{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-24-3107-2025-08-28","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-24-3107-2025-08-28)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-11","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e0b409","proof":"sha256:7f47cec52e0e5e4917c203cc2d0362c720cd0fb8dc858aef130cdb448e67fa28","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca8-24-3107-2025-08-28","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"For the Eighth Circuit","paragraphs":["para_3"]},{"title":"No. 24-3107","paragraphs":["para_5"]},{"title":"MFA Enterprises, Inc., doing business as West Central Agri Services","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Petitioner","paragraphs":["para_8"]},{"title":"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission; Secretary of Labor","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Respondents","paragraphs":["para_11"]},{"title":"Petition for Review of an Order of the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission","paragraphs":["para_14"]},{"title":"Submitted: June 12, 2025","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Filed: August 28, 2025","paragraphs":["para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20"]},{"title":"The Secretary of Labor cited MFA Enterprises, Inc., doing business as West","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Central Agri Services, (“West Central”) for a willful and serious violation of 29","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"C.F.R. § 1910.132(d)(1)(i) for failing to ensure employees wore personal protective","paragraphs":["para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29"]},{"title":"Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), we vacate the citation","paragraphs":["para_31"]},{"title":"I. BACKGROUND","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"West Central operates a grain handling facility in Adrian, Missouri. It ships","paragraphs":["para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38"]},{"title":"A Trackmobile pushes the railcars along the track into position under the grain","paragraphs":["para_40","para_41","para_42"]},{"title":"On December 31, 2020, an OSHA inspector travelled to the facility to","paragraphs":["para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49"]},{"title":"Since 2016, West Central had a fall protection system in place for the railcar","paragraphs":["para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54"]},{"title":"2020, West Central removed the fall protection system on the east track, but it was","paragraphs":["para_56"]},{"title":"Employees did not like to use the fall protection system because the harness","paragraphs":["para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62"]},{"title":"While there was no written hazard assessment of the dangers of a fall during","paragraphs":["para_64","para_65","para_66"]},{"title":"ALJ’s Decision and Order upheld the citation of a willful and serious violation and","paragraphs":["para_68"]},{"title":"II. DISCUSSION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"We will uphold the factual findings in a Commission order if they are","paragraphs":["para_71","para_72"]},{"title":"Summit Contractors, Inc., 558 F.3d 815, 823 (8th Cir. 2009)). We will uphold the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Commission’s legal conclusions “unless they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of","paragraphs":["para_75","para_76"]},{"title":"West Central asserts that OSHA’s application of § 1910.132(d)(1)(i) to","paragraphs":["para_78"]},{"title":"1OSHA claims that West Central waived preemption on appeal because it did","paragraphs":["para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84"]},{"title":"Federal agencies, and State agencies acting under section 2021 of Title 42, exercise","paragraphs":["para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90"]},{"title":"Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235, 241-42 (2002). The federal agency’s","paragraphs":["para_92","para_93"]},{"title":"The term “working conditions” means “the environmental area in which an","paragraphs":["para_95"]},{"title":"335, 339 (4th Cir. 1976). When another federal agency has set standards for the","paragraphs":["para_97","para_98"]},{"title":"Administration’s security protocols for passenger lounges preempted OSHA’s","paragraphs":["para_100"]},{"title":"636 F.2d 913, 914, 917 (3d Cir. 1980) (the Department of Transportation’s","paragraphs":["para_102","para_103"]},{"title":"The OSHA regulation at issue in this case states that an employer must","paragraphs":["para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108"]},{"title":"(8th Cir. 2023) (a party who fails to raise an argument in his opening brief waives","paragraphs":["para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115"]},{"title":"Ctr. # 6016 v. OSHRC, 819 F.3d 200, 203-04 (5th Cir. 2016) (reviewing additional","paragraphs":["para_117"]},{"title":"In 1996, John B. Miles, Jr., then-Director of OSHA’s Directorate of","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Enforcement Programs, issued an interpretation letter (the “Miles Memorandum”)","paragraphs":["para_120","para_121"]},{"title":"18. The Miles Memorandum included an interpretation of when § 1910.132(d)","paragraphs":["para_123"]},{"title":"Additionally, it would not be appropriate to use the personal protection","paragraphs":["para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130"]},{"title":"Id. The ALJ relied on this interpretative statement to uphold the citation under","paragraphs":["para_132"]},{"title":"Next, we must determine whether the FRA has set standards for working on","paragraphs":["para_134","para_135"]},{"title":"(“FRA Policy Statement”). Railroad Occupational Safety and Health Standards;","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Termination, 43 Fed. Reg. 10,583, 10,585 (Mar. 14, 1978). If the FRA Policy","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Statement covers the applicable working conditions, it preempts OSHA’s","paragraphs":["para_139","para_140"]},{"title":"Mar. 31, 1993) (the Commission recognizes the preemptive effect of the FRA Policy","paragraphs":["para_142","para_143"]},{"title":"The FRA asserted its authority over working conditions unique to railroad","paragraphs":["para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148"]},{"title":"Included in its assertion of authority over walking-working surfaces was the design","paragraphs":["para_150","para_151","para_152"]},{"title":"OSHA regulations to walking-working surfaces for areas other than railcars such as","paragraphs":["para_154"]},{"title":"Statement, the FRA has asserted its authority over employees working around","paragraphs":["para_156"]},{"title":"The FRA asserted its authority over the environmental area of railcars. By","paragraphs":["para_158","para_159"]},{"title":"689 F.2d at 1194 (agency’s security protocols over passenger lounges preempted","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"OSHA’s exit door regulations); Columbia Gas of Pa., Inc., 636 F.2d at 917 (agency’s","paragraphs":["para_162","para_163","para_164"]},{"title":"The ALJ incorrectly found no preemption by failing to analyze the relevant","paragraphs":["para_166","para_167","para_168"]},{"title":"PPE. As support for its conclusion, the ALJ relied on unrelated Commission cases","paragraphs":["para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175"]},{"title":"Because the ALJ’s legal conclusion on preemption was not in accordance with","paragraphs":["para_177","para_178"]},{"title":"III. CONCLUSION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The citation for violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(d)(1)(i) is vacated, and the","paragraphs":["para_181","para_182"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"For the Eighth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"___________________________","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"No. 24-3107","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"___________________________","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"MFA Enterprises, Inc., doing business as West Central Agri Services","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Petitioner","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission; Secretary of Labor","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Respondents","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Petition for Review of an Order of the","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Submitted: June 12, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Filed: August 28, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"The Secretary of Labor cited MFA Enterprises, Inc., doing business as West","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Central Agri Services, (“West Central”) for a willful and serious violation of 29","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"C.F.R. § 1910.132(d)(1)(i) for failing to ensure employees wore personal protective","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"equipment (“PPE”) while working on top of railcars. After a three-day evidentiary","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"hearing, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s administrative","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"law judge (“ALJ”) upheld the citation. The Commission denied discretionary review","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"-2-","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"of the ALJ’s decision, and West Central now petitions for our review. Concluding","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) preempts the jurisdiction of the","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), we vacate the citation","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"and reverse the ALJ’s order.","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"I. BACKGROUND","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"West Central operates a grain handling facility in Adrian, Missouri. It ships","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"grain from this facility via the railroad and fills the railcars through a “railcar","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"loadout” process. As part of railcar loadout, an employee must access the top of","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"each railcar, which is approximately fifteen feet off the ground. The employee then","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"opens each of the lids on the railcar roof to allow a spout to transfer the grain from","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"storage bins into the railcar through each opening.","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"A Trackmobile pushes the railcars along the track into position under the grain","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"spouts after an employee opens the lids. After the railcars are filled, the Trackmobile","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"pushes them out of the grain filling station, and then an employee closes and seals","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"the lids.","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"On December 31, 2020, an OSHA inspector travelled to the facility to","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"investigate an explosion. As part of the investigation, the inspector viewed a","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"recording that included footage of an employee not wearing fall protection PPE","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"while he worked on top of a railcar. The inspector’s subsequent interviews revealed","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"that employees frequently did not wear fall protection PPE while working on top of","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"railcars, and, while supervisors were aware of this activity, employees were not","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"disciplined.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Since 2016, West Central had a fall protection system in place for the railcar","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"loadout process. It consisted of a trolley on suspended I-beams that ran overhead","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"and parallel to each of the railroad tracks. An employee would connect to the trolley","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"through a harness and a self-retracting lifeline. At some point prior to December","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"-3-","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"2020, West Central removed the fall protection system on the east track, but it was","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"still in place on the west track.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"Employees did not like to use the fall protection system because the harness","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"was uncomfortable, the system prevented them from reaching all the lids, and","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"occasionally the trolley became sticky and would not glide on the I-beams. Despite","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"these problems with the system, West Central’s safety training for its employees","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"included the following instruction: “If there is railcar fall protection present, you","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"must use it every time.”","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"While there was no written hazard assessment of the dangers of a fall during","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"railcar loadout, the ALJ found West Central acknowledged that working on top of","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"rail cars presented a fall hazard based on the existence of the fall protection system,","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"testimony from an MFA Incorporated safety director, and the safety training. The","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"ALJ’s Decision and Order upheld the citation of a willful and serious violation and","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"imposed a penalty of $122,878.80.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"II. DISCUSSION","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"We will uphold the factual findings in a Commission order if they are","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"“supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Perez v.","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Loren Cook Co., 803 F.3d 935, 938 (8th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Solis v.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"Summit Contractors, Inc., 558 F.3d 815, 823 (8th Cir. 2009)). We will uphold the","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"Commission’s legal conclusions “unless they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. (quoting Solis, 558 F.3d at","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"823).","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"West Central asserts that OSHA’s application of § 1910.132(d)(1)(i) to","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"employees working on top of railcars is preempted by the FRA.1 The preemption","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"1OSHA claims that West Central waived preemption on appeal because it did","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"not identify preemption in its Statement of Issues in its opening brief. West Central","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"discusses preemption at pages 7 through 11 and page 17 of its opening brief, which","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"-4-","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"provision in the Occupational Safety and Health Act provides: “[n]othing in this","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"chapter shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which other","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"Federal agencies, and State agencies acting under section 2021 of Title 42, exercise","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"occupational safety or health.” § 653(b)(1). Under this provision, Congress","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"deprived OSHA of jurisdiction when (1) another federal agency has statutory","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"authority to regulate the cited working conditions and (2) the other agency has","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"exercised this authority by issuing applicable standards or regulations. Chao v.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235, 241-42 (2002). The federal agency’s","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"standards do not have to be “the same or substantially the same as those of OSHA”","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"to divest OSHA of jurisdiction under § 653(b)(1). U.S. Air, Inc., 689 F.2d at 1193.","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"The term “working conditions” means “the environmental area in which an","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"employee customarily goes about his daily tasks.” S. Ry. Co. v. OSHRC, 539 F.2d","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"335, 339 (4th Cir. 1976). When another federal agency has set standards for the","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"environmental area where the employee customarily works, OSHA’s jurisdiction is","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"preempted. U.S. Air, Inc., 689 F.2d at 1193. Thus, the Federal Aviation","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"Administration’s security protocols for passenger lounges preempted OSHA’s","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"regulations on exit doors. Id. at 1194; see also Columbia Gas of Pa., Inc. v. Marshall,","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"636 F.2d 913, 914, 917 (3d Cir. 1980) (the Department of Transportation’s","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"regulation of pipeline trenches preempted OSHA’s regulations on atmospheric","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"testing).","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"The OSHA regulation at issue in this case states that an employer must","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"“[s]elect, and have each affected employee use, the types of PPE that will protect the","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"affected employee from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment.”","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"§ 1910.132(d)(1)(i). The plain language of this regulation does not address working","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"means it raised the issue on appeal. Cf. SD Voice v. Noem, 60 F.4th 1071, 1077 n.3","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"(8th Cir. 2023) (a party who fails to raise an argument in his opening brief waives","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"that argument). Regardless, preemption under 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(1) is jurisdictional","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"and may be raised sua sponte by the court. U.S. Air, Inc. v. OSHRC, 689 F.2d 1191,","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"1193 (4th Cir. 1982).","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"-5-","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"on top of railcars. This broad and general provision requires looking elsewhere to","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"determine whether it applies to these working conditions. See Wal-Mart Distrib.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"Ctr. # 6016 v. OSHRC, 819 F.3d 200, 203-04 (5th Cir. 2016) (reviewing additional","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"OSHA provisions to resolve an ambiguity in § 1910.132(d)(1)).","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"In 1996, John B. Miles, Jr., then-Director of OSHA’s Directorate of","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"Enforcement Programs, issued an interpretation letter (the “Miles Memorandum”)","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"to the Regional Administrators. John B. Miles, Jr., Enforcement of Fall Protection","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"on Moving Stock, http://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/1996-10-","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"18. The Miles Memorandum included an interpretation of when § 1910.132(d)","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"applies to working on top of railcars, which stated the following:","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Additionally, it would not be appropriate to use the personal protection","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"equipment standard, 29 CFR 1910.132(d), to cite exposure to fall","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"hazards from the tops of rolling stock, unless employees are working","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"atop stock that is positioned inside of or contiguous to a building or","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"other structure where the installation of fall protection is feasible. In","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"such cases, fall protection systems often can be and, in fact, are used in","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"many facilities in the industry.","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"Id. The ALJ relied on this interpretative statement to uphold the citation under","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"§ 1910.132(d)(1)(i).","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"Next, we must determine whether the FRA has set standards for working on","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"top of railcars. In 1978, the FRA issued a policy statement identifying the working","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"conditions with respect to which the FRA was presently exercising its authority","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"(“FRA Policy Statement”). Railroad Occupational Safety and Health Standards;","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"Termination, 43 Fed. Reg. 10,583, 10,585 (Mar. 14, 1978). If the FRA Policy","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"Statement covers the applicable working conditions, it preempts OSHA’s","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"jurisdiction. Velasquez v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 734 F.2d 216, 218 (5th Cir. 1984);","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"see Consol. Rail Corp., Nos. 91-3133 & 91-3134, 1993 WL 119665, at *1 (OSHRC","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Mar. 31, 1993) (the Commission recognizes the preemptive effect of the FRA Policy","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"Statement).","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"-6-","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"The FRA asserted its authority over working conditions unique to railroad","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"operations. 43 Fed. Reg. at 10,586. This included the protection of employees","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"working around railcars. Id. (“rules pertaining to the protection of employees","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"working between or under rolling equipment, operations within yard limits . . . .”).","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"The FRA also asserted its authority over walking-working surfaces. Id. at 10,587.","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"Included in its assertion of authority over walking-working surfaces was the design","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"of locomotives and other rolling equipment, such as railcars, used on a railroad","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"because “working conditions related to such surfaces are regulated by FRA as major","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"aspects of railroad operations.” Id. The FRA acknowledged the application of","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"OSHA regulations to walking-working surfaces for areas other than railcars such as","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"in offices, shops, and other fixed workplaces. Id. Through the FRA Policy","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"Statement, the FRA has asserted its authority over employees working around","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"railcars and over the walking-working surfaces on railcars. Id. at 10,586-87.","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"The FRA asserted its authority over the environmental area of railcars. By","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"asserting its authority over these working conditions, the FRA has preempted","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"OSHA’s jurisdiction over employees working on top of railcars. See U.S. Air, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"689 F.2d at 1194 (agency’s security protocols over passenger lounges preempted","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"OSHA’s exit door regulations); Columbia Gas of Pa., Inc., 636 F.2d at 917 (agency’s","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"regulations on pipeline trenches preempted OSHA’s atmospheric testing","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"regulations). OSHA’s attempt to assert jurisdiction over these same working","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"conditions through the Miles Memorandum is invalid.","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"The ALJ incorrectly found no preemption by failing to analyze the relevant","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"working conditions. See U.S. Air, Inc., 689 F.2d at 1193 (preemption occurs when","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"the other federal agency has standards covering the working conditions). Instead,","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"the ALJ found no preemption because the FRA Policy Statement does not mention","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"PPE. As support for its conclusion, the ALJ relied on unrelated Commission cases","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"regarding PPE use in repair shops, which is an environmental area the FRA left","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"mostly to OSHA. Cf. 43 Fed. Reg. at 10,587 (“OSHA regulations on guarding of","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"open pits, ditches, etc. would not apply to inspection pits in locomotive or car repair","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"-7-","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"facilities.”). The ALJ failed to act in accordance with the law when it found no","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"preemption.","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"Because the ALJ’s legal conclusion on preemption was not in accordance with","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"the law, we cannot uphold the decision. Perez, 803 F.3d at 938. The FRA preempts","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"OSHA’s jurisdiction over working conditions on top of railcars.","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"III. CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"The citation for violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132(d)(1)(i) is vacated, and the","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"ALJ’s decision is reversed.","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_182"}],"word_count":1831,"cites":["534 U.S. 235","803 F.3d 935","558 F.3d 815","539 F.2d\n335","636 F.2d 913","60 F.4th 1071","689 F.2d 1191","819 F.3d 200","734 F.2d 216"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"7ecfaf640a62d7b8ab3fb0a8ad29950f304f6b16b2b3ffcd06b41f4f6514ec30","source_url":"https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/08/243107P.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-04T01:24:23.757+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca8-24-3107-2025-08-28","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-24-3107-2025-08-28","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-24-3107-2025-08-28","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca8-24-3107-2025-08-28","verification":{"stored_sha256":"7ecfaf640a62d7b8ab3fb0a8ad29950f304f6b16b2b3ffcd06b41f4f6514ec30","recomputed_sha256":"7ecfaf640a62d7b8ab3fb0a8ad29950f304f6b16b2b3ffcd06b41f4f6514ec30","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-11T10:51:53.989Z"}},"hash":"sha256:7f47cec52e0e5e4917c203cc2d0362c720cd0fb8dc858aef130cdb448e67fa28","version":"legal-2026-10-11","expires":"2026-10-12T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-11+legal-2026-10-11+2026-10-11T10:25:25","content_hash":"sha256:7f47cec52e0e5e4917c203cc2d0362c720cd0fb8dc858aef130cdb448e67fa28","revalidate_after":"2026-10-11T11:51:54.157Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-24-3107-2025-08-28","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-24-3107-2025-08-28"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-24-3107-2025-08-28"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca8-24-3107-2025-08-28"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca8-24-3107-2025-08-28","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-0cd3be00966083c938cb4d760cdd4dfd","response_hash":"sha256:7f47cec52e0e5e4917c203cc2d0362c720cd0fb8dc858aef130cdb448e67fa28"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-04T03:25:59.117Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca8-24-3107-2025-08-28&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":10311}}