“\ufeff\t\tDocument\t\t\t\t p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } p { margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-family:Times New Roman; color:WindowText; font-size:10pt; font-size:10pt; } p { font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; } p.style_Normal { } span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } table.style_TableNormal { } span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } span.BulletSymbol { font-family:’Symbol’; } body { margin-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-right:0px;} div.basic { width:21.59cm;height:27.94cm;} p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar useragent = navigator.userAgent;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar navigatorname;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘MSIE’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”MSIE\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Gecko’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘Chrome’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Google Chrome\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Mozilla’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”old Netscape or Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Opera’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Opera\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfunction symbol(code1,code2)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (navigatorname == ‘MSIE’)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code1);\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code2);\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tComplainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tv.\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO. 13771\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBURLINGTON NORTHERN\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tINCORPORATED,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDECISION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBEFORE BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBY THE COMMISSION:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA decision of Review Commission Judge Paul E. Dixon, dated November 18, 1975, is\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tbefore this Commission for review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 661.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThat decision is affirmed on the basis of the decisions by a divided Commission in\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSecretary v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., OSAHRC Docket No. 11904, December 1, 1975,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tand Secretary v. Belt Railway Company of Chicago, 20 OSAHRC 568 (1975). Those decisions\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tare dispositive of the instant case.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent, by stipulation, admitted the alleged violations and that due consideration\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\twas given to the statutory criteria in 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 666(i) in determining the penalty proposal.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent also stipulated that the exemption question was the only issue in contest.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAccordingly, the entire citation is affirmed and a penalty of $450 is assessed therefor.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFOR THE COMMISSION:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWilliam S. McLaughlin\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExecutive Secretary\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDATED: OCT 19, 1976\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tComplainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tv.\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO. 13771\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBURLINGTON NORTHERN\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tINCORPORATED,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFOR COMPLAINANT:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDANIEL J. MICK, Esquire, Office of the Solicitor,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tU.S. Department of Labor,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t911 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Missouri\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFOR RESPONDENT:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJ. L. PILON, Esquire, and W. L. PECK, Esquire,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1900 Executive Tower,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1405 Curtis Street, Denver, Colorado\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCase submitted upon stipulation of facts and briefs of parties.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPaul E. Dixon, Judge, OSAHRC:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThis case originated with the issuance of a citation by the Occupational Safety and Health\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAdministration, U.S. Department of Labor, on June 5, 1975, as a result of an inspection made of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\trespondent\u2019s railroad facilities at the Waverly Depot, 1877 Depot Street, Waverly, Nebraska,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\twherein respondent was charged with seven nonserious violations of standards under the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOccupational Safety and Health Act along with total proposed penalties in the amount of $550.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent, on June 16, 1975, duly filed its notice of contest with complainant filing his\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcomplaint on the 30th day of June 1975 wherein complainant elected to proceed on items 1, 3, 4,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t5, 6 and 7 of the citation.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThereafter respondent filed its answer and motion to dismiss on the 10th day of July 1975\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdenying it was an employer within the meaning of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1970 and denying that the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has jurisdiction\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tover the respondent and alleging that the complainant lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tof the case on the grounds that the Department of Transportation has authority to promulgate all\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\trules, regulations, standards and orders necessary for the occupational safety and health of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\trailroad employees and has exercised this authority through the Federal Railroad Administration.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThereupon complainant and respondent entered into a joint stipulation of fact on August\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1, 1975, wherein the parties stipulated as follows:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u201c1. Respondent, Burlington Northern Inc., is a Class I common carrier by railroad,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tand has employees, and is engaged in the business affecting interestate commerce.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. Respondent admits that, at all times pertinent to this action, there were no duly\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tpromulgated rules and regulations, standards or orders of the Department of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTransportation affecting the occupational safety and health of the particular\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tworking conditions for which it was cited.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3. Without waiving any defense based on lack of jurisdiction of the Occupational\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSafety and Health Act of 1970, Respondent admits that if the Secretary of Labor\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdoes have jurisdiction to prescribe regulations for the working conditions\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tinvolved, it violated Sections 5(a)(2) and 8(c) of the Act, and the standards\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tpromulgated thereunder as charged in the complaint filed with [sic] the Secretary\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tin this action.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4. Respondent further agrees that if the Secretary had jurisdiction to issue the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcitation in controversy, the penalty proposed by the Commission in connection\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttherewith in the complaint is reasonable and no longer in contest.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t5. The parties agree that this matter be submitted on briefs covering the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tjurisdictional question . . ..\u201d\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTherefore, based upon the foregoing, the sole issues to be determined were whether or\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnot the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had jurisdiction involving the worksite\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tand work conditions cited which are conceded not to be covered by Department of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTransportation Regulations and whether or not section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHealth Act creates industry-wide exemption for railroads by virtue of the fact that the Secretary\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tof Transportation has promulgated some safety regulations affecting the industry. (Respondent\u2019s\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tbrief)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThese issues have been discussed and ruled on by the Commission in Secretary of Labor\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tv. Belt Railway Company of Chicago, et al., Consolidated OSAHRC Docket No. 4616, et al., 20\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSAHRC \u2014\u2014 (RC 1975) (October 17, 1975) (dissenting), and are dispositive of the issues\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\traised in this case. The factual and jurisdictional allegations in the Belt Railway Company of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tChicago, et al., cases are with few exceptions the same as the issues raised in this case.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tReview Commission Judges are bound to follow the holdings of the Review Commission\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\twhich therefore leads to the following:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCONCLUSIONS OF LAW\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has jurisdiction over those\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfacilities of respondent which are not covered by duly promulgated regulations of the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDepartment of Transportation.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. Respondent is not an exempt industry under section 4(b)(1) of the Act.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDECISION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. Citation number 1 for nonserious violations, item 1 with proposed penalty of $50; item\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3 with proposed penalty of $100; item 4 with proposed penalty of $100; item 5 with proposed\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tpenalty of $100; item 6 with proposed penalty of $100 and item 7 with no proposed penalty are\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\taffirmed.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. Item 2 of citation 1 having been abandoned by complainant, is vacated.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPaul E. Dixon,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJudge, OSAHRC\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDate: Nov. 18, 1975\t\t\t”