Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01029/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01029-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Montgomery KONE, Inc.
Petitioner
National Elevator Industry, Inc.
Amicus Curiae for Petitioner
Secretary of Labor
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 17, 2000 Decided December 22, 2000

No. 00-1029

Montgomery KONE, Inc.

Petitioner

v.

Secretary of Labor,

Respondent

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

W. Scott Railton argued the cause for petitioner. With

him on the briefs was Paul J. Waters.

Jill M. Lashay was on the brief for amicus curiae National

Elevator Industry, Inc.

Lee Grabel, Attorney, U.S. Department of Labor, argued

the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were

USCA Case #00-1029 Document #564735 Filed: 12/22/2000 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Joseph M. Woodward, Associate Solicitor, and Bruce Justh,

Counsel.

Before: Williams, Randolph and Tatel, Circuit Judges.

Tatel, Circuit Judge: Following an explosion in an elevator pit, the Secretary of Labor fined petitioner for failing to

provide special training required by OSHA regulations for

workers who must enter "confined spaces." Finding the

agency's interpretation of its own regulations reasonable and

its decision supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.

I

Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations

governing safety training in the construction industry provide

that workers required to enter "confined or enclosed spaces"

must receive special training "as to the nature of the hazards

involved, the necessary precautions to be taken, and in the

use of protective and emergency equipment." 29 C.F.R.

s 1926.21(b)(6)(i). In language central to this case, the regulations define a confined space as "any space having limited

means of egress, which is subject to the accumulation of toxic

or flammable contaminants or has an oxygen deficient atmosphere." 29 C.F.R. s 1926.21(b)(6)(ii).

The space involved in this case is a pit at the base of an

elevator in a United States Post Office truck terminal in

Philadelphia. Located beneath the elevator's floor line, the

pit is about four feet, ten inches deep and measures twelve

feet by sixteen to eighteen feet across. During the period of

time involved in this case, the floor of the pit could only be

reached with ladders: a permanent metal ladder was attached to one wall; an orange extension ladder and a six-foot

fiberglass ladder leaned against two other walls; and a

wooden A-frame ladder stood in the center. Sec'y of Labor v.

Montgomery KONE, Inc., 1999 OSHRC No. 37 at 3.

Petitioner Montgomery KONE had a contract to modernize

the terminal's elevators. To accommodate the piston that

powered the hydraulic mechanism of one of the elevators, a

seventy-two foot shaft was drilled into the pit's base. To

USCA Case #00-1029 Document #564735 Filed: 12/22/2000 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

protect the piston from corrosion, the shaft had to be lined

with polyvinyl chloride ("PVC") plastic pipe, which came in

several sections. Using PVC primer and liquid cement, both

of which contain flammable solvents that produce vapors 2.5

times heavier than air, Montgomery KONE employees working in the pit glued the sections together and then lowered

the assembled pipe into the shaft. Not long thereafter, when a

worker in the pit smelled fumes, a supervisor directed the

workers to insert a compressed air hose into the shaft to

expel the fumes.

Approximately a week to ten days after the PVC liner was

installed, while a Montgomery KONE worker assembling the

hydraulic mechanism was using a welding torch, an explosion

blew the PVC pipe out of the shaft. The force of the

explosion threw the worker against the pit's wall, causing

multiple leg injuries. Another worker, also thrown against

the wall, temporarily lost hearing in his left ear. The two

workers escaped by climbing the extension ladder, the only

remaining way out--the explosion had cut the wooden ladder

at the back of the shaft in two, access to the iron ladder was

blocked, and the fiberglass ladder was not in the pit.

Following an inspection by OSHA Compliance Officers the

next day, the Secretary of Labor cited Montgomery KONE

for violating the confined space training regulations and

proposed a $3500 fine. Montgomery KONE contested the

citation, triggering an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The ALJ vacated the citation, finding

that even though the pit satisfied one of section

1926.21(b)(6)(ii)'s requirements--it was subject to the accumulation of flammable contaminants--it did not qualify as a

confined space because it failed the other requirement: due

to the presence of ladders, the means of egress was not

"limited." See Sec'y of Labor v. Parsons Brinckerhoff

Constr. Services, Inc., ALJ Decision and Order at 6-7. Reversing the ALJ, the Occupational Safety and Health Review

Commission found that "conditions encountered in the elevator pit constituted a limited means of egress" both because

escape required climbing a ladder and because "[w]hen the

explosion occurred and the lights went out, the two employees

USCA Case #00-1029 Document #564735 Filed: 12/22/2000 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

had to feel their way around in the dark until they found each

other, then found the ladder and helped each other get out of

the pit." 1999 OSHRC No. 37 at 9. Finding that Montgomery KONE failed to provide confined space training, the

Commission imposed the $3500 fine. See id. at 11. Montgomery KONE appeals, arguing (1) that because of the

presence of ladders, egress from the pit was not limited, and

(2) that evidence demonstrates that the pit was not subject to

the accumulation of flammable contaminants.

II

As usual in cases of this kind, the outcome turns largely on

the standard of review. Unlike in most administrative cases,

however, here we review the actions of two different entities,

each of which has a different function in the statute's enforcement scheme. See Occupational Safety and Health Act of

1970, 29 U.S.C. ss 651-78. The Secretary promulgates and

enforces regulations; the Commission has fact-finding and

adjudicatory powers. See S.G. Loewendick & Sons, Inc. v.

Reich, 70 F.3d 1291, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1995). As a result, we

defer to the Secretary's interpretation of OSHA regulations

and to the Commission's fact-finding. See id. at 1294.

In this case, the bifurcated standard of review has no

practical consequence. Not only does Montgomery KONE

make nothing of it, but in her brief, the Secretary expressly

adopts the Commission's interpretation of section

1926.21(b)(6)(ii) as well as its factual conclusions. Notwithstanding the involvement of two agencies, moreover, our

review is guided by traditional principles of administrative

law. Of particular importance to this case, an agency's

interpretation of its own regulations "merits even greater

deference than its interpretation of the statute that it administers." Buffalo Crushed Stone, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd.,

194 F.3d 125, 128 (D.C. Cir. 1999). We will defer to the

Secretary's interpretation so long as it "sensibly conforms to

the purpose and wording of the regulations." Id. at 128. We

will accept the Commission's findings of fact if they are

USCA Case #00-1029 Document #564735 Filed: 12/22/2000 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

supported by "substantial evidence" and the Commission's

other findings and conclusions "if they are not arbitrary,

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law." Loewendick, 70 F.3d at 1294.

With this highly deferential standard in mind, we turn to

Montgomery KONE's arguments that the Commission's interpretation of the two elements of the confined space regulation--"limited ... egress" and "subject to the accumulation of

... flammable contaminants"--is unreasonable, and that its

findings with respect to each are unsupported by substantial

evidence.

Limited Egress

To elucidate the meaning of "limited," the Commission

looked to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, which defines

the word to mean "restricted." See 1999 OSHRC No. 37 at 8.

The Commission then found that both physical and testimonial evidence demonstrated that egress from the pit was restricted. Not only did photographic and video evidence show

that the only way out of the pit was through the use of

ladders, but both workers testified that in order to escape

from the pit after the explosion, they had to maneuver around

obstacles and then find and climb a ladder. One of the

workers testified that confused and disoriented he felt his

way in the dark until he found his co-worker, who in turn

testified that he could neither hear nor see. Both testified

that they helped each other escape from the pit. Based on

such testimony, the Commission concluded that "[t]he employees may have been able to climb out of the elevator pit

without further problems, but the fact that they had to assist

one another supports our conclusion that their means of

egress was limited." Id. at 9. The Secretary agrees, explaining in her brief that "any means of egress is 'limited' for the

purposes of this standard unless it allows unimpeded egress

even under emergency conditions."

On appeal, Montgomery KONE points out--as it did before

the Commission--that a different OSHA regulation, one that

regulates the safety of trench excavations, expressly provides

that ladders are a "safe means of egress." 29 C.F.R.

USCA Case #00-1029 Document #564735 Filed: 12/22/2000 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

s 1926.651(c)(2). The Commission rejected this argument:

"The fact that ladders are a 'safe' means of egress from a

trench for purposes of compliance with the excavation standard does not mean that they are not a 'limited' means of

egress for purposes of defining a confined space." See 1999

OSHRC No. 37 at 8. Indeed, in a previous decision involving

the excavation regulations, the Commission found that egress

that may not be "entirely free of difficulty" may still be

"safe." Sec'y of Labor v. C.J. Hughes Constr., Inc., 17 O.S.H.

Cas. (BNA) 1753, 1754-56 (1996). In view of this, and

because the excavation and confined space regulations deal

with different situations, the Commission's position in this

case seems eminently reasonable.

Equally without merit is Montgomery KONE's argument

that "egress" was not limited because the workers in fact had

no difficulty escaping from the pit. To be sure, one worker

did so testify. But the question we face is not whether

Montgomery KONE can unearth evidence to support its view

of what happened, but whether substantial evidence in the

record supports the Commission's version of events. See

Harter Tomato Prods. Co. v. NLRB, 133 F.3d 934, 938 (D.C.

Cir. 1998). Here, the question is not even close. Not only do

photographic and video evidence demonstrate that ladders

provided the only means of egress from the pit, but workers

testified that after the explosion, they had trouble getting out.

One worker testified:

I fell down into that area and I just sat there stunned

and I heard Lou who was on the ladder on his way out.

There was maybe two more rungs that he had to climb to

get out so he had maybe a foot to a foot and a half. He's

still on the ladder and he says I.... I can't see. I can't

hear.... So we held each other, went up the other two

rungs, got to the front of the pit and we let go of each

other.

According to the other worker:

I was just pushed against the wall from the blast....

The lights went out. I lost the hearing in my left

ear.... I couldn't hear.... As I said the lights did go

USCA Case #00-1029 Document #564735 Filed: 12/22/2000 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

out and I started calling for Dan and I couldn't see Dan

because of the darkness. Seconds later I felt Dan's hand

on my shoulder saying let's get out and we both got up

the ladder and climbed out of the pit.

Given this evidence and our deferential standard of review,

we cannot imagine a basis for setting aside the Commission's

determination that in precisely the kind of circumstances

contemplated by these regulations--an explosion resulting

from the use of flammable materials--an almost five-foot

deep pit from which workers escaped only with the aid of a

single ladder satisfied the "limited egress" prong of the

confined space regulation.

Subject to the Accumulation of Toxic

or Flammable Contaminants

The Commission concluded that "[t]he record clearly shows

that the elevator pit became subject to the accumulation of

heavier-than-air flammable vapors once Montgomery KONE

introduced the PVC primer and cement into the pit." 1999

OSHRC No. 37 at 6. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission rejected Montgomery KONE's argument that the

confined space regulations did not apply because the company, having attempted to purge the vapors from the shaft,

could not have known they might remain over a week later.

According to the Commission, "[w]here, as here ... an employer is responsible for introducing chemicals into the workplace, it also has a duty to learn about the characteristics of

those chemicals and to determine any dangerous conditions to

which the employees may be exposed as a result." Id. at 6.

The Commission explained:

The material safety data sheets for both the PVC primer

and the PVC cement indicate that the vapor density is

2.49 times that of air. That information should have

informed Montgomery KONE's employees that they

were dealing with vapors that would not all be blown out

USCA Case #00-1029 Document #564735 Filed: 12/22/2000 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

of the seventy-foot-deep PVC liner with the compressed

air they were using.

Id. at 7. And in response to Montgomery KONE's evidence

that air samples taken from the pit both before and after the

explosion revealed no abnormalities, the Commission explained that whether the pit's atmosphere was actually contaminated at the time of the explosion had nothing to do with

whether the pit qualified as a confined space. Rather, "the

presence of the flammable vapors in the PVC cylinder demonstrates that the elevator pit was subject to the accumulation

of flammable contaminants." 1999 OSHRC No. 37 at 8.

Montgomery KONE now reiterates its argument that tests

conducted before and after the explosion detected no vapors

in the pit. It also points out that for three days prior to the

explosion, workers operated welding equipment in the pit

without incident. Finally, the company claims that the explosion occurred in the shaft, not the pit, and that because the

shaft and the pit were separate spaces, the pit was not

subject to the accumulation of flammable contaminants.

All these arguments rest on a misunderstanding of the

Commission's reason for finding that the elevator pit was

subject to the accumulation of flammable contaminants. To

the Commission, it made no difference that vapors had not

been detected either before or after the explosion, that no

explosion occurred during previous welding activity, or that

the explosion may have occurred in the shaft, not the pit.

Instead, the Commission found--and the Secretary agrees--

that the presence in the shaft of flammable contaminants 2.5

times heavier than air effectively made the pit "subject to the

accumulation of ... flammable contaminants." The Secretary cites the ALJ's finding approvingly:

"The statement that there is no relationship between the

explosion and the elevator pit blinks at reality....

[T]he effects of the explosion were felt in the pit.... To

hold that this pit does not fall within the definition set

out in s 1926.21(b)(6)(ii) because a flammable gas accumulated and exploded in a cylinder placed in a hole in the

USCA Case #00-1029 Document #564735 Filed: 12/22/2000 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

pit's floor, rather than in the pit itself, elevates technical

distinctions to an unwarranted level of importance."

ALJ Decision and Order at 5-6. Given the deference we owe

an agency regarding the interpretation of its own regulations,

and given the evidence in the record of heavier-than-air

vapors in the shaft, we see no basis for overturning the

Commission's conclusion that the pit met the second prong of

the confined space standard.

III

In light of the fact that the pit qualified as a confined space

within the meaning of section 1926.21(b)(6)(ii), Montgomery

KONE had an obligation to provide confined space training

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. s 1926.21(b)(6)(i): "[a]ll employees

required to enter into confined or enclosed spaces shall be

instructed as to the nature of the hazards involved, the

necessary precautions to be taken, and in the use of protective and emergency equipment required." Reviewing the

record, the Commission concluded that Montgomery KONE

failed to provide confined space training to workers required

to enter the elevator pit. See 1999 OSHRC No. 37 at 6.

Indeed, according to the Commission, the workers' immediate

supervisor expressly testified that "the company did not

provide confined space training because it did not work in any

confined spaces." Id. at 6 n.3.

Montgomery KONE argues that it had no reason to believe

that the precautions it took to guard against the accumulation

of flammable vapors were insufficient to prevent the explosion. As the Secretary points out, however, this has nothing

to do with Montgomery KONE's obligations under the confined space training regulation. Given the supervisor's concession that the company provided no confined space training,

we affirm the Commission's order and citation.

So ordered.

USCA Case #00-1029 Document #564735 Filed: 12/22/2000 Page 9 of 9