Printer Friendly

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or California) promulgated a broad spectrum of railroad safety regulations for railroads operating in California.  The railroads filed suit, claiming the regulations are preempted by Federal railroad safety laws, including 49 U.S.C. § 20101 et seq.  Section 20106 permits States to regulate railroad safety in subject areas where FRA has not regulated and to impose additional standards when necessary to reduce or eliminate an “essentially local safety hazard.”  The district court ruled that all but two of the CPUC’s rules are preempted; the two not preempted were its rule requiring compliance with railroad operating rules on track-train dynamics and its track rule, which the Court found necessary to reduce a local safety hazard.  The railroads appealed the district court’s nonpreemption findings to the Ninth Circuit.  First, the railroads claimed that California’s rule requiring compliance with the railroads’ operating rules for track-train dynamics is preempted due to Federal regulations covering the subject of operating rules; the government supports the court’s ruling of nonpreemption and filed an amicus brief against the railroads’ challenge.  Second, the railroads appealed to the Ninth Circuit challenging the district court’s finding of nonpreemption on the track rule, and the government filed a second amicus brief supporting the railroads’ challenge. In a decision filed June 17, 2003, the Ninth Circuit adopted a standard for determining whether a local safety hazard exists, and concluded that the State's track rule was preempted because the site in question did not constitute a local safety hazard.  The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court holding as to the nonpreemption of California’s rule requiring compliance with railroad operating rules.  However, the Ninth Circuit held that the California rule requiring approval of changes to railroad operating rules is not preempted, which reversed the district court decision on this issue. Click in the link below to read the Ninth Circuit's decision.

Decision