[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21039-21041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10441]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket No. AB-582]


Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc.--Adverse Abandonment--in Napa 
Valley, CA

    On April 6, 2001, the Napa Valley Flood Control and Water 
Conservation District (District) filed an adverse application under 49 
U.S.C. 10903

[[Page 21040]]

requesting that the Surface Transportation Board (Board) authorize the 
abandonment by the Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. (NVWT) of segments of 
NVWT's line located between milepost 67.50 and milepost 68.62, milepost 
68.73 and milepost 69.33, and milepost 69.44 and milepost 70.00, in 
Napa County, CA. The three segments, totaling 2.28 miles, traverse 
United States Postal Service ZIP Codes 94558 and 94559 and include the 
stations of Rocktram and Napa, CA.
    The District indicates that it filed the adverse abandonment 
application so it could proceed with plans to construct a federally-
approved flood control project on the Napa River. These plans 
assertedly would require relocating the three segments of NVWT's rail 
line. According to the District, the relocations would be performed at 
no cost to NVWT, would provide NVWT with new facilities, and would 
allow NVWT to continue operations with very little interruption during 
the relocation phase. The District maintains that NVWT has refused to 
consent to the relocations unless the District extensively upgrades 
NVWT's facilities. The District claims that this refusal delays the 
flood control project and threatens its federal funding. To overcome 
NVWT's refusal to consent to the relocations, the District asks the 
Board to grant adverse abandonment for the segments, so that it can 
proceed under state condemnation law, if necessary, to relocate the 
segments, allowing construction of the flood control facilities. This 
agency and its predecessor have long held that granting an adverse 
abandonment application would remove this agency's primary jurisdiction 
over the line, thereby subjecting the line to actions under state law, 
including condemnation.\1\
    In a decision served in this proceeding on March 30, 2001, the 
District was granted a waiver from several requirements of the Board's 
abandonment regulations in 49 CFR part 1152. Specifically, the District 
was granted waiver from 49 CFR 1152.10-14 and 1152.24(e)(1) pertaining 
to system diagram maps, and the publishing and posting notice 
requirements of 49 CFR 1152.20(a)(3) and (a)(4) and 1152.24(c). The 
decision also waived certain information required for an abandonment 
application in 49 CFR 1152.22 and permitted the District to include in 
its application only: the information called for in 49 CFR 
1152.22(a)(1) through (4), and (6) through (8); the limited service 
information and revenue data which NVWT has provided to it; the name of 
each station on the line; certain additional information; and a draft 
Federal Register notice. The District was also granted waiver from the 
consummation notification requirements in 49 CFR 1152.24(f) and the 1-
year authorization limit in 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2). However, the District 
complied with the pre-filing notice requirements of 49 CFR 
1152.20(a)(1) and (2) and 1152.20(b)(1) and served copies of its 
application on NVWT, the shipper served by the line,\2\ and other 
parties listed in 49 CFR 1152.20(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Modern Handcraft, Inc.--Abandonment, 363 I.C.C. 969 
(1981); Kansas City Pub. Ser. Frgt. Operations Exempt.--Aban., 7 
I.C.C.2d 216, 224-26 (1990); and Chelsea Property Owners--Aban.--The 
Consol. R. Corp., 8 I.C.C.2d 773, 778 (1992), aff'd sub nom. Conrail 
v. ICC, 29 F.3d 706 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
    \2\ The only shipper that is identified as being served by the 
line is B.P.B. Marco Paper Co. See Exhibit C to the District's 
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District states that, to the best of its knowledge, the line 
does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in 
the District's possession will be made available promptly to those 
requesting it. The applicant's entire case for abandonment was filed 
with the application.
    The interests of railroad employees will be protected by the 
conditions set forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 
360 I.C.C. 91 (1979).
    Any interested person may file written comments concerning the 
proposed abandonment or protests (including the protestant's entire 
opposition case) by May 21, 2001. All interested persons should be 
aware that, following any abandonment of rail service and salvage of 
the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including 
interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 
U.S.C. 10905 (49 CFR 1152.28) or for a trail use condition under 16 
U.S.C. 1247(d) (49 CFR 1152.29) must be filed by May 21, 2001. Each 
trail use request must be accompanied by a $150 filing fee. See 49 CFR 
1002.2(f)(27). However, as noted in the March 30 decision, the District 
sought waivers and exemptions from the OFA procedures in 49 CFR 1152.27 
and 49 U.S.C. 10904, the public use procedures in 49 CFR 1152.28 and 49 
U.S.C. 10905, and the trail use/rail banking procedures in 49 CFR 
1152.29. These requests will be addressed in the decision on the 
merits. The due date for applicant's reply is June 5, 2001.
    Persons opposing the proposed adverse abandonment who wish to 
participate actively and fully in the process should file a protest. 
Persons who may oppose the abandonment but who do not wish to 
participate fully in the process by submitting verified statements of 
witnesses containing detailed evidence should file comments. Parties 
seeking information concerning the filing of protests should refer to 
section 1152.25.
    All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. 
AB-582 and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, Office of 
the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20423-0001 and (2) William A. Mullins, Troutman Sanders LLP, 401 9th 
Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-2134. The original and 10 
copies of all comments or protests shall be filed with the Board with a 
certificate of service. Except as otherwise set forth in part 1152, 
every document filed with the Board must be served on all parties to 
the abandonment proceeding. 49 CFR 1104.12(a).
    Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment 
procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 
565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations 
at 49 CFR part 1152.
    The March 30 decision noted that the District had requested waiver 
from the environmental and historic preservation reporting requirements 
found in 49 CFR 1105, 49 CFR 1152.20(c), and 49 CFR 1152.22(f), arguing 
that its proposal has no environmental impact and therefore qualifies 
for treatment under 49 CFR 1105.6(c). However, the March 30 decision 
indicated that the District should make that showing in its 
application, rather than seeking a waiver.
    In its application, the District asserts the environmental and 
historic review process has already been completed and certified 
through an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers. The District further argues that the proposal 
is more like a rail relocation than an abandonment and consequently is 
exempt from environmental review because it would not exceed the 
thresholds set by the Board at 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(4 and 5). According to 
the District, the only effects of the relocation would be brief 
interruptions to NVWT's freight traffic during the six weeks of 
construction.
    The Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) has determined 
that there is no need for additional environmental or historic review 
of the District's proposal. Any environmental/historic review performed 
by the Board would be duplicative and contrary to the goals of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. SEA also agreed with the

[[Page 21041]]

District that no further environmental analysis is warranted because 
the proposed actions would not result in impacts that would exceed the 
thresholds set forth in section 1105.7(e)(4 and 5). Questions 
concerning environmental issues may be directed to SEA at (202) 565-
1545. (TDD for the hearing impaired is available at 1-800-877-8339.)
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at http://WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

    Decided: April 20, 2001.
    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10441 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P