Opinion ID: 3004341
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether its carrier business is a separate and

Text: distinct enterprise. Id. This approach is certainly compatible with long- standing judicial interpretation. Ever since the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Railroad Retirement Board v. Duquesne Warehouse Co., 326 U.S. 446 (1946), the key inquiry has been not whether an entity not owned by the interstate railroads provides the same service, but whether the interstate carrier could have performed the work and charged for it. Id. at 454; see also Atl. Land & Improvement Co., 790 F.2d at 856; R.R. Concrete Crosstie Corp. v. R.R. Ret. Bd., 709 F.2d 1404, 1410 (11th Cir. 1983). Dispatching services are a necessary part of the operation of any train, including interstate trains. There is great force in the RRB’s point that the Federal Railroad Administration, charged with carrying out “all railroad safety laws of the United States,” 49 U.S.C. § 103(b), considers dispatching services to be central to the safe operation of a train and has described them in its own regulations in terms that underline their centrality to 22 No. 09-3945 train operation.21 Interstate rail carriers can, and often do, undertake to perform this function themselves and, when they incur such an expense, can no doubt charge for it. The Board’s own administrative precedent also supports our decision. In this case, the Board relied on its earlier decision in Employer Status Determination—S. Cal. Reg’l R. Auth., Segregation of Dispatching Dep’t, B.C.D. 02-12 (served Feb. 12, 2002). There, a governmental entity charged with the administration of commuter rail operations (“SCRRA”) had contracted the operation of all trains to AMTRAK. It nevertheless became a partially covered employer when it decided to provide its own dispatching services for all traffic, interstate and intrastate, over its tracks. The Board noted that SCRRA had organized the dispatching services into a separate identifiable department that maintained strict personnel separation from the remainder of the agency’s activities and that was under the sole supervision of a dis- patching manager. We cannot accept Herzog’s view that an earlier decision of the STB 22 involving the same line commands an opposite result in the present case. See City of Dallas, City of Fort Worth and D/FW RAILTRAN, Petition for 21 See note 6, supra. 22 The RAILTRAN decision predated the creation of the STB and, therefore, was decided by the predecessor agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. For ease of reading, we shall refer to its decision as that of the STB. No. 09-3945 23 Declaratory Order, I.C.C. Fin. Docket No. 32406, 1993 WL 540395 (served Dec. 30, 1993). RAILTRAN concerned the same lines involved in the present case, although under a different structure than the current iteration. At the time of the RAILTRAN decision, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth owned the rail line and a state administrative agency, RAILTRAN, was tasked with the responsibility to “preserve and manage the [line] for commuter rail service.” Id. at . Pursuant to a then-existing operating rights agreement, a railroad company paid rent for use of the lines and was responsible for maintenance, operation and dispatching on the line. Id. at . The cities had the right to choose an operator who would contract with the railroad to perform commuter rail services. Freight operations were conducted by the railroad and were subject to existing rights of other railroads. The parties negotiated new agreements that modified these existing relationships, and they sought a declaratory judgment from the STB about whether the pending contractual arrangements would alter the non-carrier status of the cities and of RAILTRAN. Under the new agreement, the cities and RAILTRAN would have the right and responsibility to both select and contract with an entity or entities to operate commuter rail and perform dispatching on the track. The STB held that this proposed arrangement would not transform the existing non-carrier status of the cities and of RAILTRAN, because the proposal “would not change their relationship to the line.” Id. at . That is, the cities and RAILTRAN would remain non-operating 24 No. 09-3945 owners who would contract with other parties to provide the commuter operations and dispatching. According to the STB, nothing in that arrangement would convert the non-operating, non-dispatching owners themselves into covered entities. We acknowledge the superficial similarities in the factual background underlying both of these decisions from different administrative agencies. In each, a nonoperating owner assumes responsibility for interstate railroad-related functions and contracts with a third party to execute that responsibility. Importantly, however, the agencies’ inquiries focused on two different entities in these transactions and answered different questions. The STB was evaluating its jurisdiction at the request of the predecessors-in-interest of Trinity, the non-operating owner, and found that it had none. In the present case, the Board’s inquiry concerned Herzog, the entity that would be performing the dispatching functions. The analog to Herzog in the prior STB case had not yet been identified, although the language in the opinion suggests that the parties contemplated it would be one of the interstate railroads already servicing the line. Further, to the extent that the present case does address Trinity itself, it reaches the same conclusion as that reached in RAILTRAN—that Trinity is not a covered entity. A.R. 8 (“Trinity itself is not a covered employer to the extent that the train dispatching operations conducted on Trinity’s behalf [are] reported by Herzog Transit.”). Indeed, these two decisions are animated by a single, consistent principle. Those entities that assume direct responsibility for the movement No. 09-3945 25 of trains in interstate commerce are subject to federal regulation. Those entities whose participation in interstate commerce is indirect are not subject to the federal statutes.23 Here, Trinity acquired the duty to perform the dispatching function for the interstate rail operations along its tracks. It then delegated this function to Herzog, the operator of the intrastate service on its tracks. Herzog, therefore, in performing the dispatching function for the interstate freight traffic on Trinity’s track, is performing the function of a common carrier in interstate commerce and is a covered employer under the statute, at least with respect to the dispatching function.