Whether a state or local law regulating the location or routing of an interstate pipeline is a preempted 'safety standard' under the Pipeline Safety Act when a court concludes that the law was primarily motivated by safety concerns

This case presents an entrenched circuit conflict over the scope of federa l preemption under the Pipeline Safety Act—an issue that affects the authority of tens of thousands of state and local governments over millions of miles of pipelines. The PSA preempts state and local “safety standards” covering technical matters such as the “design, installation, inspection, emergency plans and procedures, testing, construction, extension, operation, replacement, and maintenance” of interstate pipelines. 49 U.S.C. §§ 60104(c) , 60102(a)(2)(B). But it withholds federal authority over “the location or routing of” such pipelines, preserving that power for state and local governments. Id. § 60104(e). The circuits are divided on how to apply the PSA’s preemption and preservation provisions. The Fourth and Fifth Circuits focus on the “effect” of a challenged state or local law: they up hold measures that govern where a pipeline may go, but strike down ones that control how to safely design, install, inspect, operate, and maintain a pipeline. The Eighth Circuit, by contrast, focuses on the “primary motivation” behind a challenged state or local rule: if a state or locality expressed too much concern about safety when regulating a pipeline’s location or routing, that court treats the enactment as a preempted “safety standard.” The question presented is: Whether a state or local law regulating the location or routing of an interstate pipeline is a preempted “safety standard” under the Pipeline Safety Act when a court concludes that the law was primarily motivated by safety concerns.