The Colorado Public Utilities Commission on Oct. 1 denied Union Pacific Railroad Company’s application for rehearing, reargument or reconsideration of amendments to the railroad civil-penalty rules that implement reporting requirements and potential penalties tied to section 40 23 0 3.

A staff presenter summarized Union Pacific’s challenges and staff’s recommendation to deny the petition. "Union Pacific claims the statute does not define what constitutes an obstruction and generally lacks the degree of specificity needed for enforceability," the presenter said during the record. The petitioner argued civil penalties would indirectly regulate railroad operations and thus be preempted by federal law; the petitioner also objected to the penalty-assessment process as one-sided. Staff recommended denying the triple R and the request to stay the rules pending litigation; commissioners agreed and recorded votes denying both requests.

Why it matters: The contested rules implement provisions of House Bill 24 10 30 and section 40 23 0 3, which require railroads to report on wayside detector deployment and set expectations about obstruction at public crossings. Union Pacific argued the statute and implementing rule (70 11 b) are ambiguous or preempted; staff and the commission concluded the statute, read in context, contains provisions that can support enforcement and reporting requirements and rejected requests for a special pre-enforcement process for railroads.

Details: Staff explained the statute imposes a reporting requirement without directing state operational mandates for detectors, and said Union Pacific failed to show why enforcement of that reporting requirement via civil penalty would be preempted. Staff also characterized the requested stay as extraordinary and unjustified simply by the prospect of appeal. The commission denied the rehearing request and the motion to stay; staff noted Union Pacific could seek judicial review in district court if it pursues appeal.

Next steps: The commission’s written order will deny the triple R and the request for a stay; the rule amendments will remain in effect subject to any subsequent judicial proceedings.