Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-09513/USCOURTS-ca10-90-09513-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Respondent
Poudre Plastics, Inc.
Petitioner

Document Text:

' FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

POUDRE PLASTICS, INC., ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

) 

v . ) 

) 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ) 

REVIEW COMMISSION, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

DEC 2 3 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-9513 

(OSHRC No. 89-0014) 

(OSHA) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This appeal is from a final order of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Review Commission affirming a citation against 

petitioner Poudre Plastics (Poudre) for violation of 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1910.22(a)(2) (1989), which provides: 

* 

[t)he floor of every workroom shall be maintained in a 

clean and, so far as possible, a dry condition. Where 

wet processes are used, drainage shall be maintained, 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-9513 Document: 010110097351 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 1 
and false floors, platforms, mats, or other dry standing 

places should be provided where practicable. 

As a result of an inspection on October 28, 1988, the Secretary of 

Labor issued to Poudre an "other than serious citation." This 

citation in part states: 

[t]he concrete floor surrounding the dip tanks ..• was 

not capable of being maintained to a condition where it 

no longer presented a slipping hazard to employees due 

to the floors [sic] wet condition •..• 

A hearing was held before an administrative law judge who 

affirmed the issuing of the citation. On appeal, Poudre argues 

the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.22 is 

arbitrary and capricious and is not supported by substantial 

evidence. Poudre further contends the final decision of the 

Secretary is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. 

In reviewing an agency's construction of its own regulation, 

we accord substantial deference to the agency unless the 

interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the 

regulation. Mullins Coal Co. Y..:.. Director, OWCP, 484 -u.s. 135, 159 

(1987). The Secretary interprets section 1910.22(a)(2) to require 

that floors be maintained in as dry a condition as possible where 

wet processes are used. Because we do not find this 

interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the 

regulation, we defer to the agency's judgment. 

We also hold the ALJ did not err in applying the Secretary's 

interpretation of that regulation. We review findings of fact 

under the substantial evidence standard. See Brown Y..:.. Bowen, 801 

F.2d 361, 362 (10th Cir. 1986). The record contains ample 

evidence to support the ALJ's finding that Poudre was in violation 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-9513 Document: 010110097351 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 2 
' 

' of the regulation. We therefore affirm the issuing of the 

citation. 

We agree with the observations of the Sixth Circuit in 

Smurfit Diamond Packaging Corp.~ Secretary of Labor, 784 F.2d 

217, 221-22 (6th Cir. 1986), another case challenging the validity 

of the Secretary's interpretation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.22(a)(2): 

It appears to us doubtful that it should ever have been 

necessary to bring this case to court • 

Reasonable people do not have to parse governmental 

regulations like Philadelphia lawyers to know that 

walking surfaces should be kept in as nonslippery a 

condition as is reasonably feasible, and we make bold to 

suggest that it would have been to everybody's benefit 

(except possibly the lawyers') for the plant manager and 

the compliance officer to work out a reasonable 

understanding on the maintenance of Smurfit's platforms 

without making a federal case of it. 

The present case would also be best resolved between the 

compliance officer and the plant manager rather than bringing the 

full ranks of the federal courts into trying to determine how wet 

is too wet in a case where the citation was characterized as 

"other than serious" and the citation imposed no penalty. The 

order of the Occupational Safety Health Review Commission is 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-9513 Document: 010110097351 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 3