Legal Document

516 U.S. 152116 S.Ct. 595133 L.Ed.2d 535 BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, et al., Petitioners,v.ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD COMPANY, al. No. 94-1592. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Oct. 30, 1995. Decided Jan. 8, 1996. Syllabus * The Hours Service Act (HSA), 49 U.S.C.A. § 21101 seq. (1995 Supp.), limits number hours that train crew employees can remain on duty. At times a cannot reach change point within allotted time, however, so railroad must stop in order new replace first, or ' 'outlawed,' crew. Transportation to and outlawed back terminal is called "deadhead transportation." Under 21103(b)(4), "[t]ime spent deadhead transportation duty assignment time duty, but from place final release neither nor off duty." latter commonly termed "limbo time." After Federal Railroad Administration, which administers HSA, announced it would follow Ninth Circuit ruling waiting for site on-duty respondent railroads filed this suit seeking direct review. Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, rejected Circuit's interpretation held limbo time. Held: HSA's text, structure, purposes demonstrate Congress' intent should be As matter common usage, 21103(b)(4)'s phrase "time transportation" read include such transportation. That also established by provisions classifying given periods as When those are considered light purpose promoting safety, they reveal typically includes contribute an employee's fatigue during his 12-hour shift. Thus, classified because, along with itself, contributes employee work assignment. But away does not cause implicates safety concerns so, like follows it, deemed Finally, classification at issue here impose very scheduling problems Congress sought avoid when created compromise 1969 HSA amendment process. Petitioner unions' attempts treat under §§ 21103(b)(5), 21103(b)(1), 21103(b)(3) unpersuasive, cases cite, all were decided before amendments. Pp. 597-599. 44 F.3d 437 (C.A.9 1994), affirmed. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Lawrence M. Mann, Washington, DC, petitioners. Malcolm Stewart, federal respondent. Ronald Johnson, private respondents. Justice KENNEDY 1 We granted certiorari resolve division between two Courts Appeals regarding correct statutory classification, Act, spend t end their 2 enacted (HSA) 1907. ch. 2939, 1, 34 Stat. 1415. promote limiting may requiring provide members certain off-duty rest shifts. Ibid.; Chicago Alton R. Co. v. States, 247 197, 199, 38 442, 443, 62 L.Ed. 1066 (1918). In particular, provides more than 12 consecutive hours, and, having worked period, least 10 21103(a) Supp.). 3 To comply schedule operations assignments some precision, if require incur substantial penalties. Administration (FRA) authorized fine $500 $10,000 each violation statute. 21303(a)(2). For member longer maximum there separate violation. Missouri, K., T.R. Tex. 231 112, 118-119, 26, 26-27, 58 144 (1913); 48 CFR pt. 228, App. A, p. 244 (1994). statute exceptions rules emergency. 21103(c) 4 times, course, scheduled point, even convenient hours. violating first crew, now "outlawed crew." different treatment transportation, depending whether taking replacement train. while 21103(b)(4). Time referred industry oral argument, was advised paid 5 thus know how spends vehicle. classify arrive. Petitioners, Brotherhood Locomotive Engineers Union, claim counts against limit. Save short-lived period changed its policy acquiesce decision we shall recount, FRA many years has taken contrary position. view, long required perform duties wait, treated same way itself—that is, Fed.Reg. 18163, 18164 (1993). railroads, who respondents Secretary Transportation, agree FRA's 6 1990 petitioners brought California Oregon, challenging On appeal, court concluded defined amended amendments disclose no result. Union Skinner, 975 F.2d 1421, 1426-1428 (1992). 7 sake uniformity, F RA apply nationwide basis. It October 28, 1992, letter Robert W. Blanchette, Vice President Association American Railroads, 73, later published notice Register, 18163 response, nine major instituted present action, review changing interpretation. A three-judge panel affirmed order, see Atchison, T. S.F.R. Pena, 29 324 (1994), superseded took case banc 8 Because importance uniform application regulatory scheme, certiorari. II 9 determining classified, begin text design enacted, divided into categories—on —but did define either term. 1969, reducing permissible providing specific These controlling guide us, follows: "(1) begins reports ends finally released 11 "(2) engaged connected movement "(3) performing any other service carrier 24-hour 13 "(4) 14 "(5) An interim available designated 15 "(6) less 16 "(7) suitable facilities food lodging prevented getting following: 17 "(A) casualty 18 "(B) track obstruction 19 "(C) act God 20 "(D) derailment equipment failure resulting unknown unforeseeable officer agent charge left terminal." 21103(b) 21 Although these do specify category, 21103(b)(4) phrase, need confine our examination words alone. consider question quoted provisions, conclude character itself. 22 safe operation trains, understood accord objective. statute, effect, makes determination remains will too fatigued operate manner. consequence, delineate wil l her instances, relationship apparent, example, command 21103(b)(2) 23 quite straightforward, think still apparent design. What permitted take lengthy break work? If working duty? answers reference likelihood ensuing without mandated interval. specifies "interim terminal," 21103(b)(6), scheme sufficient alleviate fatigue. 24 scheme. Section distinction perfect sense, statute's safety. deadheading likely have By defining ensured after reporting give rise concerns, much site, receive requisite once beginning shift involving operations. 25 reasoning applies wait precedes, effect 26 ground, moreover, shift, itself alike; hour both consistent requires parallelism carry over ends. 27 surfaced process lend additional support conclusion. noted, fell one binary problem, however. counted Great Northern Co., 285 F. 152, 153 1922), often resting, terminal. S.Rep. 91-604 (1969); H.R.Rep. 91-469 (1969). unions r esponded problem advocating original bill proposed House provided. Ibid. opposed change, particularly respect because operating difficulties Hearings H.R. 8449, 84, 9515 Committee Interstate Foreign Commerce, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 134-135 calculate approximate early enough account Any miscalculation lead HSA. 28 reflects transportation: shift's beginning, end. creation solved forced imposing railroads. on-duty, request, avoid. Petitioners try escape force argument attempting fit provisions. instance, duty," 21103(b)(5) reason But, said, occur, definition, railroad. return immediately had determine Its conclusions score bearing followed renewed next argue always continue until reaches be, express 30 21103(b)(3), classifies train." They say services arrive, pursuant 21103(b)(3). Petitioners' begs question, covered definition. presented here, required, answer question. 31 F.2d, 1426, numerous cases, most them part century, believe See Pacific 220 108 1915); Southern 245 722 1917); Pennsylvania 275 F.Supp. 345 (W.D.Pa.1967); Chicago, P.S.R . 195 783 (W.D.Wash.1912). reading one, compare 437, 444 (C.A.7 1994) (opinion below) (distinguishing above addressed "the categorization repairs made delay resuming train"), been conclusion 32 reasons, reject petitioners' construction persuade us intended judgment 33 ordered. syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 499.

Classification Label: 6