Sorry, Mook. You have been misinformed. State and local railroad regulation has long been preempted to a significant extent. Historically, the Interstate Commerce Act was recognized as "among the most pervasive and comprehensive of federal regulatory schemes." The ICC Termination Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995)) broadened the express preemption so that both "the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board (STB) over transportation by rail carriers and "the remedies provided under federal law are exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under Federal or State law." [49 U.S.C. §10501(b), emphasis added].

The exclusivity of STB authority and the pervasiveness of the preemption has been tested in court several times and, except in the instance of immediate public safety matters, the overarching authority established in the ICCTA has been upheld all the way the US Supreme Court. See, for example, See City of Auburn v. STB, 154 F.3d at 1025, 1029-31 (9th Cir. 1998) cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1022 (1999) and Borough of Riverdale – Petition for Declaratory Order – The New York Susquehanna and Western Corporation, STB Finance Docket No. 33466 (STB served Sept 10, 1999). One court (U.S. District Court for Northern District of Georgia), for example, observed in 1996, "it is difficult to imagine a broader statement of Congress' intent to preempt state regulation authority over railroad operations than that contained in section 10501(b)."

The statutory broadening of scope gave the STB exclusive jurisdiction over rail transportation, including "the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance of spur, industrial, team, switching or side tracks or facilities, even if the tracks are located, or intended to be located entirely in one State." [See the statute at 49 U.S.C. §10501(b)(2)] STB regulations at 49 C.F.R. §1105.5(b) exempt from NEPA environmental review all actions with respect to which the STB neither has jurisdiction, nor asserts jurisdiction it may have, including actions which may be purely ministerial, or involve construction entirely within the railroad right-of-way or on land owned by the railroad. The practical effect of these regulations is that, unless the construction is an extension into a new market, no environmental assessment, much less an EIS, is required. Several Courts have held that this statutory preemption applies even in cases – such as construction of ancillary facilities under 49 U.S.C. §10906 – where the STB lacks licensing and conditioning authority and, therefore, does not conduct its own environmental review [See Borough of Riverdale – Petition for declaratory Order – The New York Susquehanna and Western Corporation, STB Finance Docket No. 33466 (STB served Feb. 27, 2001)].

All of these citations (and many more) are available on the Internet for you to check for yourself.