Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Railroad Commission of Texas
Docket: 87-1466
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; July 29, 1988; Federal Appellate Court
Appellees, a group of railroads, filed suit against the Texas Railroad Commission to block the enforcement of 16 TEX. ADMIN. CODE Sec. 5.622, which mandates the use of a caboose or alternative safety equipment on most trains in Texas. The district court ruled that this state regulation was completely preempted by three federal statutes: the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act (LBIA), the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), leading to a grant of declaratory and injunctive relief favoring the railroads. The appellate court affirmed this decision, emphasizing the preemptive effect of the FRSA, which was enacted to enhance railroad safety and reduce accidents.
Historically, cabooses played a critical role in train operation, providing braking control and crew observation capabilities. However, advancements in technology have significantly reduced their necessity, prompting major railroads to eliminate cabooses on many trains due to their associated costs. The Texas Railroad Commission's regulation requires occupied cabooses on trains carrying hazardous materials or exceeding 2,000 feet in length without certain monitoring devices. The district court found that, while the FRSA preempted Sec. 5.622 entirely, it also identified specific subsections of the regulation that were preempted by the combined effects of the FRSA, LBIA, and HMTA. The FRSA is enforced by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which is responsible for railroad safety regulations.
The Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) establishes a framework for national uniformity in railroad safety laws, allowing states to maintain or adopt laws until the Secretary of Transportation has addressed the same subject matter. States can implement stricter regulations to mitigate local safety hazards, provided they do not conflict with federal laws or unduly burden interstate commerce. The FRSA mandates that states cannot regulate areas covered by federal standards unless addressing specific local safety issues. The inquiry focuses on whether the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has implicitly preempted state regulation regarding cabooses on trains.
Implied preemption occurs when the lack of federal regulation in a specific area implies that state regulations are not appropriate. In previous cases, such as MOPAC I, the court found that the FRSA does not completely preempt state regulation since it allows for state authority, particularly regarding rail walkways. However, the current case presents a different scenario, as the FRA has actively considered safety in cabooseless operations, as evidenced by background reports linked to regulations on end-of-train telemetry devices. These reports reflect concerns raised about safety without cabooses, indicating that the FRA has addressed the issue of cabooses in its regulatory considerations. Consequently, the court concludes that the FRA has implicitly preempted state regulation concerning cabooses, differing from the previous findings related to rail walkways.
The FRA asserts that it does not mandate the use of cabooses on trains and that decisions regarding caboose usage are subject to collective bargaining rather than federal or state regulation. The FRA does not view the absence of a caboose as a safety concern and indicates that the final rule facilitates economic benefits from cabooseless operations without determining their necessity. The FRA's stance implies preemption of state regulations concerning cabooses, as it has chosen not to regulate this issue and leaves it to collective bargaining. Additionally, federal law generally preempts state regulations affecting train safety and equipment, with historical cases such as Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. and Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona illustrating that state laws imposing requirements on trains can impose burdens on interstate commerce. Specifically, a Texas caboose requirement could necessitate adjustments that impede the flow of commerce, similar to the burdens identified in the Southern Pacific case, where state laws affected train operations across state lines. Thus, state regulations on cabooses are considered a substantial burden on commerce, leading to the conclusion that they are preempted by federal law.
Federal preemption invalidates Texas's regulation requiring cabooses on freight trains, as determined by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The FRA does not classify the absence of a caboose as a safety issue, and the burden analysis on commerce underscores the necessity for preemption. Railroads may bypass the caboose requirement if they meet specific regulatory criteria, but this option is limited and does not apply when transporting hazardous materials. Additionally, devices that may indirectly relate to the caboose requirement, such as load and overheating detectors, fall under federal jurisdiction and are not subject to state regulation. The court affirmed the district court's decision, focusing solely on the preemption issue and avoiding constitutional considerations unless absolutely necessary. The relevant regulation (Sec. 5.622) mandates that Texas railroads must include a caboose on freight trains, with specific exceptions related to hazardous materials and operational conditions.
A caboose is not mandatory on freight trains if specific conditions are met: (1) flag protection against following trains is not required, (2) the track has wayside detectors for overheated journals and dragging equipment, capable of communicating safety information to the train crew, (3) high-shifted load detectors are installed where necessary, (4) an operating telemetry device on the rear car communicates motion, brakepipe pressure, and power status, (5) a counting device allows the engineer to determine train length, and (6) no cars with open-top loads exceeding line clearances are placed more than 2,000 feet behind the locomotive. Railroad corporations may apply for a variance from these requirements, which will be processed according to specific procedural rules, while the Commission may approve applications for good cause. Compliance is required within six months of the section's effective date. The document acknowledges potential conflicts between state regulation and federal preemption, referencing legislative history indicating that states may maintain safety regulations until federal rules are established. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) does not consider caboose use a safety concern, with few exceptions noted, such as requirements for fire extinguishers and first aid kits on cabooses, and state regulations not being preempted in certain circumstances.
A distinction is made from the Supreme Court's decision in Terminal Railroad Ass'n v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, which found that a state caboose regulation did not impose an unconstitutional burden on commerce, as it was not a preemption case and lacked federal conflict. The current situation involves significant federal regulatory authority over train safety, making state regulations on locomotive safety equipment likely ineffective. The burden on commerce from state caboose requirements is substantial, as it forces freight trains entering Texas to either stop to add a caboose or carry one through other states, similar to the burden imposed by Arizona's train length limitations as discussed in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona. Here, the federal government has determined that cabooses do not present a safety issue, reinforcing the argument for federal preemption of state regulations. Additionally, railroads can be exempt from the caboose requirement if they meet specific regulatory criteria, but any equipment requirement intended to indirectly enforce additional safety measures is also preempted by federal law.
The installation of detectors and devices within locomotives for monitoring is noted, but locomotives themselves are not subject to any regulatory requirements. Consequently, Texas' regulation mandating cabooses on trains is preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) and its enforcing body, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). As a result, Section 5.622 is deemed invalid, and the district court's decision is affirmed. The court focused solely on the preemption issue, avoiding additional constitutional claims regarding the commerce clause and contract clause unless necessary.
Section 5.622 mandates that each railroad in Texas must have a caboose with at least one employee on freight trains subject to FRA air system inspection rules, with specific exceptions for trains carrying hazardous materials. The caboose must be equipped for two-way radio communication. Exemptions from the caboose requirement apply to trains that are 2,000 feet or shorter, operating in designated yard limits, or meeting certain safety conditions, including adequate flag protection and detection systems for defects and high-shifted loads.
An operating telemetry device on the rear-most car communicates critical information—motion, brakepipe pressure, and power condition—to the locomotive engineer. Additionally, a counting device allows the engineer to determine the train's length. The regulation prohibits cars with open top loads that exceed published railway line clearances from being placed more than 2,000 feet behind the locomotive. Railroad corporations can request a variance from these requirements using a prescribed form, governed by specific procedural rules. Compliance with these provisions is mandated within six months of the section's effective date.
The Commission's contention regarding Section 434's role in state regulation amidst the absence of federal law is acknowledged, but legislative history suggests no congressional intent for states to regulate railroad safety where the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has not acted. States may maintain laws relating to railroad safety until federal regulations are established, indicating a transitional role for states. The FRA has determined that cabooses do not pose a safety concern, with only minor exceptions noted, such as the requirement for fire extinguishers and first aid kits.
The excerpt distinguishes this case from Terminal Railroad Ass'n. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, where the Supreme Court did not find a conflict between state and federal regulations, as it did not involve preemption. The earlier case was based on safety considerations that predate many modern safety advancements.
