5See 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(a) (2002). The Secretary of Labor's authority to decide this case has been delegated to the Administrative Review Board. See 49 U.S.C.A. § 31105(b)(2)(C) and Secretary's Order 1-2002, 67 Fed Reg. 64272 (Oct. 17, 2002).
6 29 C.F.R. § 1978.109(c)(3); BSP Trans., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 160 F.3d 38, 46 (1st Cir. 1998); Castle Coal & Oil Co. v. Reich, 55 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir. 1995). Substantial evidence is that which is "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Clean Harbors Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Herman, 146 F.3d 12, 21 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).
7See Roadway Express v. Dole, 929 F. 2d 1060, 1066 (5th Cir. 1991).
8 In weighing the testimony of witnesses, the fact-finder considers the relationship of the witnesses to the parties, the witnesses' interest in the outcome of the proceedings, the witnesses' demeanor while testifying, the witnesses' opportunity to observe or acquire knowledge about the subject matter of the witnesses' testimony and the extent to which the testimony was supported or contradicted by other credible evidence. Cobb v. Anheuser Busch, Inc., 793 F. Supp. 1457, 1489 (E.D. Mo. 1990); Shrout v. Black Clawson Co., 689 F. Supp. 774, 775 (S.D. Ohio 1988); Jenkins v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, ARB No. 98-146, ALJ No. 88-SWD-2, slip op. at 9 (ARB Feb. 28, 2003). The ARB defers to an ALJ's credibility findings that "rest explicitly on an evaluation of the demeanor of witnesses." Stauffer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ARB No. 00-062, ALJ No. 99-STA-2, slip op. at 9 (ARB July 31, 2001) quoting NLRB v. Cutting, Inc., 701 F.2d 659, 663 (7th Cir. 1983).
9 We note that the ALJ found that Chapman's comments regarding his fatigue were not protected because they did not relate to a violation of federal regulations. The STAA protects complaints relating to violations of a commercial motor vehicle safety regulation, standard, or order. Thus its protection extends beyond just complaints relating to federal motor vehicle safety regulations. However, Chapman's comments did not relate to any violation of a motor vehicle regulation, standard, or order. Thus the ALJ's finding that none of Chapman's conversation with Meehan constituted protected activity was correct.
10 R. D. & O. at 15. See Williams v. Baltimore City Public Schools System, ARB No. 01-021, ALJ No. 00-CAA-15, n.7 (ARB May 30, 2003). See also Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F. 3d 838, 855-856 (9th Cir. 2002).
11See Moon v. Transport Drivers, Inc., 836 F. 2d 226, 229 (6th Cir. 1987).