Your request for an oplnlon of thla department reads: "?&ease advlre me vhether or not Article 6379,, Revised Civil 0trtutes, is applloable to r'rallroad oompany operating In Interstate oomwroe in order that we JUST take proper ac- tloa on ..a matter nov pendlag before thlr De- _ partmnt.”

Artlole 6379, Revised Civil 8tatutes:of Texas, provides1 'The air brhkes and air attaohment on rati trcrin In thls mirt.bo lnspeoted by e competent luapeotor beforr sooh train leaves lta dlvlU$n teminal. Thle article shall not apply to tram roada eng8ged ln haul- lng logs to eav aille, nor to rallmads under forty ailes in length.,'.Any oorpomtlon or receFve~ vho operates OP causes to be operated an? suoh train vithout uoh insp otlon shall & PbJ to the tate Of ? ems (1, penalty %I fopfelt of not lesr. then flft3 nor more than one hun- dred dolla&, to be recovered br suit. Each ogeratien dP’ any such train Without suoh in- ape@ilon first having been 'so made ahall,be a aepa*ate offense."

The anaver to be given the question before ue wtll +epend upon whether the Federal Sbfet:y Appliance Act, dealing with *2 . Eonorsble John D. Reed; Page 2

#afew deviues f'or railroed .mlhg rtook in inter8trte comeroe provider for larpeetiona eoveawd bg Artlale 6379, rupr4. If ruah 18 provided in the Feder41 Aat, the Texa8 Strtute mu8t fall as havlng been 8upereeded w a Federal Aaf derllng with the #am

Southern Rallv6T Co. v. Rrllro4d Comlrnfon of Xndluu, ~8%. 439 35 8. Ct. 304 59 L. Ed 661 The reoond quertfon to be dlrpo8ei of 18 vhether'or not th; Aot'ln que8tlon 1s 4 burden oa lnter8tate oomeroe.

We have amefull~ examined the Federal Bafetr Applfanoe bet, aodifled 48 qltle 45, 73. 8. C. A., sad flnd a0 provf8lon for the lnspeation of the equipment thereln provided for. And hence, we do not believe the fewc# 8tstute 0411 irll wlthln the prohibition of the Southern Railvsr Co. v. Railroad Coaridrlon of Iadluu.ceae, supra.

It has been held that t&e variour Federal Safe* Ap- pliume Aata embodied In title 45, U. 8. C. A., are e8rgntially pollee regulatbns derfgaed for the purpose of rrfcigusrdlng em- plormr 'ixnd psr#enge~r from injury 4nd de4th. U. 8. v. Philr- .dele~~~~ 8. RI. Go., 223 Pod. 217; Dodge v. Chlti&o @rest West-

., 146.1. Y. 14; 0. 8. v.* Xntenutioml West lorthem R. Co:, Fed. (26) 142.

It 18 our o piafoa that th e l t8tute under oonrfder4tion 28 ole4rl~ within the polio0 power of the 4nd 18 l afc3raes- ble unlerr it mn be rsid th4t 8Uob Fegulation 18 6 burden oa lnter8tate oommeree.

It vas held by the Suprem Couct of th# United Btxtei * in the aaae of Texsr, Qo. v. &ova, 258 P. 8. 466, 266 Fed. 577, thst .the State of Ueorgla asuld requln tirpeation inaludiag teat8 a8 to qtmlltr, as a #4i"egu4rd with reqmot to lllumlnrting ,011 aad g48olfae uhen found within it8 border*, or uhen movlag in Oomwrue from Bt4te Motel them being no legirlatfon by Congres8 upon the clubjeot.

The rfaht of the State of feu York to fori?ld under penslties the heating of milwry p*rreage~ 04r8 in th4t State br cutover or iurnsoea kept la8lde the uar8 or 8urpemied there- from evee though 8uOh oara veL?(I operated iti intirstato eomae~e ~48 upheld b7 the United btatb8 Suprene Court in the 0480 of Hew York, Il. H. & 8. 8. Qo, v. People of the &ate of low York, 17,s. ct. 418, 165 P. 8. 628.

Eonor6ble John D. Reed, P4ge 3

The Arksasbs Leglsl&ture hcid the right to require 4 ,&nlmm of three brakemen for freight trains of more thsn tventy- five oara operated la the State and the sum vas not 4n unoonstl- tutlonal regulation OS interstate eommeroe when applied to 4 foreign oomp4n~. Chlaago, R. I. k P. Ry. Co. vs. State of Ark- 4n848, 31 S. Ct. 275, 219 U. 5. 453..

We do not believe that,the statute under oonslderrtlon ~osmtltuter burden on lnterrtrte ooneroe. It 1s our opinion that the mm8 18 enforoerble igain8t b oorpor4tlon operrtlng ln laterstate eomeroe.

Yours very .trulP