of the 2007 Amendment to the FRSA to this case. The amendment, however, is not applicable to this case. The amendment concerns preemption of state causes of actions. As discussed above, this case involves the possible conflict of two federal statutes. The court agrees with the reasoning of the courts that have found that the issue of walkways is not covered by the regulation concerning ballast. It is obvious when reading the regulation that it “is concerned with the track and its immediately adjoining area and not with railroad yards. The obvious concern, moreover, is with the safety of the train, the prevention of derailments, and not the quality of the work place provided for . employees.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Miller, 159 Md.App. 123, 858 A.2d 1025, 1050 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs FELA claim concerns defendant’s
holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding the frsa preemption exception did not cover regulation by municipal ordinance holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation holding that frsa and regulation did not preclude plaintiffs fela ballast claims holding that municipal ordinance was preempted by frsa and void under supremacy clause