Seaboard Coastline Railroad

Plain-English summary

Seaboard Coastline stipulated that cited workplace conditions violated OSHA standards and that the proposed penalty was appropriate. It argued, however, that railroads were exempt from the OSH Act under 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(1) because the Department of Transportation regulates the industry. The Commission held that the provision does not create a blanket exemption for an entire industry. OSHA is displaced only for specific working conditions over which another federal agency has actually exercised safety or health authority. Seaboard did not show that Department of Transportation regulations covered any cited condition. The Commission also declined to delay the case because the Supreme Court had denied review of a prior decision rejecting Seaboard's position, and it affirmed the judge.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(1)
• Outcome: The Commission rejected the claimed railroad exemption and affirmed the judge's decision.
• Key point: Another agency's general authority over an industry does not displace OSHA; the other agency must regulate the specific working condition at issue.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 12078

SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD

OSHRC Docket No. 12078

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

March 9, 1978

�
[*1]
�

Before CLEARY, Chairman; and BARNAKO, Commissioner.

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Bobbye D. Spears, Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor

Edward A. Charron, Sealboard Coast Line Railroad Co., for the employer

Local 522 Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, for the employees

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

The only issue in this case is whether respondent is exempt from the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. �
�
651 et seq., ("the Act") by operation of section 4(b)(1). n1

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 Section 4(b)(1) provides in pertinent part as follows: Nothing in this Act shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which other Federal agencies . . . exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health.
�
29 U.S.C. �
�
653(b)(1).

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In this case respondent has stipulated to the existence of conditions which fail to comply with duly promulgated safety standards of the Act and to the appropriateness [*2]
�
of the proposed penalty.
�
Respondent contends, however, that it is exempt from the Act by virtue of a railroad industry exemption created by section 4(b)(1) of the Act.
�
Respondent also alleges that although other railroads are covered by the Act, it has not been finally determined that it is covered by the Act.

Respondent's contentions are without merit.
�
The issue before us has been decided by the Commission in Southern Pacific Transportation Company, 74 OSAHRC 83/A2, 2 BNA OSHC 1313, 1974-75 CCH OSHD para. 19,054 (No. 1348, 1974) aff'd 539 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 98 S.Ct. 222 (1977) and in Belt Railway Company of Chicago, 75 OSAHRC 87/A3, 3 BNA OSHC 1612, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,069 (No. 4616, 1975).
�
In these cases we held that section 4(b)(1) of the Act does not provide an industry exemption for the railway industry.
�
Rather it provides an exemption with respect to only those specific working conditions over which the Department of Transportation has exercised its authority.
�
Respondent has failed to show that any of the cited conditions were the subject of Department of Transportation regulations and accordingly respondent's 4(b)(1) argument [*3]
�
must fail.

Respondent also argues that prior Commission and Court decisions notwithstanding, it has not been finally determined that it is subject to the Act.
�
The contention is founded on the action of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co. v. O.S.H.R.C., 539 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1976). In that case, the court rejected respondent's 4(b)(1) argument and found Seaboard subject to the Act, but stayed its decision pending appeal by respondent to the Supreme Court of the United States on the 4(b)(1) argument.
�
Respondent urges that we postpone our decision pending the decision of the Supreme Court.

This issue is now moot.
�
Subsequent to the filing of respondent's brief in this case, the Supreme Court denied review of the Fifth Circuit case.
�
Seaboard Coastline R.R. Co. v. OSAHRC, 98 S.Ct. 221 (1977).

Accordingly the decision of Judge Paul L. Brady is affirmed.
�