Opinion ID: 680968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the 1978 policy statement

Text: 25 The AAR contends the FRA exercised exclusive authority over railroad bridge safety in a 1978 Policy Statement which provides: 26 OSHA regulations would not apply to ladders, platforms, and other surfaces on signal masts, catenary systems, railroad bridges, turntables, and similar structures or to walkways beside the tracks in yards or along the right-of-way. These are areas which are so much a part of the operating environment that they must be regulated by the agency with primary responsibility for railroad safety. 27 43 Fed.Reg. 10,583, 10,587 (Mar. 14, 1978) (emphasis added). 28 The AAR reads this statement as an exercise of the FRA's rulemaking authority over working conditions on railroad bridges generally, ousting OSHA of any jurisdiction over railroad bridge worker safety. The AAR, however, takes the quoted language out of context and places more weight on it than it will bear. The Policy Statement starts by stating that the FRA and OSHA share regulatory authority over railroad working conditions, and says the FRA will assume primary authority only in areas involving its special competence over the safety of railroad operations, defined as conditions and procedures necessary to achieve the safe movement of equipment over the rails. Id. at 10,585. As an example, the FRA says this includes ensuring that workers laying or repairing welded rail observe certain procedures impacting on the final condition of the track, and that proper precautions [are taken] to assure that trackmen are not struck by trains; but most hazards related to the handling of welding apparatus are non-operational concerns, and therefore remain subject to OSHA standards. Id. Among the areas implicating the safety of railroad operations, and therefore to be regulated by the FRA and not OSHA, are working surfaces such as ladders, stairways, platforms, scaffolds and floor openings. Id. at 10,587. Although OSHA standards prescribe what constitutes a safe working surface, the FRA says OSHA's working surface standards should not apply to 1) trains, 2) working surfaces in railroad repair shops, and 3) ladders, platforms, and other surfaces on ... railroad bridges, turntables, and similar structures, which are so much a part of the operating environment that they must be regulated by the agency with primary responsibility for railroad [operating] safety. Id. (emphasis added). 29 In context, the language relied upon by the AAR does not assert a broad exemption of railroad bridge workers from all OSHA safety standards. Instead, it simply says that OSHA standards concerning the safety of working surfaces will not apply to ladders, platforms, and other surfaces on ... railroad bridges. 30 Nor has the FRA ever interpreted its 1978 Policy Statement as a broad ouster of OSHA jurisdiction. See, e.g., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 56 Fed.Reg. 3434, 3435 (Jan. 30, 1991) (1978 Policy Statement indicates [that] FRA intended to displace OSHA regulations with respect to the surfaces on bridges, i.e., track structures, but did not intend to prevent OSHA from exercising its more general responsibilities for the safety of railroad workers with respect to fall protection and respiratory equipment) (emphasis added). OSHA standards on such matters as respiratory protection, hazard communication, hearing protection, welding, and lead exposure standards do not fall within the narrow exception for working surfaces carved out by the 1978 Policy Statement. The Policy Statement never ousted OSHA's jurisdiction over these matters, and the FRA's final rule, which merely recognizes OSHA's residual authority to regulate these aspects of bridge worker safety, does not reverse the 1978 Policy Statement. 31 Nor do the cases cited by the AAR hold otherwise. In Velasquez v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 734 F.2d 216 (5th Cir.1984), for example, the Fifth Circuit held that the Policy Statement displaced OSHA jurisdiction over railroad bridge walkways--working surfaces over which the FRA, by its own account, claimed exclusive jurisdiction. Velasquez is thus consistent with the FRA's interpretation of the scope of the 1978 Policy Statement. 32 We conclude that the bridge worker safety rule does not constitute a reversal of the FRA's 1978 Policy Statement.