Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 23 <br />movement' " (49 U.S.C.A. § 10102(9)). In other words, the court found it <br />clear that the ICCTA preempted activities related to the physical movement <br />of "passengers or property." <br />Here, while the wood pellets were being transloaded from railcars onto <br />trucks, the court said there had been no STB finding that the vacuuming, <br />screening, bagging, and palletizing facilitated the loading of the pellets onto <br />the trucks. As such, the court found a remand was required "to determine <br />whether the vacuuming, screening, bagging, and palletizing facilitated the <br />transloading of the pellets from the railcars to the trucks [and thus would be <br />governed by the ICCTA] or was done solely for another, unrelated purpose <br />[and thus may be subject to local regulation]." <br />See also: New Eng. Transrail, STB Finance Docket No. 34797, 2007 WL <br />1989841 (S.T.B. Jun. 29, 2007). <br />See also: Emerson v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 503 F.3d 1126, 1129 <br />(10th Cir. 2007). <br />Case Note: <br />In reaching its decision, the court ,first determined that the STB 's decision was <br />entitled to Skidmore deference. and not Chevron deference (citing United States <br />Supreme Court cases Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, <br />Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694, 21 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) <br />1049, 14 Envtl. L. Rep. 20507 (1984) and Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 65 <br />S. Ct. 161, 89 L. Ed. 124 (1944).) Under Skidmore deference, the court would defer <br />to the STB's interpretation of the ICCTA if it was "persuasive," and would defer to <br />the STB's factual determinations if they were supported by "substantial evidence <br />and a `rational basis.' " The court explained that "agencies have no special author- <br />ity to pronounce on pre -eruption absent delegation by Congress. "Rather, "[wJhere <br />. . . Congress has not authorized a federal agency to pre-empt state law directly, <br />the weight this [c]ourt accords the agency's explanation of state law's impact on the <br />federal scheme depends on its thoroughness, consistency, and persuasiveness"; that <br />is, the agency's decision is entitled only to Skidmore deference. <br />Telecommunications Act—County <br />Board Denies Application for <br />Wireless Communications Tower <br />Facility developer challenges denial as being in <br />violation of the federal Telecommunications Act <br />Citation: Cellco Partnership v. Board of Sup'rs of Fairfax County, Va., <br />2015 WL 6445493 (E.D. Va. 2015) <br />VIRGINIA (10/22115)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />