Laserfiche WebLink
Docket No. FD 35749 <br /> <br />5 <br />respectively, common carrier rail service under the Interstate Commerce Act. That conflict must <br />be resolved in favor of federal law. Accord Norfolk S. Ry. v. City of Alexandria, 608 F.3d 150, <br />158-60 (4th Cir. 2010) (city cannot seek to regulate interstate commerce indirectly by regulating <br />trucks that would use the carrier’s transload facility). Otherwise, states and localities could <br />engage in impermissible regulation of the interstate freight rail network under the guise of local <br />regulations directed at the shippers who would use the network, and thereby create the <br />patchwork of conflicting local regulations that Congress sought to avoid in the Interstate <br />Commerce Act. <br /> <br /> Accordingly, we find that the Town’s zoning decision and cease and desist order are <br />preempted by federal law. <br /> <br /> This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the <br />conservation of energy resources. <br /> <br />It is ordered: <br /> <br />1. The petition for declaratory order is granted as discussed in this decision. <br /> <br />2. The Railroad Parties’ motion to participate as amicus curiae is denied and their amicus <br />brief is not accepted into the record. <br /> <br />3. Pan Am’s motion for leave to file rebuttal is denied and its rebuttal pleading is not <br />accepted into the record. <br /> <br />4. The Concerned Parties’ notice of intent to participate is denied and their amicus brief <br />is not accepted into the record. <br /> <br />5. This decision is effective on the date of service. <br /> <br /> By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Begeman, and Commissioner Mulvey. <br />