Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad v. Oregon Department of State Lands
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21063
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Oregon Coast Scenic Railroad (Oregon Coast), a nonprofit tourist operator, entered a five-year agreement with the Port of Tillamook Bay (the Port), a federally authorized rail carrier, to perform and fund rehabilitation and maintenance of a storm-damaged segment of Port-owned track in exchange for track use.
- The agreement made Oregon Coast responsible for specified repairs, maintenance, and compliance with safety requirements; it contemplated possible reconnection to a mainline carrier and resumption of freight service during the term.
- After several weeks of work in 2014, the Oregon Department of State Lands issued a cease-and-desist order alleging Oregon Coast violated a state removal-fill permitting law applicable to waters designated Essential Salmonid Habitat.
- Oregon Coast sued in federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) preempted the state permitting law; it sought preliminary and permanent injunctions and § 1983 relief.
- The district court consolidated the preliminary injunction and merits, held Oregon Coast was not within exclusive federal jurisdiction under the ICCTA, denied relief, and dismissed. Oregon Coast appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repair work done by Oregon Coast is “transportation by rail carrier” under 49 U.S.C. § 10501(a)(1) | Work was performed under the Port’s auspices and thus should be treated as activity by the federally authorized carrier | Because Oregon Coast (a non-carrier) actually performed the work, ICCTA jurisdiction does not attach | Held: Yes — work is "by rail carrier" where a federally authorized carrier integrates, controls, and delegates essential transportation functions to a contractor |
| Whether intrastate repairs are “part of the interstate rail network” under § 10501(a)(2)(A) | Repairs aim to reconnect the track to the interstate system and are on track still federally authorized by the Port | Intrastate location of the repairs defeats interstate-network status | Held: Yes — ICCTA construed broadly; repairs intended to restore connection to interstate network and are on federally authorized track |
| Whether the state removal-fill permitting law is preempted by ICCTA § 10501(b) | The permitting regime would regulate and thus govern railroad construction/operation and is preempted | The law is a general environmental statute of statewide applicability, not an impermissible regulation of rail transportation | Held: Preempted — § 10501(b) makes Board jurisdiction exclusive and preempts state regulation that manages or governs rail transportation, including environmental permitting here |
| Standard of review / remedies after jurisdiction found | N/A — requested injunctive/declaratory relief contingent on preemption finding | N/A | Court reversed district court and remanded for further proceedings on preliminary/permanent injunctions and declaratory relief in light of preemption ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Auburn v. United States, 154 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 1998) (held § 10501(b) preempted intrastate rail repair projects aimed at reconnecting to interstate network)
- Ass’n of Am. R.R.s v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 622 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (ICCTA preempts state laws that manage or govern rail transportation; general laws may survive if they do not unreasonably interfere)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996) (statutory framework and surrounding provisions inform preemption analysis)
- N.Y. Susquehanna & W. Ry. Corp. v. Jackson, 500 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2007) (articulated test distinguishing permissible general laws from those preempted as governing rail transportation)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 944 F. Supp. 1573 (N.D. Ga. 1996) (discusses broad congressional intent to preempt state regulatory authority over railroad operations)