[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66320-66326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26221]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
49 CFR Part 1152
[Docket No. EP 749 (Sub-No. 1); Docket No. EP 753]
Limiting Extensions of Trail Use Negotiating Periods; Rails-to-
Trails Conservancy--Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board or STB) is adopting a
final rule amending its regulations related to the National Trails
System Act to: (1) Provide that the initial term for Certificates or
Notices of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment will be one year (instead
of the current 180 days); (2) permit up to three one-year extensions of
the initial period if the trail sponsor and the railroad agree; and (3)
permit additional one-year extensions if the trail sponsor and the
railroad agree and extraordinary circumstances are shown.
DATES: This rule is effective on February 2, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Requests for information or questions regarding this final
rule should reference Docket No. EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al., and be
submitted either via e-filing or in writing addressed to Chief, Section
of Administration, Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board,
395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Fancher at (202) 245-0355.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal
Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 14, 2018, the National Association
of Reversionary Property Owners (NARPO) filed a petition requesting
that the Board consider issuing three rules related to 16 U.S.C.
1247(d), the codification of section 8(d) of the National Trails System
Act (Trails Act), Public Law 90-543, section 8, 82 Stat. 919, 925
(1968) (codified, as amended, at 16 U.S.C. 1241-1251). Specifically,
NARPO asked that the Board open a proceeding to consider rules that
would: (1) Limit the number of 180-day extensions of a trail use
negotiating period to six; (2) require a rail carrier or trail sponsor
negotiating an interim trail use agreement to send notice of the
issuance of a Certificate of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (CITU) or
Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (NITU) \1\ to landowners
adjacent to the right-of-way covered by the CITU or NITU; and (3)
require all entities, including government entities, filing a request
for a CITU or NITU, or extension thereof, to pay a filing fee. After
considering NARPO's petition for rulemaking and the comments received,
the Board granted the petition in part as it pertained to NARPO's first
request and instituted a rulemaking proceeding in Limiting Extensions
of Trail Use Negotiating Periods, Docket No. EP 749 (Sub-No. 1), to
propose modifications to 49 CFR 1152.29 that would limit the number of
180-day extensions of the interim trail use/railbanking negotiating
period to a maximum of six extensions, absent extraordinary
circumstances. Nat'l Ass'n of Reversionary Prop. Owners--Pet. for
Rulemaking (NPR), EP 749 et al., (STB served Oct. 2, 2018) (83 FR
50,326). The Board, however, denied NARPO's petition with regard to its
other requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NARPO's proposed rules only refer to NITUs, but, presumably,
NARPO intended to propose the same changes to CITU procedures as
there are no substantive differences between CITUs (issued in an
abandonment application proceeding) and NITUs (issued in an
abandonment exemption proceeding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 22, 2019, after the comment period closed in Docket No. EP
749 (Sub-No. 1), Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) petitioned the Board
in Rails-to-Trails Conservancy--Petition for Rulemaking, Docket No. EP
753, to institute a rulemaking proceeding to further revise section
1152.29 to establish a one-year period for any initial interim trail
use negotiating period and codify the Board's authority to grant
extensions of the negotiating period for good cause shown. Because
Docket Nos. EP 479 (Sub-No. 1) and EP 753 both pertain to the same
regulation, section 1152.29, and concern procedures for the extension
of interim trail use negotiation/railbanking negotiating periods, the
Board consolidated the two proceedings. After carefully reviewing all
the comments on the NPR and the RTC petition, the Board, in a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, proposed to establish a
one-year period for any initial interim trail use/railbanking
negotiating period, permit up to three
[[Page 66321]]
one-year extensions if the trail sponsor and railroad agree, and
provide that requests for additional one-year extensions (beyond three
extensions of the initial period) would not be favored but may be
granted if the trail sponsor and railroad agree and good cause is
shown. Limiting Extensions of Trail Use Negotiating Periods (SNPR), EP
749 (Sub-No. 1) et al., slip op. at 6, 8-9 (STB served June 6, 2019)
(84 FR 26,387).
The Board received comments from over 100 parties in response to
the SNPR. After consideration of the comments, the Board is adopting a
final rule amending its regulations related to the Trails Act as
explained below.
Background
Pursuant to the Trails Act, the Board must ``preserve established
railroad rights-of-way for future reactivation of rail service'' by
prohibiting abandonment where a trail sponsor agrees to assume certain
responsibilities for the right-of-way for use in the interim as a
trail. 16 U.S.C. 1247(d); Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. ICC, 850 F.2d 694,
699-702 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The statute expressly provides that ``if such
interim use is subject to restoration or reconstruction for railroad
purposes, such interim use shall not be treated, for [any] purposes . .
. as an abandonment.'' section 1247(d). Instead, the right-of-way is
``railbanked,'' \2\ which means that the railroad is relieved of the
current obligation to provide service over the line but that the
railroad (or any other approved rail service provider,\3\ in
appropriate circumstances) may reassert control over the right-of-way
to restore service on the line in the future. See Birt, 90 F.3d at 583;
Iowa Power--Const. Exemption--Council Bluffs, Iowa, 8 I.C.C.2d 858,
866-67 (1990); 49 CFR 1152.29.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ If a line is railbanked and designated for interim trail
use, any reversionary interests that adjoining landowners might have
under state law upon abandonment are not activated. 16 U.S.C.
1247(d); Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1, 8 (1990); Birt v. STB, 90
F.3d 580, 583 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
\3\ See King Cty., Wash.--Acquis. Exemption--BNSF Ry., FD 35148,
slip op. at 3-4 (STB served Sept. 18, 2009).
\4\ The Board and its predecessor, the Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC), have promulgated, modified, and clarified rules to
implement the Trails Act a number of times. See, e.g., Nat'l Trails
System Act & R.R. Rights-of-Way, EP 702 (STB served Apr. 30, 2012);
Aban. & Discontinuance of Rail Lines & Rail Transp. Under 49 U.S.C.
10903, 1 S.T.B. 894 (1996); Policy Statement on Rails to Trails
Conversions, EP 274 (Sub-No. 13B) (ICC served Jan. 29, 1990); Rail
Abans.--Use of Rights-of-Way as Trails--Supplemental Trails Act
Procedures, 4 I.C.C.2d 152 (1987); Rail Abans.--Use of Rights-of-Way
as Trails, 2 I.C.C.2d 591 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trails Act is invoked when a prospective trail sponsor files a
request with the Board to railbank a line that a rail carrier has
proposed to abandon. The request must include a statement of
willingness to assume responsibility for management of, legal liability
for, and payment of taxes on, the right-of-way and an acknowledgement
that interim trail use/railbanking is subject to possible future
reconstruction and reactivation of rail service at any time. 49 CFR
1152.29(a).\5\ If the railroad indicates its willingness to negotiate
an interim trail use/railbanking agreement for the line, the Board will
issue a CITU or NITU. 49 CFR 1152.29(c)(1), (d)(1). Currently, pursuant
to the Board's regulations, a CITU or NITU grants parties a 180-day
period (which can be extended by Board order) to negotiate an interim
trail use/railbanking agreement. Id.; Birt, 90 F.3d at 583, 588-90
(affirming the agency's authority to grant reasonable extensions of the
Trails Act negotiating period). See also Grantwood Vill. v. Mo. Pac.
R.R., 95 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating that the ICC ``was free
to extend [the 180-day CITU or NITU] time period for an agreement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The prospective trail sponsor's request must also include a
map depicting, and an accurate description of, the right-of-way, or
portion thereof (including mileposts), proposed to be acquired or
used for interim trail use/railbanking. 49 CFR 1152.29(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If parties reach an agreement during the interim trail use/
railbanking negotiating period, the CITU or NITU automatically
authorizes interim trail use/railbanking. Preseault, 494 U.S. at 7 n.5.
If no interim trail use/railbanking agreement is reached by the
expiration of the CITU or NITU 180-day negotiation period (and any
extension thereof), the CITU or NITU authorizes the railroad to
exercise its option to ``fully abandon'' the line by consummating the
abandonment, without further action by the agency, provided that there
are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation. Birt, 90 F.3d at
583; see also 49 CFR 1152.29(c)(1), (d)(1), (e)(2); Consummation of
Rail Line Abans. That Are Subject to Historic Pres. & Other Envtl.
Conditions, EP 678, slip op. at 3-4 (STB served Apr. 23, 2008).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Board retains jurisdiction over a rail line throughout
the interim trail use/railbanking negotiating period, any period of
interim trail use/railbanking, and any period during which rail
service is restored. The Board's jurisdiction is terminated once the
CITU or NITU is no longer in effect and the railroad has fully
abandoned the line by filing a notice of consummation under 49 CFR
1152.29(e)(2). See 16 U.S.C. 1247(d); Hayfield N. R.R. v. Chi. & N.
W. Transp. Co., 467 U.S. 622, 633 (1984); Honey Creek R.R.--Pet. for
Declaratory Order, FD 34869 et al., slip op. at 5 (STB served June
4, 2008). Upon such occurrence, the right-of-way is no longer part
of the national transportation system and will revert to any
reversionary landowner. Preseault, 494 U.S. at 5, 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration of the Initial Interim Trail Use/Railbanking Negotiating
Period
As noted above, RTC petitioned the Board to institute a rulemaking
proceeding to revise 49 CFR 1152.29 to establish a one-year period for
any initial interim trail use negotiating period and codify the Board's
authority to grant extensions of the negotiating period for good cause
shown. RTC states that, since 1987, it has tracked all abandonment
filings by the Board-assigned docket number and filing and decision
dates, and has included in its database, among other things,
information on whether the Board issued a CITU or NITU to allow interim
trail use/railbanking negotiations between a prospective trail sponsor
and a railroad. (RTC Pet. 2.) RTC further notes that, as of November
2018, its database contained records for 718 issued CITUs/NITUs dating
from 1987. (Id. at 6.) RTC asserts that, of the 718 CITUs/NITUs, at
least 393 corridors--representing 5,895.53 miles of right-of-way--were
successfully railbanked and remain railbanked today. (Id. at 7.) RTC
further asserts that, of the 370 railbanked corridors for which its
database indicated the length of negotiations,\7\ 289 railbanking
agreements (78.1%) required more than 180 days to negotiate, while
approximately half (183 of the 370 corridors) were negotiated within
one year. (RTC Pet. 7.) RTC, therefore, argues that its data supports
the conclusion that an initial railbanking negotiating period of one
year, rather than 180 days, would more closely reflect the actual
length of time required to complete railbanking negotiations. (Id.)
After considering the comments filed in response to the Board's NPR,
and the comments filed in response to RTC's petition, the Board issued
the SNPR, proposing a rule establishing a one-year initial period for
interim trail use/railbanking negotiations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ RTC states that its database lacks information on the length
of railbanking negotiations for 23 railbanked corridors. (RTC Pet.,
Decl. Griffen 2.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the parties commenting on the SNPR \8\ support the Board's
proposal, asserting that the proposal effectively balances the
interests of all affected parties and stakeholders. Many agree that
establishing a one-year interim trail use/railbanking negotiating
[[Page 66322]]
period would reduce burdens on prospective trail sponsors and railroads
related to the filing of extension requests, reduce the number of
filings requiring Board action (thereby conserving Board resources),
and more closely reflect the actual time needed to complete interim
trail use/railbanking negotiations. (See, e.g., Hunter Area Trail
Coalition Comments 1, July 8, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.; City of
St. Charles Comments 1, July 3, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Board notes that comments regarding the SNPR were due by
July 8, 2019, and replies were due by July 26, 2019. A number of
comments, however, were filed late. In the interest of having a more
complete record, all pleadings received as of the date of issuance
of this decision will be accepted into the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few commenters oppose this aspect of the Board's SNPR proposal. One
commenter argues that negotiations should be open-ended to allow
parties more time to finalize their agreements, (see Stimson Comments
1, July 8, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.), but, as discussed below,
the Board seeks to bring administrative finality to the interim trail
use/railbanking negotiating process. Two commenters express general
concerns that extended interim trail use/railbanking negotiations and
trail use harm property owners, and, without further explanation beyond
those general concerns, also seem to oppose the Board's proposal to
establish one-year negotiating periods. (See Pennsylvania Transit
Expansion Coalition Comments 1, July 8, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et
al.; Presnell Comments 1, June 19, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.) The
Board, however, is taking action here to protect against unduly
protracted interim trail use/railbanking negotiating periods and is
unpersuaded by the few comments that raise general concerns about the
Board's proposed one-year initial trail use/railbanking negotiating
period.
In light of the data from RTC and for the reasons cited in the many
comments received in support of the Board's SNPR proposal, the Board
will adopt its proposed rule changing the duration of the initial
interim trail use/railbanking negotiating period to one year. This
change would reduce burdens on parties before the Board, conserve Board
resources, and reflect more closely the actual length of time in which
many interim trail use/railbanking negotiations are completed.
Extensions of the Interim Trail Use/Railbanking Negotiating Period
In the SNPR, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al., slip op. at 8-9, the Board
sought comment on whether it should limit the number of extensions of
an interim trail use/railbanking negotiating period to three one-year
extensions, unless good cause for additional extension(s) is shown.
Most commenters support the Board's proposed rule that would permit
up to three one-year extensions of the interim trail use/railbanking
negotiating period. Commenters, however, disagree as to whether a
``good cause'' standard of review or an ``extraordinary circumstances''
standard should apply to additional one-year extensions requested
beyond the first three. Landowners and related interested parties
generally oppose any rule that would extend the interim trail use/
railbanking negotiating period for ``good cause'' and would prefer an
``extraordinary circumstances'' standard.\9\ (See, e.g., Rahmer
Comments 1, July 8, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.; Borek Comments 1,
July 8, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.; West Comments 1, June 27,
2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.) Many of these commenters argue that a
``good cause'' standard of review is too vague, lenient, subjective, or
broad. (See, e.g., Falcsik Comments 1, July 3, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1)
et al., Watt Comments 1, June 27, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.;
Pennsylvania Transit Expansion Coalition Comments 1, July 8, 2019, EP
749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.) Many commenters that support an ``extraordinary
circumstances'' standard also support the inclusion of language stating
that requests for extensions are not favored. (See, e.g., Falcsik
Comments 2, July 3, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ One commenter further asserts that a more acceptable and
reasonable standard by which to provide NITU extensions would be
``extraordinary circumstances'' limited to ``circumstances beyond a
party's control that normal prudence and experience could not
foresee, anticipate or provide for.'' (Falcsik Comments 1, July 3,
2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trail proponents, which include government entities, individuals,
and other interested parties, support the Board's proposal, which was
sought by RTC to require a showing of ``good cause'' for extensions
beyond the first three. (See, e.g., Alabama Trails Commission Comments
1, July 8, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.; Humboldt Trails Council
Comments 1, July 8, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.; Capps Comments 1,
July 8, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.; City of Chicago Comments 1,
July 5, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.) Most trail proponents urge the
Board to adopt the regulations proposed in the SNPR, including the
``good cause'' standard for granting extensions beyond the first three,
but request that the Board eliminate the proposed language that more
than three extensions are ``not favored.'' According to some, the
inclusion of this language would undermine the purposes of the Trails
Act based on what they characterize as ``vague and unsubstantiated
concerns about reducing `uncertainty for some property owners.''' (See,
e.g., Alabama Trails Commission Comments 1, July 8, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-
No. 1) et al.; Hummingbird Trail Alliance Comments 1, June 27, 2019, EP
749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.) RTC also argues that the ``not favored''
language is not supported by any demonstrated need to discourage
extension requests, would create a higher standard governing extensions
of ordinary regulatory deadlines that is unprecedented in the Board's
regulations, and would create uncertainty and invite baseless
challenges that could delay and discourage railbanking negotiations.
(RTC Comments 1, July 8, 2019, (filing ID 248138) EP 749 (Sub-No. 1).)
The Board has considered the comments received following issuance
of the NPR and the SNPR, and it continues to conclude that reasonably
limiting the number of extensions of the interim trail use/railbanking
negotiating period would foster administrative efficiency, clarity, and
finality. See NPR, EP 749 et al., slip op. at 5. Moreover, having
reviewed all the comments with respect to the different standards of
review for extension requests beyond three, the Board finds the
``extraordinary circumstances'' standard originally proposed in the
NPR--together with the proposed language in the SNPR that more than
three extensions are ``not favored''--to be more consistent with the
Board's intent than the ``good cause'' standard of review proposed in
the SNPR. The Board desires to bring more efficiency, clarity, and
finality to the interim trail use/railbanking process as Trails Act
negotiations at times have gone on for many years. NPR, EP 749 et al.,
slip op. at 5. An ``extraordinary circumstances'' standard would
achieve this goal more effectively than a more permissive ``good
cause'' standard by making clear that extensions beyond the third would
be unusual and by giving participants in Trails Act proceedings a clear
understanding of the appropriate timeframe for reaching an interim
trail use/railbanking agreement, as well as a more definitive deadline
under which to work.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Board notes that courts have held that the issuance of
a CITU or NITU and the duration of the interim trail use negotiation
period can impact takings claims cases. See Ladd v. United States,
630 F.3d 1015, 1024-25 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Caldwell v. United States,
391 F.3d 1226, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates of the ``good cause'' standard assume that the more
stringent ``extraordinary circumstances'' standard would result in
legitimate, diligently pursued negotiations being truncated, preventing
consummation of trail use
[[Page 66323]]
agreements and frustrating the policy of the Trails Act to encourage
railbanking. (See, e.g., RTC Comments 5-6, 9-10, July 8, 2019, (filing
ID 248138) EP 749 (Sub-No. 1)). Similarly, many of the commenters who
oppose language stating that additional extensions beyond three ``are
not favored'' argue that such language suggests an unnecessary
presumption against granting additional extensions. (See, e.g., Friends
of the Cheat Comments 1-2, July 16, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.;
Transportation for America Comments 1; June 21, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No.
1) et al.) Indeed, these commenters appear to support a ``good cause''
standard precisely because that standard would be liberal and would
allow for potentially open-ended extensions. (See, e.g., RTC Pet. 10-
12.)
However, adopting a more liberal standard would undercut the
Board's goals in this rulemaking. The Board must balance the need to
allow parties enough time to complete their negotiations and finalize
an interim trail use/railbanking agreement with the need to conclude
the Trails Act process within a reasonable amount of time. Four years
is a significant amount of time to reach an interim trail use/
railbanking agreement. Based on the record here, the Board does not
anticipate that the ``extraordinary circumstances'' standard will
impair the ability of prospective trail sponsors and railroads,
operating diligently and in good faith, to successfully conclude
interim trail use/railbanking agreements. The record supports the
conclusion that an ``extraordinary circumstances'' standard would be
implicated in only a relatively small percentage of cases. Based on
RTC's data, 327 out of 370 negotiated Trails Act agreements
(approximately 88%) have been reached within four years--that is,
before an ``extraordinary circumstances'' requirement would even apply
under the rule adopted here. (See RTC Pet., Decl. Griffen 2.)
Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, parties who have reached an
interim trail use/railbanking agreement have been able to do so within
a four-year period such as that established by this final rule (a one-
year initial negotiation period followed by three one-year extensions).
The Board anticipates that, with a clearer understanding of the
deadlines that will apply under the final rule, parties would be better
incentivized to conclude their negotiations and enter into an agreement
in a more timely manner, which would both give landowners more
certainty by providing a timeline for the conclusion of negotiations
and conserve Board resources. Moreover, where, due to extraordinary
circumstances, parties are unable to finalize an agreement within four
years, they will retain the ability to demonstrate those extraordinary
circumstances to the Board and obtain further extensions. Given that
the Board does not anticipate this rule would impair the ability of
trail sponsors and railroads to successfully conclude interim trail
use/railbanking agreements, the final rule is consistent with the
underlying purposes of the Trails Act: To preserve established railroad
rights-of-way for future reactivation of rail service and encourage
their use in the interim as recreational trails. Preseault, 494 U.S. at
17-18.
RTC argues that there is little precedent in the Board's
regulations or regulatory practice to adopt a standard that strongly
disfavors extensions, regardless of ``any good cause for the
requests.'' (RTC Comments 11, Nov. 21, 2018, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1).)
According to RTC, the Board routinely waives its regulatory deadlines
for other stakeholders based on ``good cause shown.'' (Id. (citing
Buckingham Branch R.R.--Change in Operators Exemption--Cassatt Mgmt.,
LLC, FD 36202 (STB served July 31, 2018).) However, based on the
Board's experience with Trails Act negotiations, some of which have
gone on for more than a decade, the Board finds that a different,
``extraordinary circumstances'' standard of review for such cases is
warranted and appropriate. As noted above, the Board believes that this
standard will improve the efficiency, clarity, and finality of the
Trails Act process while balancing the objectives of trail proponents,
landowners, railroads, and the agency. It has been long recognized that
agencies have broad discretion to manage and control their own dockets
and proceedings. See Neighborhood TV Co. v. FCC, 742 F.2d 629, 636
(D.C. Cir. 1984) (``There is a general principle that `[i]t is always
within the discretion of a court or an administrative agency to relax
or modify its procedural rules adopted for the orderly transaction of
business when in a given case the ends of justice require it.''')
(quoting Am. Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Serv., 397 U.S. 532, 539
(1970)).\11\ Therefore, the Board may, in its discretion, modify its
Trails Act procedures to accomplish the goals set forth in the NPR and
SNPR.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See also GTE Serv. Corp. v. FCC, 782 F.2d 263, 273-74 &
n.12 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (affirming agencies' inherent power to control
their own dockets); Ass'n of Buss. Advocating Tariff Equity v.
Hanzlik, 779 F.2d 697, 701 & n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (same); FTC v.
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 626 F.2d 966, 975 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
(same); Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. SEC, 606 F.2d 1031, 1056
(D.C. Cir. 1979) (same).
\12\ In any event, ``extraordinary'' circumstances is not an
uncommon standard and is used in a variety of regulatory and
procedural contexts, including in the Board's own regulations. See,
e.g., Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33 (1980) (per
curiam) (mandamus); City of Orville v. FERC, 147 F.3d 979 (D.C. Cir.
1998) (timeliness of intervention); 43 CFR 4.403 (reconsideration of
final decision); 5 CFR 185.110 (late filing of answer); 49 CFR
1002.2(e)(2) (Board will accept requests for fee waivers in
extraordinary situations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in jointly filed comments in response to both the NPR and
SNPR, Madison County Mass Transit District and the Iowa Natural
Heritage Foundation (MCTD/INHF) argue that the Board's sole basis for
any limitation on the CITU or NITU negotiation period is dicta in Birt,
90 F.3d at 589, which notes that NITU extensions ``ad infinitum'' could
have the undesirable effect of ``allowing the railroad to stop service
without either relinquishing its rights to the easement or putting the
right-of-way to productive use.'' (MCTD/INHF Comments 6-7, Oct. 25,
2018, EP 749 et al.); MCTD/INHF Comments 6-7, July 5, 2019, EP 749
(Sub-No. 1) et al.) MCTD/INHF asserts that there is no authority in 16
U.S.C. 1247(d) or in rail transportation policy generally to impose any
limitations on the NITU negotiating period. (MCTD/INHF Comments 11,
Oct. 25, 2018, EP 749 et al.) Similarly, the Missouri Central Railroad
Company (MCRR) argues that the Board's proposal is unnecessary given
that the Board can and does evaluate extension requests on a case-by-
case basis. (MCRR Comments 2, Nov. 1, 2018, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1); MCRR
Comments 1, July 2, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.) Nevertheless, MCRR
states that it understands the need for administrative finality. (MCRR
Comments 1, July 2, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.)
MCTD/INHF misinterpret Birt. The court in Birt found that the
Board's predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), could,
in its discretion, interpret 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) to allow it to grant
reasonable extensions of the Trails Act negotiating period. See 90 F.3d
at 588-89. That holding is entirely consistent with the Board's
determination in the final rule here. Nothing in Birt or the rest of
MCTD/INHF's comments provides support for the proposition that the
Board may not impose reasonable restrictions on the number of
extensions it grants. As noted above, agencies have the discretion to
modify procedural rules ``when in a given case the ends of justice
require it.'' See Neighborhood TV, 742 F.2d at 636. Here, as discussed
above, adoption of a
[[Page 66324]]
rule establishing a one-year initial negotiating period, allowing three
one-year extensions, and permitting additional one-year extensions if
extraordinary circumstances are shown is reasonable and strikes an
appropriate balance between the interests of landowners, trail
proponents, railroads, and the agency. The final rule will lead to more
efficiency, clarity, and finality in the Trails Act process, reducing
burdens on parties, conserving Board resources, and providing greater
overall certainty, while also providing a reasonable amount of time (at
least four years) for railroads and prospective trail sponsors to
negotiate voluntary agreements for interim trail use/railbanking.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ As noted above, based on RTC's data, approximately 88% of
voluntary interim trail use/railbanking agreements have been reached
within four years. (See RTC Pet., Decl. Griffen 2.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Issues
In its petition, NARPO requested that the Board require a rail
carrier or trail sponsor to ``send notice'' to adjoining landowners
following the issuance of a CITU or NITU. (NARPO Pet. 4.) In the NPR,
the Board found that NARPO had not provided a sufficient basis for
altering the existing notice requirements. NPR, EP 749 et al., slip op.
at 6-7. In its comments in response to the NPR, NARPO asks the Board to
further consider NARPO's request to require rail carriers to provide
``due process notice'' to property owners. (NARPO Reply 1-2, Nov. 20,
2018, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1)). As stated in the NPR, the Board, and its
predecessor, the ICC, have repeatedly considered similar notice
proposals by NARPO and declined to adopt such a rule. See Nat'l Ass'n
of Reversionary Prop. Owners v. STB, 158 F.3d 135 (D.C. Cir. 1998);
Nat'l Trails System Act & R.R. Rights-of-Way, EP 702, slip op. at 7-8
(STB served Feb. 16, 2011); Rail Abans.--Use of Rights-of-Way as
Trails--Supplemental Trails Act Procedures, EP 274 (Sub-No. 13) (ICC
served July 28, 1994). NARPO has provided the Board no basis for
altering that position.
NARPO also argues that the Board should ``rein in the games the
railroads are playing'' with NITU extensions and the Section 106
process of the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108.
(NARPO Reply 6, Nov. 20, 2018, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1)). According to NARPO,
rail carriers use the need to complete the Section 106 process and
comply with certain other types of environmental conditions imposed
during the environmental review process to extend the time available to
consummate abandonments under 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2)--with the goal that
prospective trail sponsors, during such time, can raise the necessary
capital to acquire rights-of-way for interim trail use/railbanking.
(Id.)
Similarly, certain landowners collectively filed comments arguing
that the Board's SNPR omits ``a necessary corollary concern to
extensions of temporary and permanent trail use negotiating periods.''
(Nelson et al. Comments 1, June 28, 2019, EP 749 (Sub-No. 1) et al.)
These landowners assert that, if there are limits on the number of
extensions of the CITU or NITU negotiating period, there, likewise,
``should be a concurrent amendment pertaining to the limitation of
consummation of abandonment after these newly enlarged negotiation
periods, and the likelihood of the termination/vacation of a NITU.''
(Id. at 4.) They propose four amendments to the Board's regulations at
section 1152.29(e), governing notices of consummation of abandonments;
these proposed changes include a proposal that ``a railroad's
consummation of abandonment shall automatically occur 180 days after
the expiration or vacation of a NITU.'' (Id. at 5.)
A notice of consummation is required in every abandonment case in
which a railroad decides to exercise its authority to abandon a rail
line and thereby terminate the Board's jurisdiction--not just in
abandonment proceedings where a trail use condition has been imposed.
49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2); Honey Creek, FD 34869 et al., slip op. at 5.
Moreover, certain other conditions commonly imposed in abandonment
proceedings to implement provisions of law unrelated to the Trails Act
can affect the timing and permissibility of a railroad's filing a
notice consummating an abandonment. See Consummation of Rail Line
Abans. that are Subject to Historic Pres. & Other Envtl. Conditions, EP
678 (STB served Apr. 23, 2008). Any proposal that would alter or
otherwise impact how and when consummation of abandonment can take
place is beyond the scope of this proceeding, which relates only to
restrictions on the negotiating periods for interim trail use/
railbanking, not the broader issues implicated in the consummation of
abandonments in general. Thus, the Board declines to address the
comments and proposals relating to the filing of a consummation notice
under section 1152.29(e).
Final Rule
For the reasons discussed above, and as set forth in the Appendix,
the Board is adopting a final rule to amend its regulations to: (1)
Provide that the initial term for CITUs or NITUs will be one year
(instead of the current 180 days); (2) permit up to three one-year
extensions of the initial period if the trail sponsor and the railroad
agree; and (3) permit additional one-year extensions if the trail
sponsor and the railroad agree and extraordinary circumstances are
shown. Requests for additional extensions will not be favored but may
be granted if the trail sponsor and railroad agree and ``extraordinary
circumstances'' are shown.\14\ A showing of ``extraordinary
circumstances'' will depend on the specific facts of each case but
might include, for example, specific evidence that necessary financing
is imminent or specific evidence of problems or complications
demonstrably beyond the negotiators' control that arise in connection
with an unusually lengthy, multi-jurisdictional trail. It is unlikely
that issues within negotiators' control, such as insurance coverage,
title review, appraisal issues, or personnel turnover, will constitute
extraordinary circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In addition to the changes described here, the Appendix
includes other non-substantive changes to the rules in section
1152.29 (e.g., adding paragraph headings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aspect of the final rule establishing a one-year duration for
any initial interim trail use/railbanking negotiating period will apply
to any new CITU or NITU requested on or after the effective date of the
rule. Parties in negotiations under existing CITUs or NITUs on the
effective date of these rules who wish to extend their negotiating
period will be required to seek extensions of one year, rather than 180
days as is the current common practice (or any other duration). The
aspect of the final rule that limits the number of one-year extensions
of an interim trail use/railbanking negotiating period to three will
apply both to new CITUs or NITUs requested on or after the rule's
effective date and to cases where a CITU or NITU was requested before
the final rule took effect. In the latter instance, a showing of
extraordinary circumstances will be required for any request that would
extend the interim trail use/railbanking negotiating period to a date
after the four-year anniversary of the issuance of the CITU or NITU
(including cases where the existing CITU or NITU already extends beyond
that anniversary), unless the request is eligible for the transitional
measure described below.
In the NPR, the Board stated that it may more liberally provide
additional
[[Page 66325]]
extensions for extraordinary circumstances in certain instances in
which a CITU or NITU is pending when this rule takes effect. NPR, EP
749 et al., slip op. at 8. The Board clarifies now that, as a
transitional measure, parties engaged in negotiations under an existing
CITU or NITU that was originally issued before February 2, 2017, may
request one additional extension of one year, beyond the four-year
anniversary of the issuance of the CITU or NITU, without showing
extraordinary circumstances.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the
effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze
effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3)
make the analysis available for public comment. Section 601-604. In its
final rule, the agency must either include a final regulatory
flexibility analysis, section 604(a), or certify that the proposed rule
would not have a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' section 605(b). The impact must be a direct impact on small
entities ``whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated'' by the proposed
rule. White Eagle Coop. v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 480 (7th Cir. 2009).
In the SNPR, the Board certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA.\15\
The Board explained that its proposed changes to its regulations would
improve the efficiency, clarity, and finality of its interim trail use/
railbanking procedures and would not mandate the conduct of small
entities. Indeed, the changes proposed are largely procedural and would
not have a significant economic impact on Class III rail carriers or
prospective trail sponsors (whether as small businesses, not-for-
profits, or small governmental jurisdictions) to which the RFA applies.
The proposed rules would lengthen, from 180 days to one year, the
duration of the initial voluntary interim trail use/railbanking
negotiating period and the current typical extension periods, reducing
the frequency with which trail sponsors and railroads would need to
file extension requests and replies. The Board, therefore, noted that
the impact of the proposed rule would be a reduction in the paperwork
burden for small entities. Further, the Board asserted that the
economic impact of the reduction in paperwork, if any, would be minimal
and entirely beneficial to small entities as such entities would have
reduced filing burdens associated with negotiating an interim trail
use/railbanking agreement. Therefore, the Board certified under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that these proposed rules, if promulgated, would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For the purpose of RFA analysis for rail carriers subject
to Board jurisdiction, the Board defines a ``small business'' as
only including those rail carriers classified as Class III rail
carriers under 49 CFR 1201.1-1. See Small Entity Size Standards
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EP 719 (STB served June 30,
2016) (with Board Member Begeman dissenting). Class III carriers
have annual operating revenues of $20 million or less in 1991
dollars, or $39,194,876 or less when adjusted for inflation using
2018 data. Class II rail carriers have annual operating revenues of
less than $250 million but in excess of $20 million in 1991 dollars,
or $489,935,956 and $39,194,876 respectively, when adjusted for
inflation using 2018 data. The Board calculates the revenue deflator
factor annually and publishes the railroad revenue thresholds in
decisions and on its website. 49 CFR 1201.1-1; Indexing the Annual
Operating Revenues of R.Rs., EP 748 (STB served June 14, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule adopted here revises the rules proposed in the SNPR;
however, the same basis for the Board's certification of the proposed
rule applies to the final rule. Therefore, the Board again certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the
meaning of the RFA. A copy of this decision will be served upon the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Offices of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business
Administration, Washington, DC 20416.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In this proceeding, the Board is modifying an existing collection
of information that is currently approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) through September 30, 2021, under the collection of
Preservation of Rail Service (OMB Control No. 2140-0022). In the SNPR,
the Board sought comments pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3549, and OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(3)
regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information, as modified in
the proposed rule in the Appendix, is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the
collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's
burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, when appropriate. No comments were received pertaining to
the collection of this information under the PRA.
This modification to an existing collection will be submitted to
OMB for review as required under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), and 5 CFR
1320.11.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule
as a non-major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1152
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts.
It is ordered:
1. The Board adopts the final rule set forth in this decision.
Notice of the final rule will be published in the Federal Register.
2. All pleadings received by the Board as of the date of issuance
of this decision are accepted into the record.
3. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration,
Washington, DC 20416.
4. This decision is effective on February 2, 2020.
Decided: November 27, 2019.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, and Oberman.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface
Transportation Board amends part 1152 of title 49, chapter X, of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 1152--ABANDONMENT AND DISCONTINUANCE OF RAIL LINES AND RAIL
TRANSPORTATION UNDER 49 U.S.C. 10903
0
1. The authority citation for part 1152 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 11 U.S.C. 1170; 16 U.S.C. 1247(d) and 1248; 45 U.S.C.
744; and 49 U.S.C. 1301, 1321(a), 10502, 10903-10905, and 11161.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1152.29 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), adding a paragraph heading;
0
b. In paragraph (b), adding a paragraph heading;
0
c. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), removing the words ``Sec. 1152.29(a)'' and
adding in its
[[Page 66326]]
place the words ``paragraph (a) of this section'';
0
d. In paragraph (c), revising the paragraph heading;
0
e. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
0
f. In paragraph (c)(3), removing the words ``49 CFR part 1150'' and
adding in its place the words ``part 1150 of this title'';
0
g. In paragraph (d), revising the paragraph heading;
0
h. Revising paragraph (d)(1);
0
i. In paragraph (d)(3), removing ``49 CFR part 1150'' and adding in its
place the words ``part 1150 of this title'';
0
j. In paragraph (e), adding a paragraph heading;
0
k. In paragraph (f), adding a paragraph heading;
0
l. In paragraph (g), adding a paragraph heading and removing the words
``180 days'' and adding in its place the words ``one year'';
0
m. In paragraph (h), adding a paragraph heading.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 1152.29 Prospective use of rights-of-way for interim trail use
and railbanking.
(a) Contents of request for interim trail use. * * *
(b) When to file. * * *
(c) Abandonment application proceedings. (1) In abandonment
application proceedings, if continued rail service does not occur
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10904 and Sec. 1152.27, and a railroad agrees to
negotiate an interim trail use/railbanking agreement, then the Board
will issue a CITU to the railroad and to the interim trail sponsor for
that portion of the right-of-way as to which both parties are willing
to negotiate.
(i) The CITU will permit the railroad to discontinue service,
cancel any applicable tariffs, and salvage track and material
consistent with interim trail use and railbanking, as long as such
actions are consistent with any other Board order, 30 days after the
date the CITU is issued; and permit the railroad to fully abandon the
line if no interim trail use agreement is reached within one year from
the date on which the CITU is issued, subject to appropriate
conditions, including labor protection and environmental matters.
(ii) Parties may request a Board order to extend, for one-year
periods, the interim trail use negotiation period. Up to three one-year
extensions of the initial period may be granted if the trail sponsor
and the railroad agree. Additional one-year extensions, beyond three
extensions of the initial period, are not favored but may be granted if
the trail sponsor and the railroad agree and extraordinary
circumstances are shown.
* * * * *
(d) Abandonment exemption proceedings. (1) In abandonment exemption
proceedings, if continued rail service does not occur under 49 U.S.C.
10904 and Sec. 1152.27, and a railroad agrees to negotiate an interim
trail use/railbanking agreement, then the Board will issue a Notice of
Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (NITU) to the railroad and to the
interim trail sponsor for the portion of the right-of-way as to which
both parties are willing to negotiate.
(i) The NITU will permit the railroad to discontinue service,
cancel any applicable tariffs, and salvage track and materials,
consistent with interim trail use and railbanking, as long as such
actions are consistent with any other Board order, 30 days after the
date the NITU is issued; and permit the railroad to fully abandon the
line if no interim trail use agreement is reached within one year from
the date on which the NITU is issued, subject to appropriate
conditions, including labor protection and environmental matters.
(ii) Parties may request a Board order to extend, for one-year
periods, the interim trail use negotiation period. Up to three one-year
extensions of the initial period may be granted if the trail sponsor
and railroad agree. Additional one-year extensions, beyond three
extensions of the initial period, are not favored but may be granted if
the trail sponsor and railroad agree and extraordinary circumstances
are shown.
* * * * *
(e) Late-filed requests; notices of consummation. * * *
(f) Substitution of trail user. * * *
(g) Consent after Board decision or notice. * * *
(h) Notice of interim trail use agreement reached.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-26221 Filed 12-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P