209 Cal. App. 4th 1513
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 135 regulates crossing blockages by trains in California.
- BNSF was convicted of two misdemeanors for blocking two crossings in Richmond by a stopped train for about an hour.
- The case framed the issue as whether G.O. 135 is preempted by ICCTA or FRSA.
- Trial court held G.O. 135 was not preempted by either statute; the court focused on FRSA in reasoning.
- The appellate court ultimately held ICCTA preempts G.O. 135, reversing the conviction.
- Key factual context: two trains (842 and 5400) interacted at Stege Intersection; 5400 blocked two crossings for at least 59 minutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which federal statute governs preemption analysis? | BNSF argues FRSA controls because it governs rail safety. | People argue ICCTA governs as it concerns railroad transportation regulation. | ICCTA governs preemption analysis. |
| Does G.O. 135 directly regulate rail transportation or primarily safety? | G.O. 135 primarily affects public safety, not rail safety, so FRSA should apply. | Regulation of blocking affects rail operations and scheduling, tying to ICCTA. | G.O. 135 directly regulates railroad operations, thus ICCTA preemption applies. |
| Is G.O. 135 preempted under ICCTA as a state regulation of rail transportation? | G.O. 135 is an antiblocking rule with broad local impact, raising preemption concerns under ICCTA. | Friberg and Elam suggest FRSA would control safety-related aspects, not ICCTA. | Yes; G.O. 135 is preempted by ICCTA. |
| Does the FRSA savings clause save G.O. 135 from preemption? | If FRSA applies, local safety concerns could be saved under §20106(a). | FRSA savings clause does not save because the regulation is statewide and would undesirably override national standards. | Not applicable since ICCTA governs; FRSA savings clause not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Island Park, LLC v. CSX Transportation, 559 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2009) (analyze FRSA preemption for rail safety as the governing framework)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (S. Ct. 1993) (FRSA preemption requires substantial subsumption of safety subject matter)
- Tyrrell v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 248 F.3d 517 (6th Cir. 2001) (FRSA governs when a state safety regulation tangentially touches rail safety)
- Plymouth I, 86 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 1996) (FRSA preemption applies to antiblocking regulations affecting rail safety)
- IC&E Railroad Co. v. Washington County, 384 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2004) (FRSA covers railroad grade crossing issues; IC&E supports FRSA scope)
- Friberg v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 267 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (antiblocking regulation impacts rail operations; ICCTA preemption)
- Elm v. City (Elam) v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 635 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2011) (FRSA preemption analysis in antiblocking contexts; distinguish from Elam)
- New York Susquehanna & Western R.R. Co. v. Jackson, 500 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2007) (ICCTA FRSA interplay in preemption analysis)