2015.04.21 PC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Docket No. FD 35749 4 request. See 49 U.S.C. § 11101.10 The Town’s orders prohibiting all rail traffic to the warehouse conflict with the federal right of Tighe to request common carrier service and the federal obligation of Pan Am, a rail common carrier, to provide that service, as well as the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction over that service. 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b)(1). As the federal courts and the Board have stated repeatedly, where a local regulation conflicts with the rights and obligations contained in the Interstate Commerce Act, federal law will preempt the local regulation. City of Auburn, 154 F.3d at 1031; City of Austell, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17236, at *19-22; CSXT, slip op. at 8-9; Town of Ayer, slip op. at 8-11. The Town’s zoning decision holds that use of the Montvale Yard as a freight yard is not allowed pursuant to municipal zoning laws, and its order requires all rail traffic to the warehouse “to immediately cease and desist.”11 Such an attempt to prohibit common carrier rail transportation directly conflicts with the most fundamental common carrier rights and obligations provided by federal law and the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction over that service. The Town’s actions are therefore plainly preempted by § 10501(b). The Town’s principal argument in support of its attempt to stop all interstate freight rail service to the warehouse is that the track immediately adjacent to the warehouse is private track, and therefore, the Town argues, federal preemption should not apply to local regulations directed at this track.12 Pan Am contests the Town’s categorization of the track as private track. 13 As an initial matter, the Town’s zoning decision and its cease and desist order are not limited to the allegedly private track. Instead, the zoning decision by its terms applies to the entire property at 43-45 Holton Street, on which the two tracks are located,14 and the cease and desist order applies by its terms to “all rail traffic to the warehouse.”15 In any event, the dispute between the parties regarding the nature of the track immediately adjacent to the warehouse is not dispositive. Even if we assume this track is private track (which we need not decide here), this does not permit the Town to deprive Tighe of its federal right to receive common carrier rail service over the track. As previously noted, Tighe has rights provided by federal law to ask for and receive common carrier rail service from Pan Am, a rail carrier providing service subject to the Board’s jurisdiction. Thus, even if we construed the Town’s action narrowly as directed solely at Tighe, and solely at a short piece of allegedly private track located adjacent to the warehouse, there remains a fundamental conflict between the Town’s regulation and the rights of Tighe and Pan Am to request and provide, 10 These federal rights and obligations include, for example, the right of a shipper to require a carrier, under certain circumstances, to construct and operate a switch connection to connect the shipper’s private side track with the interstate network. See 49 U.S.C. § 11103. 11 Pet., Ex. B at 2, 4 (Decision No. 3639 & Amended Decision After Remand). 12 Reply 1-4; Pet., Ex. B at 4 (Amended Decision After Remand). 13 See Pet. 14-17. 14 Pet., Ex. B at 2 (addressing the warehouse property at 43-45 Holton Street). 15 Id. at 4 (Amended Decision After Remand).