The Boiler Inspection Act, as amended, has so occupied the field
of regulating locomotive equipment on interstate highways that
state legislation requiring cab curtains and automatic firebox
doors is
Page 272 U. S. 605
precluded, and such matter are left to the regulatory power
reposed by the Act in the Interstate Commerce Commission. P.
272 U. S.
608.
2 F.2d 891 affirmed.
188 Wis. 232 reversed.
No. 87. Appeal from a decree of the District Court (December
1924) enjoining the Attorney General of Georgia from enforcing a
state law requiring the complaining carrier to equip the fireboxes
of its locomotives with automatic doors.
Nos. 310, 311. Error to a judgment of the Supreme Court of
Wisconsin which affirmed judgments dismissing suits to set aside an
order of the State Railroad Commission, based on statute,
prescribing cab curtains.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases require a determination of the scope and effect of
the federal Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act.
Page 272 U. S. 607
February 17, 1911, c. 103, 36 Stat. 913, as amended by Act March
4, 1915, c. 169, 38 Stat. 1192, and Act June 7, 1924, c. 355, 43
Stat. 659. The main question, which is the same in the three cases,
is one of statutory construction. It is whether the Boiler
Inspection Act has occupied the field of regulating locomotive
equipment used on a highway of interstate commerce, so as to
preclude state legislation. Congress obviously has power to do so.
Compare Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Washington,
222 U. S. 370;
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Public Service Commission,
250 U. S. 566;
Oregon-Washington R. Co. & Nav. Co. v. Washington,
270 U. S. 87.
No. 87 involves a Georgia statute which prescribes an automatic
door to the firebox. Act Aug. 18, 1924; Georgia Laws 1924, p. 173.
That case is here on direct appeal from a final decree of the
federal district court, entered December 23, 1924, granting the
injunction. 2 F.2d 891. Nos. 310 and 311 involve a Wisconsin
statute which prescribes a cab curtain, Wisconsin Statutes, §
1806a, as added by chapter 139, Laws of 1923. These cases are here
on writs of error to the Supreme Court of that state, which
affirmed a judgment denying the injunction. 188 Wis. 232. In
Georgia, the details of the device were prescribed by the
legislature. In Wisconsin, the specifications were prescribed by an
order of the state Railroad Commission. In each case, an interstate
carrier sought to enjoin state officials from enforcing, in respect
to locomotives used on its lines, a state law which prohibits use
within the state of locomotives not equipped with the device
prescribed. Some of the engines were being operated entirely within
the state, some across the state line to and from adjoining states.
It is conceded that the federal Safety Appliance and Boiler
Inspection Acts apply to a locomotive used on a highway of
interstate commerce, even if it is operated wholly within one state
and is not engaged in hauling interstate freight or passengers.
Southern Ry. Co.
v.
Page 272 U. S. 608
United States, 222 U. S. 20;
Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Rigsby, 241 U. S.
33.
Prior to the passage of the Boiler Inspection Act, Congress had,
by the Safety Appliance Act and several amendments, itself made
requirements concerning the equipment of locomotives used in
interstate commerce. It had required a power driving wheel brake,
automatic couplers, grabirons or handholds, drawbars, safety ash
pans, and sill steps. Act March 2, 1893, c.196, 27 Stat. 531; Act
March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943; Act May 30, 1908, c. 225, 35
Stat. 476; Act April 14, 1910, c. 160, 36 Stat. 298. Congress first
conferred upon the Interstate Commerce Commission power in respect
to locomotive equipment in 1911. The original Act applied only to
the boiler. it is entitled:
"An act to promote the safety of employees and travelers upon
railroads by compelling common carriers engaged in interstate
commerce to equip their locomotives with safe and suitable boilers
and appurtenances thereto."
The provisions of that Act were extended in 1915 to "include the
entire locomotive and tender and all parts and appurtenances
thereof." In 1924, § 2 of the original Act was amended to read as
follows:
"That it shall be unlawful for any carrier to use or permit to
be used on its line any locomotive unless said locomotive, its
boiler, tender, and all parts and appurtenances thereof are in
proper condition and safe to operate in the service to which the
same are put, that the same may be employed in the active service
of such carrier without unnecessary peril to life or limb, and
unless said locomotive, its boiler, tender, and all parts and
appurtenances thereof have been inspected from time to time in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and are able to
withstand such test or tests as may be prescribed in the rules and
regulations hereinafter provided for."
Other sections confer upon inspectors and the Commission power
to prescribe requirements and establish rules
Page 272 U. S. 609
to secure compliance with the provisions of § 2. From time to
time since the passage of the original Act, the Commission has
required that locomotives used in interstate commerce be equipped
with various devices.{1} But it has made no order requiring either
a particular type of firebox door or a cab curtain. Nor has
Congress legislated specifically in respect to either device.
The Georgia Act provides that the
"automatic door shall be so constructed and operated by steam,
compressed air, or electricity, as deemed best and most efficient
by officer of such railroad. The device for operating such door
shall be so constructed that it may be operated by the fireman of
said engine by means of a push-button or other appliance located on
the floor of the engine deck or floor of the tender . . . to enable
the fireman while firing such engine by pressure with his feet to
operate such door for firing of such engine."
The automatic firedoor conserves the health of the fireman by
protecting him from exposures to extremes of heat and cold while
performing his duties; conserves his eyesight by reducing the
amount and extent of exposure to the glare of the fire; protects
the safety of the employees in the event of an explosion in the
firebox, and incidentally might affect the safety of the train,
after such an explosion, in that employees, being safe, might be
able to bring the train under control. The automatic firedoor would
also serve to protect travelers upon highways
Page 272 U. S. 610
crossed by the railroad at grade. For the fireman is required to
aid the engineer in keeping a lookout, and with use of the old type
swinging door. this is not continuously possible. The glare of the
flame when the door is open practically blinds the fireman for a
time.
The purpose of the cab curtain is to protect engineers and
firemen from the weather during the winter season. The Act made it
unlawful to use
"between the fifteenth day of November and the first day of
April of each year any locomotive engine not equipped with suitable
and approved cab curtains. Such curtains shall be so constructed as
to efficiently enclose the openings between the engine cab and the
water tank or coal tender attached to such locomotive engine. The
windows of the cab shall be properly and closely fitted, and all
openings for levers or pipes and all other openings whatsoever
through which cold or drafts may bring discomfort to the occupants
shall be efficiently protected in such manner as may be required
and according to plans approved by the Railroad Commission."
Various types of cab curtains had been voluntarily installed by
the carriers. But those installed by most of the carriers were such
that snow entered the cabs in large quantities; that it saturated
the clothing of engineers and firemen, and that the exposure caused
great discomfort and danger of serious illness. The State
Commission found that the plans for cab curtains submitted by the
several carriers were, with one exception, not "fully suitable and
effective for the protection of the health, comfort and welfare of
the engine men," and ordered particular requirements.
Each device was prescribed by the state primarily to promote the
health and comfort of engineers and firemen. Each state requirement
may be assumed to be a proper exercise of its police power, unless
the measure violates the commerce clause. It may be assumed also
that there is no physical conflict between the devices required
Page 272 U. S. 611
by the state and those specifically prescribed by Congress or
the Interstate Commerce Commission,{2} and that the interference
with commerce resulting from the state legislation would be
incidental only. The intention of Congress to exclude states from
exerting their police power must be clearly manifested.
Reid v.
Colorado, 187 U. S. 137,
187 U. S. 148;
Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501,
225 U. S. 533.
Does the legislation of Congress manifest the intention to occupy
the entire field of regulating locomotive equipment? Obviously it
did not do so by the Safety Appliance Act, since its requirements
are specific. It did not do so by the original Boiler Inspection
Act, since its provisions were limited to the boiler.
Atlantic
Coast Line R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U.
S. 280. But the power delegated to the Commission by the
Boiler Inspection Act as amended is a general one. It extends to
the design, the construction, and the material of every part of the
locomotive and tender and of all appurtenances.
The requirements here in question are, in their nature, within
the scope of the authority delegated to the Commission. An
automatic firedoor and an effective cab curtain may promote safety.
Keeping firemen and engineers in good health, like preventing
excessive fatigue through limiting the hours of service, clearly
does so, although indirectly, and it may be found that to promote
their comfort would likewise promote safety. It is argued that the
authority delegated to the Commission does not extend to ordering
the use or installation of equipment of any kind,
Baltimore
& Ohio R. Co. v. Groeger, 266 U.
S. 521, and that Congress has definitely reserved that
power to itself,
Interstate Commerce
Commission v. Cincinnati,
Page 272 U. S. 612
New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co., 167 U.
S. 479;
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Georgia,
234 U. S. 280;
United States v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 242 U.
S. 208. The question whether the Boiler Inspection Act
confers upon the Interstate Commerce Commission power to specify
the sort of equipment to be used on locomotives was left open in
Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 242 U.
S. 255. We think that power was conferred. The duty of
the Commission is not merely to inspect. It is also to prescribe
the rules and regulations by which fitness for service shall be
determined. Unless these rules and regulations are complied with,
the engine is not "in proper condition" for operation. Thus, the
Commission sets the standard. By setting the standard, it imposes
requirements. The power to require specific devices was exercised
before the amendment of 1915, and has been extensively exercised
since.
The argument mainly urged by the states, in support of the claim
that Congress has not occupied the entire field, is that the
federal and the state laws are aimed at distinct and different
evils; that the federal regulation endeavors solely to prevent
accidental injury in the operation of trains, whereas the state
regulation endeavors to prevent sickness and disease due to
excessive and unnecessary exposure, and that whether Congress had
entered a field must be determined by the object sought through the
legislation, rather than the physical elements affected by it. Did
Congress intend that there might still be state regulation of
locomotives if the measure was directed primarily to the promotion
of health and comfort, and affected safety, if at all, only
incidentally?
The federal and the state statutes are directed to the same
subject -- the equipment of locomotives. They operate upon the same
object. It is suggested that the power delegated to the Commission
has been exerted only in respect to minor changes or additions. But
this, if true,
Page 272 U. S. 613
is not of legal significance. It is also urged that, even if the
Commission has power to prescribe an automatic firebox door and a
cab curtain, it has not done so, and that it has made no other
requirement inconsistent with the state legislation. This, also, if
true, is without legal significance. The fact that the Commission
has not seen fit to exercise its authority to the full extent
conferred has no bearing upon the construction of the Act
delegating the power. We hold that state legislation is precluded,
because the Boiler Inspection Act, as we construe it, was intended
to occupy the field. The broad scope of the authority conferred
upon the Commission leads to that conclusion. Because the standard
set by the Commission must prevail, requirements by the states are
precluded, however commendable or however different their purpose.
Compare Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. State, 16
Ala.App. 199;
Whish v. Public Service Commission, 205
App.Div. 756; 240 N.Y. 677;
Staten Island Rapid Transit Co. v.
Public Service Commission, 16 F.2d
313.
If the protection now afforded by the Commission's rules is
deemed inadequate, application for relief must be made to it. The
Commission's power is ample. Obviously, the rules to be prescribed
for this purpose need not be uniform throughout the United States,
or at all seasons, or for all classes of service.
In No. 87, decree affirmed.
In Nos. 310 and 311, judgment reversed.
Steam gauge (Rule 28); safety valves (Rule 34); water glass and
gauge cocks (Rule 37); shutoff and drain cocks (Rule 38); shields
on water and lubricator drain cocks (Rule 38); shields on water and
lubricator water glasses (Rule 42); particular types of ash pans
(Rule 105); "clear vision" windows in cabs (Rule 116); cylinder
cocks (Rule 119); sanding apparatus (Rule 120); whistle (Rule 121);
safety bars or chains (Rule 122b); chafing irons (Rule 123);
headlights with designated intensity and devices (Rules 129, 131);
classification lamps (Rule 130); cab lights (Rule 132); safety
valve for oil supply pipe (Rule 154).
It is contended by the carriers that the order of the Wisconsin
commission is in some minor respects inconsistent with requirements
prescribed in other connections by the Interstate Commerce
Commission. For reasons to be stated, we have no occasion to
examine into the alleged conflict.