Careers

Diversity

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Practices & Industries

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

Decision Limiting OSHA’s Jurisdiction Over Rail-Related Operations Remains Standing After 8th Circuit Denies Rehearing Petition

IP Intelligence Report

The Rise of Ex Parte Reexamination and the Director’s New Gatekeeping Role

Associates James East, Mary Kate Wagner Collaborate with Retired Partner Mark Cymrot on Treatise Chapter

The Patent Lawyer Magazine Selects BakerHostetler as a 2026 Top 10 Patent Firm for North America – Northeast

core/heading

The Federal Railroad Administration preempts OSHA’s jurisdiction over working conditions on top of railcars in the Eighth Circuit.

core/list-item

Future cases may refine the Eighth Circuit’s holding by addressing arguments relating to the nature of railcar work or employer status as part of the general railroad system.

Employers with rail operations should consider citing the Eighth Circuit’s decision when conferring with OSHA during an inspection or when contesting an OSHA citation involving railcar operations.

core/list

In a nine-word order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing in MFA Enters., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Rev. Comm’n, No. 24-3107 (8th Cir. Feb. 23, 2026), and leaves undisturbed the Court’s prior holding that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) preempts OSHA’s jurisdiction over working conditions on top of railcars. For employers with railcar-loading or similar rail-related operations, the decision provides useful support in disputes over OSHA’s jurisdiction where FRA-regulated railroad operations are implicated.

core/paragraph

OSHA cited MFA Enterprises, an employer operating a grain handling facility, for an alleged willful and serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.123(d)(1)(i) based on its failure to ensure employees used fall-protection PPE while working on top of railcars. As part of a railcar-loading process, employees on top of the railcars opened the railcar roof lids to insert a hose to transfer grain from storage bins into the railcar. An OSHRC administrative law judge upheld the citation and assessed a penalty.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed. The Court held that FRA preempts OSHA’s jurisdiction over the regulation of worker safety on railcars. The decision did not hinge on circumstances specific to the case. Instead, the Eighth Circuit reasoned that the FRA had already exercised safety authority over the railcars through its 1978 policy statement addressing working conditions unique to railroad operations. Therefore, FRA preempted OSHA’s jurisdiction over employees working on top of railcars, and the Court vacated the citation and reversed the ALJ’s order.

OSHA’s Rehearing Petition

In seeking rehearing, OSHA argued the following:

The record did not establish that MFA was a general-system railroad subject to FRA regulation.

The employee activity at issue was not related to the safe movement of railroad equipment and therefore fell outside FRA’s regulatory purview.

The preemption issue was not properly before the Court.

29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(1) is a non-jurisdictional affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar.

The Eighth Circuit denied rehearing without addressing any of the merits, stating only that “the petition for rehearing by the panel is denied.”

Employer Takeaways &nbsp;

While the decision is not binding outside the Eighth Circuit (Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota), employers with rail operations should consider it when conferring with OSHA during an inspection and when contesting any OSHA citations involving railcar operations. For example, employers with rail operations on their own sites should consider documenting the operational context of railcar loading, movement, inspection and servicing activities.

At the same time, the government’s arguments raised in the rehearing petition highlight issues that may be contested in future cases, including whether the cited activity concerns stationary loading work versus rail movement, whether the work is tied to railroad operations, and whether the employer is part of the general railroad system.

Related Services

Featured Insights