agree that jurisdiction over their disputes does not rest in the STB. Indeed, there is no statutory or regulatory mechanism to resolve the present disputes and the STB has apparently consistently taken the position that it does not pass on purely contractual disputes. [¶ 28] The ICCTA is a comprehensive regulatory scheme designed to deregulate the railroad industry and remove all state efforts to regulate railroads. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp. v. South Dakota, 236 F.Supp.2d 989 (D.S.D.2002). The DM & E took that very position in its lawsuit before Chief Judge Piersol. Perhaps that explains in part why the DM & E is here an involuntary plaintiff. The ICCTA’s preemption provision is broad in scope in that it preempts all state efforts to regulate railroads. Id. at 1005 (<HOLDING>). The foregoing case held that, although the
holding asbestos claim against railroad preempted by the flia holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature holding that a state election law is preempted only to the extent that it conflicts with federal law holding to the effect that section 341 fifth as impliedly amended by title vii preempts state law to the extent but only to the extent that it conflicts holding that south dakotas eminent domain statutes are preempted but only to the extent of the regulatory nature of their effect on the railroad