Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235, 11 (2002)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11

Cite as: 534 U. S. 235 (2002)

Opinion of the Court

over working conditions on uninspected vessels, the Coast Guard has not "exercise[d]" its authority under � 4(b)(1).9

We think it equally clear that Rig 52 was a "workplace" as that term is defined in � 4(a) of the Act. The vessel was located within the geographic area described in the definition: "a State," 29 U. S. C. � 653(a), namely, Louisiana. Nothing in the text of � 4(a) attaches any significance to the fact that the barge was anchored in navigable waters. Rather, the other geographic areas described in � 4(a) support a reading of that provision that includes a State's navigable waters: for example, � 4(a) covers the Outer Continental Shelf, and sensibly extends to drilling operations attached thereto. Cf. 43 U. S. C. � 1333(a)(1).

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia took no part in the decision of this case.

9 The statutory provisions themselves resolve this case, because the Coast Guard has not "exercise[d]" authority under � 4(b)(1) with respect to the working conditions at issue here. It is worth noting, however, that this interpretation of � 4(b)(1)'s pre-emptive scope comports with the OSH Act's fundamental purpose: "to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions." 29 U. S. C. � 651(b). As respondent declared at oral argument, its interpretation of � 4(b)(1) would mean that if the Coast Guard regulated marine toilets on Rig 52 and nothing more, any OSHA regulation of the vessel would be pre-empted. Tr. of Oral Arg. 20. Such large gaps in the regulation of occupational health and safety would be plainly inconsistent with the purpose of the OSH Act.

245

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11

Last modified: October 4, 2007