Opinion ID: 200471
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: STB's Holding

Text: 16 The analysis by the STB of federal preemption under 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b) was finely crafted. See Boston & Me. Corp., 2001 Fed. Carr. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 38,352 (May 1, 2001), available at 2001 WL 458685. Effectively, the STB said the town may not flatly ban Guilford's efforts at developing the San Vel site, as it did in its noisome trade determination, and that it may not impose pre-conditions to construction, but that it may impose reasonable and non-discriminatory environmental restrictions which do not unduly burden interstate commerce or unduly restrict the railroad from conducting its operations. The STB did not hold that all state and local regulation of Guilford's activity was preempted. It rejected Ayer's argument that the express preemption language of § 10501(b) did not apply to instances where the STB lacked licensing authority under 49 U.S.C. §§ 10901 and 10906, and it held that state and local law are preempted in those instances in limited circumstances. It held that preclearance requirements (including environmental requirements) are preempted because by their nature they unduly interfere with interstate commerce by giving the local body the ability to deny the carrier the right to construct facilities or conduct operations. The STB viewed pre-construction approval requirements as giving local authorities impermissible veto power over rail transportation issues. 17 Nonetheless, the STB found state and local regulation to be permissible where it does not interfere with interstate rail operations, and localities retain certain police powers to protect public health and safety. In its May order, the STB gave three guidelines for permissible state and local regulation: 18 1. Non-discriminatory enforcement of requirements such as building and electrical codes (other than pre-construction requirements) generally are not preempted. 19 2. A town may seek enforcement of voluntary agreements a railroad has entered into with a town. 20 3. Section 10501(b) should not be interpreted as intending to interfere with the role of state and local agencies in implementing federal environmental statutes. 21 All local regulation, in the STB's view, is subject to the same test: whether the statute or regulation is being applied to unduly restrict the railroad from conducting its operations, or unreasonably burden interstate commerce. This, said the STB, was a fact-bound question. Accordingly, the STB held that federal law preempted the noisome trade ordinance and the two town pre-construction processes — the Planning Board permit process and the Conservation Commission's pre-construction approval process. 22 The STB treated the Conservation Commission's thirty-six conditions as a separate matter and offered advice to the district court as to how to evaluate each of these: 23 Examples of solutions that appear to us to be reasonable include conditions requiring railroads to (1) share their plans with the community, when they are undertaking an activity for which another entity would require a permit; (2) use state or local best management practices when they construct railroad facilities; (3) implement appropriate precautionary measures at the railroad facility, so long as the measures are fairly applied; (4) provide representatives to meet periodically with citizen groups or local government entities to seek mutually acceptable ways to address local concerns; and (5) submit environmental monitoring or testing information to local government entities for an appropriate period of time after operations begin. 24 Communities also can enforce their local codes for electrical, building, fire, and plumbing, unless the codes are applied in a discriminatory manner, unreasonably restrict the railroad from conducting its operations, or unnecessarily burden interstate commerce. Moreover, railroads may not deny towns access in emergencies and for reasonable inspection of the railroad facilities. And to the extent a railroad is willing to undertake an activity or restriction, the activity or restriction generally should be seen as reflecting the carrier's own determination that the condition is reasonable and will not unduly burden interstate commerce. 25 The STB suggested that conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 27, and 28 would likely not be preempted, that conditions 7 and 14 would likely be preempted, and that conditions 9 and 12 were examples of areas to which Guilford could agree. In its October order denying Ayer's petition for reconsideration, Boston & Me. Corp., STB Finance Docket No. 33971, 2001 WL 1174385 (Oct 3, 2001), the STB made clear that it had engaged in no factfinding as to any of these conditions, but merely attempted to provide general guidance to the district court.