm.

A rail carrier may not generally be relieved of its obligation to offer, and upon request provide, service over any of its lines without first obtaining permission from the ICC pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Secs. 10903-10906 (1982). Prior to permitting the abandonment, the Commission must find that "the present or future public convenience and necessity require or permit the abandonment." 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10903(a). In making this determination, the Commission is required to "consider whether the abandonment or discontinuance will have a serious, adverse impact on rural and community development." Id. Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10505, however, the Commission is directed to exempt a transaction from regulation when it finds that (1) its regulation is not necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy (as set out in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1010a) and (2) either the transaction is of limited scope, or regulation is not needed to protect shippers from abuse of market power. See CMC Real Estate Corp. v. ICC, 807 F.2d 1025, 1031 (D.C.Cir.1986) (exemption provision an "important cornerstone" of new flexible approach to regulating rail industry).

The Commission determined that exempting CSX's abandonment application from full regulatory review would further the rail transportation policy by expediting the regulatory process, reducing regulatory barriers to exit, ensuring sound economic conditions, and promoting an efficient rail transportation system. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10101a(2), (7), (5), and (10). The Commission also found that full regulatory proceedings were not needed to protect shippers from abuse of market power, because no local shippers had used the line in recent years and the line carried no through traffic.

We consider here two objections West Virginia has raised to the ICC decision. First, West Virginia points out that in the past three years rates charged to local coal shippers along the line jumped from $3.00 per ton to $6.18 per ton and claims these higher rates made local coal shippers uncompetitive. West Virginia suggests the railroad's purpose in raising rates was to dry up local traffic on the line so as to take advantage of the exemption provision. In its discussion of this issue, the ICC noted that under the Staggers Act of 1980, railroads have a great deal of ratemaking flexibility and that raising rates to a level where local shippers stop shipping is not necessarily improper. See Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. ICC, 819 F.2d 311, 314-15 (D.C.Cir.1987). Furthermore, the ICC did not receive challenges to the higher rates from any shippers. Based on the absence of rate challenges and the new deregulatory environment which encourages compensatory rates, it was not arbitrary and capricious for the ICC to determine that the increase in rates was not improper or part of a larger scheme to impermissibly circumvent abandonment regulations.

West Virginia also argues that the ICC should have held a hearing to determine whether the exemption conflicted with 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10101a(4) which states that it shall be part of the rail transportation policy "to ensure the development and continuation of a sound rail transportation system." (emphasis added). West Virginia contends this policy goal is particularly implicated by the abandonment of a line located in a coal region. The ICC, however, found that where no local traffic had originated on the line for over three years, it was highly speculative whether local traffic would ever support maintenance of the line. The Commission did consider and discuss the abandonment's effect on rural and community development, as it would have been required to do under Sec. 10903(a), but found that "[t]here is simply no assurance that, if the line were kept intact, enough need for rail service from the area involved would develop to make the line profitable." ICC Order, slip op. at 7. Where none but speculative suggestions for future use had been presented to it, the Commission's judgment that no hearing was required to further explore this issue was reasonable. See CMC Real Estate Corp., 807 F.2d at 1031-32 (Staggers Act eliminated requirement that Commission afford a hearing prior to approving an exemption). Even under the full procedure set out at 49 U.S.C. Secs. 10903-10906, a hearing is not obligatory. See 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10904(c)(1); Illinois v. ICC, 709 F.2d 1186, 1191 (7th Cir.1983).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Seattle & North Coast Railroad Company, Intervenors. Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, American Short Line Railroad Association, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Angelina and Neches River Railroad, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Intervenors. Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, American Short Line Railroad Association, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Angelina and Neches River Railroad, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Intervenors. Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Intervenors. American Paper Institute, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Brown Transport Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Angelina and Neches River Railroad, Brick Association of North Carolina, American Trucking Associations, Inc., National Grain and Feed Association, American Newspaper Publishers Association, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Intervenors. International Paper Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Brick Association of North Carolina, Intervenors. The National Industrial Transportation League v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Traffic League, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Eastern Industrial Traffic League, Inc., Brick Association of North Carolina, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Intervenors. Itel Corporation, Rail Division v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, East Camden & Highland Railroad Company, Funding Systems Railcar, Inc., Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., Valdosta Southern Railroad Company, Apalachicola Northern Railroad Co., Sabine River & Northern Railroad Company, Marinette, Tomahawk & Western Railroad Co., Little Rock & Western Railway Corp., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Intervenors. Ford Motor Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Brick Association of North Carolina, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Continental Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Brick Association of North Carolina, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Sysco Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Brick Association of North Carolina, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Patrick W. Simmons v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. The Aluminum Association, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Brick Association of North Carolina, Burlington Northern Railroad Company, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. The Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company, Delaware and Hudson Railway Company and Maine Central Railroad Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Intervenors. Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Limited v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Intervenors. National Railway Utilization Corporation, Pickens Railroad Co., Peninsula Terminal Co., the Mississippian Railway, Inc., Graham County Railroad, Inc., Atlantic & Western Railway Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Central Vermont Railway, Inc., Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad Company and Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Sea-Land Service, Inc. And Sea-Land Freight Service, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Totem Ocean Trailer Express, Inc., Intervenor. H.C. Spinks Clay Co., Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Sandersville Railroad Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Chattahoochee Industrial Railroad, Great Southern Paper, Leaf River Forest Products, Inc., and the Old Augusta Railroad Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company and Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, American Paper Institute, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Lamoille Valley Railroad Co., of Morrisville, Lamoille County, Vermont v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Rubber Manufacturers Association v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, National Industrial Transportation League, Intervenor. Evans Products Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Board of Port Commissioners for the City of Oakland v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, the National Industrial Transportation League v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission
740 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Circuit, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
841 F.2d 1162, 268 U.S. App. D.C. 337, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-west-virginia-v-interstate-commerce-commission-cadc-1988.