## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1116 N OR FOL K S OUT HE R N R AILW AY C OMPAN Y, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v.
C HA RLES E. B OXand the oth er Com m issi one rs o fthe I l l i no i s Comm er ce Co m m i ss i o n, D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the NorthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C641

—V irgin ia M . Ken dall, Ju dge .
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 8, 2008

— D ECIDED F EB RU AR Y 11, 2009

Befo re E A S T ER BR OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie

f Judg e . I l l i no i s r equi r es ra i l s wi tc hi ng yar ds bui l t o r substa nti al l y re novat ed afterFebruar y 2 005 to i nc l ude wal k way s, p ar al l elt o e ac h t r ac k, f o r pe r so ns who wor kthe r e. 6 25 IL C S 5 / 18 c– 74 01
. 1; 9 2 I l l

. Adm i n.2 N o. 08

- 1116 Code §154 6. 10 et s eq . Nor f olkS o uthe r n Ra i l way c o nte n d s t h at fed er al la w su p er se d es th is re q u ire m e n t. A fede r alr egul ati on “ co ve r i ngthe s ubj ec t m at te r o fthe S ta te r equi r ement ” pr ee m pts i t. 4 9 U. S
. C. §2 01 06
. And e v e n i f no fe de r a l r e g ul a t i o n c o v e r s the s ubj e c t, st ate s ar e forbi d d en t o adopt l aw s o r re gul ati ons that confl i ct w i th o r preve nt achi eve m ent o ffedera l o bj ecti ves. S ee CSX Tran s por t at i on, Inc . v. E a st e rwood, 507 U
. S. 658 (1993). The di st r i ctc o ur t det er m i ne d tha t th e na ti o na l g o ve r nm en t ha s no t ado pte d a ny r egul at i o n “ co ve r i ngthe subj ect m att er ” o fpaths adj oi ni ng r ai l road t ra cks. 20 07 U .S. D ist . L EXIS 2 3 8 7 9 ( N. D. I l l

. M a r . 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 )
. Th e n, af ter a be nch tr i al, the cour t f ound that I l l i noi s’ s r equi re m ents do not confl i ct with any federa l o b j ec tive. 20 07 U
. S. Dis t. L EXIS92 367 ( N
. D. I l l

. Dec. 17, 20 07)
. The co urt enter ed j ud g men tf o r the s t a t e , a nd the r a i l r o a d h a s a pp e a l e d. Se ver alst ate s hav e l aw s o r re gul ati ons re quir i ng walk

w ays i n ra i l swit chi ng yar ds. Both st ate and federa l co urts are d iv id ed on th e qu estion w he th er thes e rules are com p atible w ith fede ral law

. Com p are So u thern Pacific Tran s por t at i on Co. v. Cali f or ni a Publ i c U t i l i t i e s C o m m i s s i on , 820 F. 2d 1111 (9th Cir. 1987 ) (Ca li fornia rule s v a li d ), E lsto n v . U ni o n P a c i

fic R .R
. , 74 P. 3d 478 ( Col o. A pp . 20 03) ( Col o r ado r ul es v al i d) , a nd CSX Tran spor t at i on, Inc . v. M il l er, 1 59 M d. App. 1 23 , 8 58 A. 2d 10 25 ( 20 04 ) ( M ar y l an d rul es val i d), withM i s s our iPaci f i c R.R . v . Te xas Rai l r oad C o m m i s s i on , 94 8 F
. 2d 179 ( 5th Ci r. 19 91) ( Texas r ule s pr ee m pte d) , a nd B la ckv. Sea bo a rd S ystem R .R
. , 48 7 N
. E.2 d 468 ( I nd

. A pp . 19 86) ( I nd i ana r ule s pre em pted). These d e c i s i o n s s t a r t, a s d o we , wi th th i s fe d e r a l l a w:N o. 08

- 1116 3 Law s, r egul ati ons, and or ders re l ate d to ra i l ro ad safet y and l aw s, r egul ati ons, and or ders re l ate d to ra i l ro ad secur i ty shal l be nati onal l y uniform to the ext en t pr ac ti cabl e. A S ta te may ado pt o r c o nti nue i n f or ce a l aw , r egul ati on, o r or der r el ate d to ra i l ro ad safetyo r secur i ty unti l the Se cre tary of Transporta ti on ( w i th r espectto r ai l ro ad safety m att er s) , o r the S ecr eta ryo fH om el and Secur ity ( w i th r esp ect to ra i l ro ad secur i ty m att er s) , pre sc r ibe s a r egul at i o n o r i ss ue s a n o r derc o ve r i ng the s ubj ect m att erof the St ate r equi re m ent. A S tat e m ay adopt orco nti nue i n f or ce a n additi ona l o r m or e str i ngent l aw , r egul ati on, o r or der r el ate d to ra i l ro ad safetyo r se c uri ty w hen the l aw , r egul ati on, o r or der

— ( 1) i s ne ce ss ar y to e l i m i na te o r r edu ce a n e ss en t i a l l y l o c a l s a fe t y o r s e c ur i t y h a z a r d; ( 2 ) i s n o ti n c o mpa t ib l e wi th a l a w, r e g u l a ti o n, o r o r dero fthe U ni te d St at es Gov ernm en t; a nd ( 3) d oe s no t unre aso nabl y b urden i nter sta te com m er ce. 49 U
. S. C. §201 06 ( re codi fi ed from 4 5 U.S
. C. §434 i n 199 4 and am ended in 2002 )
. N or f ol k S outher n conte n ds that federa l r egul ati ons al re ady co verthe subj ect ofwalk w ays , thus pre em pti ng the st ate ru l es ( f orI l l i noi s doe s no t c on te n d th at th ey m ay be su st ain ed u n d er th e “ es se n tia lly local

. . . haz ard ” p roviso). The m aj orpro bl em with the r ai l ro ad ’s posi ti on i s that no fed eral r egu lation de als w ith w a lkw ays. Railr oad s are4 N o. 08

- 1116 fre e t o i n st all th em , or n ot, as t h ey se e fit . A n d if ra ilro ads m ay choos e whether to have w al kways, how then coul d i t be sa id t h at ther e i s a federa l r egul ati on that f orbi ds sta tes fro m act i ng? N or f ol k S ou th er n’s answer i s th atfede r alr egul at i o ns do speci fy how ra i l lin es m u st be b uil t. S ee 49 C.F
. R. §2 13. 103. The r ai l ro ad m ust p re p ar e a roa d b ed (or s u b gr ad e) o f co m p ac te d ea rt h . A l aye r ofsub-bal l ast, m ade ofcr ushed sto ne, go es on t op ofthe ro adbed. Then a s ecti on o fsl oped bal l ast, m ade fro m sl i ghtl y s m all ercr ushed sto ne, go es on t op of th e su b-ba l l as t. The c r o ss ti es a nd r ai l s ar e l ai d o n the b alla st, w h ich tra n sm its th e loa d to th e ro ad b ed w h ile a l l o wi n g wa t e r t o d r a i n th r o u g h wi th o u t t u r n i ng t he r o a db e d t o mu d

. F e d e r a l r u l e s s e ta ma x i mu m s l o pe an d m in im u m siz e o f th e b alla st . See 49 C .F.R . §§ 2 13 .1 to 213.241 (f ou r parts covering trac k safety stan d ard s). N on e o f t h e s e r u les d ea ls w ith w alk w ay s, b u t N or folk So uthern m ai ntai ns thatthey“co ver ” the subj ect because any wal kway i s bo und to affect the s l ope o fthe bal l ast, i ts dr aina g e pr o per ti es , o r b o th

. This und er sta nd i ng o f w h at i t m eans f ora federa l regu lation to “cover” a su bj ect w ou ld m ake §20 106’s sec o nd s e nt e nc e i nt e r na l l y c o nt r a di c t o r y . He r e i s tha t sente nce ag ai n: “A State m ay a dopt orco nti nue i n f or ce a l a w, r e g ul a t i o n, o r o r de r r e l a t e d t o r a i l r o a d s a fe t y o r secur i ty unti l the Se creta ry o fTra nsport ati on ( w i th re spect to ra i l ro ad safety m atter s) , o r the S ecr eta ryo f H om el and Secur i ty ( w i th r espectto r ai l ro ad secur i ty m atters), p r escribes a regu lation or issues an ord er coverin gthe s ubj ec t m at te r o fthe S ta te r equi r ement
. ” The sen ten ce d eals w ith state l aw s and regulations t h a t areN o. 08

- 1116 5 “r el ate d to ra i l ro ad safet y and secur i ty” and prov i des that they ar e pr eem pted i fther e i s a federa l r egul at ion “c ov er in g t h e s u bj ec t m at te r of th e St at e re q u ire m en t.” N o r f o l kS o uthe r n obs er ve s th atm an y fede r alr egul at i o ns deal w i th ra i l ro ad safety
. I t necess ar i l y f ol l ows, fro m the Rai l w ay’ s per specti ve, thatany sta te regu l ati on “r el ate d to ra i l ro ad safety ” m ustbe “ c overe d” by a federa l r egul ati on. But then the se ntence w e hav e quoted i s s el f

- defe ating: Instea d ofpro vi ding a divisi on between st ate and fed eralspher es ( i n w hi ch the sta te r ul e pr ev ai ls u nles s a fede r alr ul e co ve r s th e to pi c) , the se nt en ce woul d e ffec ti ve l y r ea d: “ Alls tate l aws a nd regu lations related to rai lroad safety a n d se cu rity are pr ee m pte d. ” Tha t i s no t, ho wev er, whatthe a ctua l s en te nc e sa y s. The s tructur e o fthe s ta tu te ’ s se co nd sentence m ake s s ense onl y i fthe cate gory of “co ver i ng” federa l r egul ati ons i s a subse t o fal l to pics r el ate d to r ai l r o ad sa fety a nd s ec uri ty. And tha t i s ho w the S upr eme Co ur t ha s u nd er st o o d the wor d “ co ve r ”, g i ving i t a r el ati vel y nar ro w sco pe com pared with al l sa fety
re l ate d issues. Eas t e rwood, 50 7 U.S
. at66 4–65
. The r ule s f orr oadbed co nstr ucti on a nd m ai ntenance d o not “co ver ” the subj ect ofadj acent w al kways. N or folk Sou th er n relie s o n a p olic y s ta te m en t a s w ell as the r oadbed r egul ati ons. In 197 8 the Fe deralR ailr oad Ad m i ni strati o n t o l d r ai l r o ads t o i g no r e an y r egul at i o ns that the Occupati onalS afetyand H eal th A dm i ni str ati on h ad p re sc rib ed for w alk w ay s, b ec au se w alk w ay s in ra ilr o a d y ar d s “ ar e s o m u c ha p ar t o f th e o p er at in g e n viro nm ent that they m ust be r egul ate d by th e agencywith the pr i m ar y r esponsibi l i ty f orr ai l ro ad safety
. ” 43 F ed. Reg.6 N o. 08

- 1116 10, 587 ( 1978 )
. Thi s doe s no t s ound like a sta tem ent that th e re gul ati ons f orr oadbeds, bal l ast, and drai nage alread y d eal w ith t he top ic; the safety of w orkers on w alk w ays

— w hethertheyar e t oo st eep o r sl i pp er y, whethe r the wal k way s ar e to o c l o se to the r ai l s an d cre ate a ri sk of w orker s be i ng st ruck by m oving tr ai ns, and so on

— i s di st i nc t fr o m q ue st i o ns abo uts tabi l i tya nd drai nage oft racks. The 19 78 decl ar ati on s ugges ts that th e F RA co nt empl at ed i ss ui ngr ul es about wal k way s, b ut i n th e e n s u i n g 3 0 y e a r s i t h a s n o t d o n e s o . To t he c on tr ar y, i t has l eft in pla ce a deci si on t ake n i n 197 7 that federa l walk w ay rul es shoul d not be a dopted. I n 197 6 the FR A h ad as ked f orco m m ents on the questi on w hetheri t shoul d r equi re w al kways adj acent to the t ra cks on t restl es and bri dges. 41 Fe d. Reg. 50 , 302 ( 1976 )
. A fter r ec ei vingc o m m ent s th e F RA dec i ded no t to a ct, e xpla i ni ng tha t, “i fan e m plo yee s afetypro bl em does exi st because o fthe l ack ofwalk w ays i n a par ti cul arar ea or on a part i cul arst ructur e, r egul ati on bya St ate ag ency th at is ina b et te r p os i t i o n t o a ss es s t h e loc al n ee d is the m or e a pp ro p ri ate r esponse . ” 4 2 F ed. Reg. 22 , 184– 85 ( 1 9 7 7 )
. I l l i no i s t o o kthe F RA a ti t s wo r d. Ont o the que s t i o n whe the r I l l i no i s ’ s s y s t e m co nfl i c ts w ith fed er al ru l e s o r ob j ec tiv es . I llin ois allow s t h e ra ilro ads co nsi derabl e di scr eti on o verthe si ze, pl acem ent, a nd ma t e r i a l s o fthe wa l k wa y s . T he y ma y be mad e fr o m c o nc r et e, a sph al t, woo d, o r g r av el

. Al l tha t th e s t a t e r e q u i r e s i s th a tth e y b e n o n - s l i p p e r y, at l ea s tt wo feetwide, and sl ope no m or e th an 1 i nch ofel evat i on ch an ge for 8 inch es o f w id t h or length

. N orfol k South ern sa ys t hat wooden w al kways ar e i m pract i caland thatN o. 08

- 1116 7 i m pervi ous m ate ri al s ( concr ete o r asphal t) would dir ect rainw ate r and snow m elt tow ard the trac ks an d overwhel m the i r drainag e- co nt r o l s y st ems, s o g r av eli s th e onl y feas ibl e m ate ri al

. A t the bench tr i al, two exper ts tes ti fi ed f orN or f ol k S outher n that eve n gr avel walk w ays woul d c au se drai na g e pr o bl ems. The di st r i ctj udg e f o und o th er wi se ; unl es s th atfin di ngi s cl ea r l y e r r o ne o us , the Rai l w ay m ust l ose . J effre y M cCrack en, N or f ol k S outher n’s A ssi sta nt Vi ce Pres i dent of M ai ntenance, was i ts pri nci pal exper t. M cC racken testifi ed that the tracks in sw itching yard s are l oca ted so thatthei r cente rl i nes a re 14 feetap ar t. Bal l ast i s fl ata t the to p ( su ppo r tingthe c r o ss ti es a nd r ai l s) a nd sl op es of 1: 2 r i se ove r run atthe si de, dow n to the subba l l as t. Onl y 4 1⁄2 fee t se par at e th e fl ata r ea s atthe t o p o fthe bal l ast, so the 1: 2 si de sl ope m eans that ther e i s a V- shaped a r e a b e t we e n e a c h t r a c k

. F l a t t e n i n gth a ta r e a b y a d d i ng gr avelto f or m a w al kway t h er e would i nter fer e with drai nage, M cCrack en te sti fi ed, and thus im peri l the tr acks ’ stab il ity by i nc reasing th e risk th at m ud w ou ld form

— f or eve n though N or f ol k S outher n const ructs a drai nage sys tem o fpi pes and cul verts u n der e ach r ai l ya rd, to i m pr o v e o n n a t u r a l d r a i n a g e , mo r e g r a v e l b e t we e n the tr acks would cov ert h e inl ets o fthi s dra i nage sys tem and ham per i ts effecti venes s. M cCr ac k en’ s te st i m o ny may wel l b e so und, b utthe dist ri ct j ud ge did n ot bel i eve i t. S he ga ve tw o re aso ns. Fi rs t, the re cor d contains photo gr aphs ofthr ee of N or f ol k S ou th ern’s swit chi ng y ar ds. N one ofthe photos shows a V- shaped d epres si on be tw een a dj acent tr acks

.8 N o. 08

- 1116 Th e y s ho w, i ns t e a d, a sha l l o w s l o pe

— les s t h an th e 1 :8 re quir ed by I l l i noi s l aw , so the Rai l w ay m ay al r e adybe i n com pli ance. I ft h e Rail w ay oper ate s i ts yar ds w i th shal l ow sl opes, the j ud ge obs er ved, t h en it i s har d to see how the s tat e’ s r equi re m ents w i l l cause sa fety pro blem s. M c C ra c ke n res p on d ed th at th e y ar d s d ep ic t e d in the p h otos ar e abnor m aland experi ence drai nage probl em s, but nei ther he nor the Rai l w ay produce d p h oto
g r aph s o fy ar ds w i ththe V- sh ape d de pr es si o n tha t he described, and nei therM cCrack en norany othe r w i tness p r o d u c e d d e t a i l s ab o u tth e s u p p o s e d d r a i n a g e p r o b l e ms at the three depic ted ya rds. The j ud ge conc lu d ed that, w h at ev er M c C ra c ke n ’ s d es ign p re fer en c es m ay be , a shal l ow topogr aphy sat i sfyi ng the Illin oi s r ule s has not caused dem onst rabl e dra i nage orsa fetypro bl em s. The j ud ge’ s s eco nd reas on was an infe re nce fro m s i len c e. So m e ra ilroa d s h av e b u ilt w alk w ay s v olu n ta rily and other s hav e bui l t th em u nd erthe com pu l si on o f sta te re gul ati on. Cal i f or ni a’ s r ule s hav e be en i n f or ce for m or e than 20 yea rs . W hat has h ap pened in the pl aces w here w alkways adj oi n the tr acks ? H ave these tr acks re quir ed extr a m ai ntenance b ec ause ofdrainage problem s? Have t ra i ns dera i l ed, o r been subj ect to speed l i m i tat i ons, bec ause ofst abi l i ty probl em s t ra ceabl e t o wa l k wa y s ? Man y tho us a nd s o fmi l e s o ft r a c kmus th a ve been affecte d. ( N or f ol k Southern a l one has m or e than 30 0 m iles of tr ac k in it s Illin ois sw itc h ya rd s.) T h is fa c ilita te s s ta tis tic al a n aly sis th at co u ld id en tify ev en a sm all effec t permil e. The j udg e as k ed M cCr ac k enand the othe r expertwh etherthey had a nal yze d the exper i ence of ra i l ro ads thathave walk w ays adj acent to thei r tr ack. TheyN o. 08

- 1116 9

re pli ed that they had not. Th e j u dge as ked wh ether the y k ne w ab o ut a ny pu b l i s he d l i t e r a t ur e o n the quest i o n ; th e y r e p l i e d th a tth e y d i d n o t
. We a s k e d th e s a me questi on o f the Rai l w ay’ s a pp el l ate co unsel, wh o l i kewis e r es po nde d th at he di d no t k no w ofa ny a na l y si s o fthe effec ts o fCa l i f o r ni a’ s l aw, o fthe l aws i n Co l o r ado a nd othe r sta tes , o r of w al kways vo l untari l y c onst ructe d el sewhere. ( N ordi d counselco ntend that othe r sta tes ’ re gul ati ons differ i n any m ate ri alway fro m I l l i noi s’ s, p re ve n tin g a u se fu l co m p ar iso n .) T h at ’s a te llin g om iss ion . In M is souriPa cif ic the d istr i ct j ud ge predi cted that e nfo rce m ent o fT exas’ s r ule s w oul d advers el y a ffect drai nage and thus j eop ardize ra i l ro ad s afety; the fi fth ci rcui t hel d that the fi nd i ng was not cl ear l y e rr one ou s, and the upshot w as a decl ar ati on tha tthe T e xa s r e qu i r e men twa s p r eem pt e d. On e c a n do on ly so m u c h w ith p r oje c tio n s. T alk is ch ea p ; w h en it i s pos sibl e t o tes t w hethera predi cti on has co m e t rue, the n a t e s t i s e s s e nt i a l

. S ee B e c ht e l v . F CC, 10 F. 3d 875 (D.C
. Cir. 1993). N orfol k South ern d id n o t u s e th e op p ortu n ity to p u t it s a s s e ss m en t t o a te st . B ec au se n ot h in g in thi s r e c o r d ( o r a nyp ub l i s he d l i t e r a t ur e we coul d fi nd ) sugge sts thatthe w al kway re gul ati ons ofo therst ate s have i m peri l ed ra i l safety, or even affecte d ra i l ro ads’ co sts of m aintain ing a con stan t level of safety, the d istri ct cou rt’s fi nd i ngs o ff act ar e no t cl ear l y e rr oneo us. A nd , gi ven thos e fi nd i ngs, the sta te i s e nti tl ed to e n for ce i ts w al kw ay re quir em ent. A c c or d in g t o N or folk Sou th er n, i t is p h ys ica lly im p os sib le t o c om p ly w ith th e s t a t e ’ s r u les for s om e t ra c ks in10 N o. 08

- 1116

som e y ar ds. I t g i ves as an exam ple t ra c ks constr ucted at d i ffe r e n th e i g h t s ( t r a c k s f o r th r o u g h t r a i n s ma y b e t wo o r thr ee fee t hi gh er i n e l ev at i o n tha n a dj ac en t swi tc hi ng tracks ), w hich m ake it i m p ossib le to satisfy the stat e’s 1: 8 l i m i t on w al kway sl ope. H ow thi s prese nts a q u esti on offedera l l aw i s uncl ear . Fo r i ts part I l l i noi s insi sts that th e Ra i l way i s o ve r st at i ngthe pr oblem and tha t th e im p ossible i s nev er requ ired. For ad j acen t tracks at d if

fer en t el ev at i o ns , the s ta te sa ys, i t wi l l b e sa ti sfi ed wi tha w al kway on o ne si d e of each t ra ck, so m ethi ng tha t ca n be done eve n though ther e i sn’ t r oo m to bui l d between the t r a c k s a h i g h wa l k wa y f o r the h i g her tr a c ka nd a l ow w al kway f orthe l ower t ra ck. T h e R ai l w ay suspects that i ts defini ti on o f“i m possibi l i ty” wil l tur n out to be di ffer en t fr o m the s ta te ’ s. Butfede r alc o ur ts do no t i ss ue ad visory opinion s. N orfol k South er n m u s t try to w ork these detai l s o ut with the st ate co m m iss i on. A ny o rder that prese nts a questi on o ffedera l l aw can be r evi ew ed o nc e a c o nc r e t e di s pu t e h a s r i pe ne d. A FFI RMED

2- 11- 09