# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 26 47

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

W al -Ma rt S to res East , LP, do in g b us in es s as W al m art Dis tri bu ti on Cen te r # 7 03 5

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Alex an de r Aco st a, Secr et ary of Labo r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Occu pa ti on al Safe ty and Heal th Rev ie w Comm is si on

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 26 , 20 18
Fi le d: Marc h 2 8, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, BEAM, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

T he O cc upa tio na l Sa fe ty an d H ea lth A dm ini strat io n (“ OSHA”) ci te d W al -M ar t

St or es Eas t

, L.P., do in g bu si ne ss as W al Mar t Dis tri bu ti on Cen te r #7 03 5 (“ W al

Mar t” ), fo r two pu rp or te d vi ol a t i o n s o f OSHA’ s reg ul at io n rel at in g to bl oo db or ne

pa th og en s, 29 C.F.R. § 19 10 .10 30

. Mo re sp eci fic al ly

, O SH A al le ge d W al -Ma rt fai le d

to co m pl y wit h reg ul at io ns pe rta in in g to pr ov id in g he pa t i t i s B va cci na ti on s toem

pl oyees who vo lu nt ari ly s erv ed on a Seri ou s In jury Res po ns e Te a m (“ SIRT”) at

W al -Ma rt’s Alac hu a, Fl or id a, di st rib ut io n cen te r (th e “ Alac hu a DC”). W e de ny W al

Mar t’s p et it io n a nd affi rm th e ag en cy

ord er.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

OSHA’ s bl oo db or ne pa th og en reg ul at io n in cl ud es he al th st an da rd s rel at ed to

th e pr ev en ti on of th e tra ns m is si on of he pa ti ti s B i n t he wor kp la ce. Se e 29 C.F.R.
§ 19 10 .10 30 (f). The reg ul at io n di rect s em pl oyers su ch as W al -Ma rt to

, am on g ot he r

t hi ng s, “ m ak e av ai la bl e th e he pa ti ti s B va cci ne an d va cci na ti on se rie s to al l

em pl oyees who ha ve oc cu pa ti on al ex po su re, an d po st -ex po su re e v a l u at io n an d

fo ll ow- up to al l em

pl oyees who ha ve ha d an e x p o s u r e in ci de nt .” Id

. § 1 9 1 0 .10 30 (f)(1 )(i ). “ Occu pa ti on al Exp os ur e m ean s reas on ab ly an ti ci pa te d sk in

,
ey e, m uc o u s membr an e, or pa ren te ral co nt act wit h bl oo d or ot he r po te nt ia ll y

in fect io us m at eri al s th at m ay res ul t fro m th e pe rfo rm an ce of an em pl oyee’s du ti es .”

Id

. § 1 91 0.1 03 0( b)

.

Th e pa rti es ag ree m em

be rs of th e SIRT te am — em pl oyees who w o u l d

vo lu nt eer as a s e c o n d a r y du ty to res po nd to m ed ic al in ci de nt s an d pr ov id e ro ut in e

fir st -ai d care un le ss an d un ti l em erg en cy pe rs on ne l (if ne ces sa ry ) arri ve d at th e sc en e

— w e re em

pl oyees who ha d oc cu pa ti on al ex po su re. As a res ul t, W al -Ma r t w a s

req ui red un de r th e reg ul at io n to m ak e th e he pa ti ti s B va cci ne an d va cci na ti on se rie s

av ai la bl e to th em

. Id

. § 1 91 0( f)(1 )(i ).

The reg ul at io n g e n eral ly req ui red W al -Ma rt to m ak e th e he pa ti ti s B va cci ne

av ai la bl e to wil li ng SIRT m em be rs aft er th ey wer e p ro vi de d cert ai n in fo rm at io n

rel at ed to he pa ti ti s B, in cl ud in g th e be ne fit s of vacc in at io n, bu t “ wit hi n 10 wor ki ng

da y s of in it ia l as si gn m en t.” Id

. § 19 10 .10 30 (f)(2 )(i ); se e al so id

. § 19 10 (g )(2 )(v ii )(I).

If an em pl oyee e l e c t e d va cci na ti on , th e reg ul at io n fu rth er req ui red W al -Ma rt to

en su re th e he pa ti ti s B va cci ne an d va c c i n a t io n se rie s was “ [p ]rov id ed acco rd in g to

-2

-reco m

m en da ti on s of th e U.S. Pu bl ic H e a lt h Serv ic e cu rren t at th e ti m e th es e

ev al ua ti on s an d pr oc ed ur es ta ke pl ace, ex cep t as sp eci fie d” b y t h e te rm s of th e

reg ul at io n. Id

. § 1 91 0.1 03 0( f)(1 )(i i)( D).

As ex pl ai ne d in OSHA’ s su m m ary an d ex pl an at io n of th e st an da rd

, th e Cen te rs

fo r Dis eas e Co nt ro l an d Prev en ti on (“ CDC”) is th e U.S. Pu bl ic Heal th Serv ic e ag en cy “resp on si bl e fo r is su in g gu id el in es an d m ak in g reco m m en da ti on s reg ard in g

. . . bl oo db or ne pa th og en s.” Occu pa ti on al Exp os ur e to Bl oo db or ne Pat ho ge ns , 56 Fed

. Reg

. at 64 00 4, at 64 15 3 (Dec. 6, 19 91 ). In 20 06

, th e CDC’s Adv is or y Co m m it te e on

Im m un iz at io n Prac ti ces is su ed a rep or t pr ov id in g gu id an ce an d reco m m en da ti on s to

in crea se he pa ti ti s B va cci na ti on s fo r ad ul ts

. Se e A Co m pr eh en si ve Im

m un iz at io n

St rat eg y to Eli m in at e Tran sm is s i o n of Hep at it is B Viru s In fect io n in th e Uni te d

St at es , Rec om m en da ti on s of th e Adv is or y Co m m it te e on Im

m un iz at i o n Prac ti ces (ACIP) Part II: Im

m un iz at io n of Adu lt s, 55 Mo rb id it y an d Mo rta li ty W eek ly Rep or t,

No. RR-1 6 (Dec. 8, 20 06 ), ht tp s: // www.cdc.g ov /m m wr/i nd rr_ 20 06 .ht m l. The CDC

reco mm e nd s cert ai n ad ul ts ag e twen ty an d ol de r rece iv e a th ree- sh ot va cci na ti on

se rie s, wit h th e se co nd sh ot to be gi ve n wit hi n on e to two m on th s aft er th e fir st sh ot

an d t he th ird sh ot to be gi ve n fo ur to si x m on th s af te r th e fi rs t s ho t. Id

. at 15

.

Afte r rec e i vi ng co m

pl ai nt s ab ou t th e Alac hu a DC’s sa fet y pr og ram , OSHA

co nd uc te d an in sp ect io n of th e fa c i l i t y be twee n la te Sep te m be r 20 15 an d earl y

Ja nu ary 20 16

. The in sp ect or de te rm in ed

, th ro ug h a rev ie w of do cu m en ta ti on an d

in te rv ie ws, th at W al -Ma rt vi ol at ed § 19 1 0

. 1 0 3 0( f), an d is su ed W al -Ma rt two

ci ta ti on s.

The fir st ci ta ti on al le ge d a se rio u s v i o la ti on of § 19 10 .10 30 (f)(1 )(i i)( D)
(“ Ci ta ti on One” ) an d p ro po se d a fin e o f $5 ,00 0, as se rti ng fiv e SIR T m em be rs were

“ po te nt ia ll y ex po se d wit

h an oc cu pa tio na l expo su re to bl oo db or ne pa th og en s be cau se

th e em pl oyer di d no t pr ov id e th e [h ]epat it is B va cci na ti on se rie s in acco rd an ce wit h

th e reco m m en da ti on s of th e U

. S

. Pu bl ic Heal th Serv ic e, ex po si ng th es e em pl oyees

-3

-to co nt ract in g th e [h ]epat it is B vi ru s.” The se co nd ci ta ti on al le ge d a rep eat vi ol at io n

of § 1 9 1 0

. 1 03 0( f)(2 )(i ) (“ Ci ta ti on Two”) an d pr op os ed a fin e of $2 5,0 00 , a ss ert in g

W al -Ma rt di d no t of

fer e ig ht em

pl oyees t he he pa ti ti s B va cci ne wit hi n te n wor ki ng

da y s o f as si gn m en t t o t he SIRT t eam

.

W al -Ma rt tim el y co nte sted th e ci ta ti on an d no ti fic at io n of pe na lt y , an d a Uni te d

St at es Dep art m en t of Lab or Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e (“ ALJ”) pr es id ed ov er a on eda y he ari ng

. Si x wit ne ss es te st ifi ed

, in cl ud in g an OSHA in sp ect or , two m em be rs of

th e SIRT te am , W al -Ma rt’s fo rm er an d cu rren t Ass et Pro te ct io n Area Man ag ers , an d

W al -Ma rt’s s en io r di rect or of c om pl ia nc e an d s afet y

.

The ALJ is su ed a de ci si on an d or de r co nc lu di ng th e Secr et ary of Lab or (“ Secr et ary”) ha d m et hi s bu rd en to es ta bl is h W al -Ma rt ha d co m m it te d bo th al le ge d

vi ol at io ns of th e reg ul at io n. The ALJ recl as si fie d Ci ta ti on One ’s vi ol at io n as “ ot he r

th an se rio us ” an d red uc ed th e pe na lt y to $1 ,00 0. The ALJ im po se d a pe na lt y of

$2 5,0 00 for Cit at io n Two

.

W al -Ma rt pe ti ti on ed fo r di sc ret io na ry rev ie w wit h th e Occu pa tio na l Safe ty an d

Heal th Rev ie w Co m

m is si on (“ Co m

m is si on ”), an d the Se cretar y fil ed a cro ss -p et it io n.

Th e Co m m is si on to ok no act io n on ei th er pe ti ti on m ak in g th e ALJ de ci si on th e

ag en cy ’s fin al or de r. W al -Ma rt fil ed a pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w wit h th is co ur t an d as ks us

to va cat e b ot h c it at io ns

.

II . Anal ys is

W al -Ma rt ad va nc es a nu m be r of arg um en ts in su pp or t of va cat in g th e ci ta ti on s.

In co ns id eri ng th es e arg um en ts , we m us t u ph ol d t he ALJ’s fact ua l fin di ng s so lo ng

as th ey are “ su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e reco rd co ns id ered as a who le .”

29 U.S.C. § 66 0( a ) ; ac co rd Pere z v. Lo re n Co ok Co

. , 80 3 F.3 d 93 5, 93 8 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ) (en ba nc ); Dak

ot a Und er gr ou nd

, In c. v. Se c’y of

La bo r , 20 0 F.3 d 56 4, 56 6 (8 th

-4

-Ci r. 20 00 ) (ap pl y in g th e su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce st an da rd to an ALJ’s fin di ng m ad e aft er

th e Co m m is si on de ni ed di sc ret io na ry rev ie w). And we wil l up ho ld th e ALJ’s “ le ga l

co nc lu si on s ‘unl es s th ey are arb it rary, cap ric io us , an ab us e of di sc ret io n, or ot he rwis e

no t in acco rd an ce wit h la w.’ ” Lo re n Co ok

, 80 3 F.3 d at 93 8 (q uo ti ng So li s v. Su mmit

Co nt ra ct or

s, In c. , 55 8 F .3d 81 5, 8 23 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

A.

W al -Ma rt at ta ck s th e va li di ty of bo th ci ta ti on s ba se d on it s as se rti on th at

OSHA’ s own en fo rcem en t pr oc ed ur es di ct at e O SHA sh ou ld no t ha ve is su ed ei th er

ci ta ti on be cau se W al -Ma rt fit wit hi n wha t it te rm s th e co ll at eral du ty ex em pt io n. Thi s

“ ex em pt io n” is se t fo rth in OSHA Dir ec tiv e CP L 2- 2.6 9, whi ch pr ov id es Enfo rcem en t

Pro ced ur es fo r th e Occu pa ti on al Exp os ur e to Bl oo db or ne Pat ho ge ns (“ BBP

Enfo rcem en t Pr oc ed ur es ”).

The BBP Enfo rcem en t Pro ced ur es were is su ed wit h th e pur pose of es ta bl is hi ng

po li ci es an d cl ari fic at io ns to en su re un ifo rm in s p e c t i o n pr oc ed ur es

. The po li cy

pr ov id es th at ci ta ti on s sh ou ld be i s s u e d f o r em pl oyers who ha ve no t of fere d th e

he pa ti ti s B va cci ne to fir st ai d pr ov id ers (wh o ha ve oc cu pa ti on al ex po su re) be fo re

th os e wor ke rs are exp os ed to he pa ti ti s B. An ex em pt io n i s ca rv ed ou t for in st an ces

whe n t he fol lo win g t hr ee co nd it io ns are m et :

a. The pr im ary job as si gn m en t of su ch a de si gn at ed fir st ai d pr ov id er is

no t t he ren de rin g o f fi rs t ai d o r ot he r m ed ic al ass is ta nc e, an d

b. Any fir st ai d ren de red by su ch pe rs on is ren de red on ly as a co ll at era l duty

, res po nd in g so le ly to in juri es res ul ti ng fro m wor kp la ce in ci de nt s,

g e n eral ly at th e lo cat io n whe re th e in ci de nt oc cu rred

. NOTE : Th i s

e x c e p ti on do es no t ap pl y to de si gn at ed fir st ai d pr ov id ers who ren de r

as si st an ce on a reg ul ar ba si s, fo r ex am pl e, at a f i r s t ai d st at io n, cl in ic

, di sp en sa ry or ot he r lo cat io n whe re in jure d em pl oyees ro ut in el y go f

or

as si st an ce; no r do es it ap pl y to an y he al th care , em erg en cy , or pu b li c

-5

-sa fet y pe rs on ne l who are ex pe ct ed to ren de r fir st ai d in th e co ur se of

th ei r wor k. The se em

pl oyees m

us t be of fere d th e va cci ne p r i o r to

ex po su re.

c. The e m

pl oyer’s exp os ur e co nt ro l p la n m us t sp eci fic al ly ad dr es s th e

pr ov is io n of th e he pa ti ti s B va cci ne to al l un va cci na te d fir st ai d

pr ov id ers who ren de r as si st an ce in an y si tu at io n in vo lv in g th e pr es en ce of bl oo d or OPIM (reg ard le ss of whe th er an act ua l “ ex po su re in ci de nt ”

as de fin ed by t h e s t an da rd oc cu rred ) an d th e pr ov is io n of ap pr op ria te

po st -ex po su re ev al ua ti on , pr op hylax is

, an d fo ll ow- up f o r th os e

em pl oyees wh o e xp eri en ce an “ ex po su re i nc id en t.”

BBP En fo rcem en t Pr oc ed ur es , at XIII .F.8.

W al -Ma rt co nt en ds th is ex em pt io n req ui red OSHA to fo rg o is su in g a ci ta ti on (o r at le as t cl as si fy th e ci ta ti on s as de m in im is ) be cau se W al -Ma rt pr ov ed each of th e

li st ed co nd it io ns were tru e as to th e rel ev an t SIRT m em be rs

. W e di sa gr ee b e c a u se

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ALJ’s fin di ng t h a t Wa l

- M art fai le d to sh ow th e

co nd it io ns in su bp arag rap h b . of t he BBP En fo rcem en t Pr oc ed ur es were s at is fie d.

The ALJ reas on ed th e co ll at era l du ty ex cep ti on di d no t ap pl y he re, in pa rt

be cau se SIRT em

pl oyees di d no t res po nd to wor kp la ce in juri es “ ge ne ral ly at th e

lo cat io n where th e in ci de nt oc cu rred ” as su bp arag rap h b

. req ui res

. In co nt ras t, the 1

Th e A LJ a ls o reas on ed th e co ll at eral du ty ex em pt io n di d no t ha ve th e fo rce 1

an d effe ct of la w be cau se th e BBP Enfo rcem en t Pro ced ur es r e f l e ct a po li cy im pl em en te d by th e Secr et ary as an ex erci se of hi s di sc ret io na ry po wer. Co mpa re Bro ck v. Ca th ed

ra l Blu ff s Sh al e Oil Co

. , 79 6 F.2 d 53 3, 53 8 (D.C. Ci r. 19 86 ) (Sca li a, J.) (h ol di ng a Mi ne Safe ty Heal th Adm in is tra ti on en fo rcem en t po li cy was no t bi nd in g
ag ai ns t th e S e c r e ta ry in pa rt be cau se it wou ld in te rfer e wit h th e Secr et ary’ s

en fo rcem en t di sc ret io n, whi ch is “ an area in whi ch th e co ur ts ha ve tra di ti on al ly be en

m os t rel uc ta nt to in te rfer e”), wi th GoJ et Air li ne s, LLC v. FAA

, 74 3 F.3 d 11 68

, 11 73 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th e co ur t wou ld no t ap pl y a pr es um pt io n of

un rev ie wab il it y in cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g “ if th e ag en cy ha s m ad e cl ear it s

-6

-ALJ fo un d th e “ un di sp ut ed te st im on y es ta bl is he d th e gr eat m ajor it y o f th e fir st ai d

ad m in is te red by th e S I R T t e a m oc cu rs in th e SIRT Ro om ”
— a fir st -ai d ro om

se pa rat ed fro m

th e m ai n wo rk area by a set of d ou bl e d oo rs

.

Fro m ou r rev ie w of th e reco rd

, we co nc lu de su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e

ALJ’s f in di ng

. “ Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce is rel ev an t ev id en ce th at a reas on ab le pe rs on

m ig ht acce pt as ad eq ua te to su pp or t a co nc lu si on .” Omah a Pap er St oc k Co

. v. Se c’y
of La bo r , 30 4 F.3 d 77 9, 78 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). Thi s st an da rd is m et he re. Two SIRT

te am m em

be rs te st ifi ed th at whe n th ey rece iv ed no ti fic a ti on of a m ed ic al in ci de nt

, th ey alm os t al way s res po nd ed by g oi ng to th e SIRT ro om

. Test im on y an d e xh ib it s

al so es ta bl is he d th e SIRT ro om was la be le d “ FIRS T AID ROOM,” w a s se pa rat ed

fro m th e wareh ou se by do ub le do or s, an d was de sc rib ed as “ th e im ag e of a m od ern

da y cl in ic ,” in th at it was well -s to ck ed wit h m ed ic al su pp li es , a pa ti en t co t, an d ot he r

th in g s t yp i c a l l y fo un d in a cl in ic al se tt in g. Co ns id eri ng th is ev id en ce, we fin d no

ba si s to di st ur b th e ALJ’s fact ua l fin di ng th at SIRT em pl oye e s di d no t res po nd to

in juri es “ ge ne ral ly a t t h e l o c at io n whe re th e in ci de nt oc cu rred .” The ALJ di d no t

ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re

jecti ng W al -Ma rt’s b ro ad in te rp ret at io n o f th e ex em pt io n.

B.

W e ne xt ad dr es s W al -Ma rt’s co nt en ti on th at we sh ou ld va cat e C i t a t i on One

, whi ch ch arg ed W al -Ma rt wit h vi ol at in g t h e st an da rd by fai li ng to pr ov id e th e

he pa ti ti s B va cci na ti on se rie s to SIRT m em be rs i n a cco rd an ce wit h th e CDC’s

reco m m en da ti on s.

in te nt th at a po l i cy st at em en t or se t of en fo rcem en t gu id el in es im po se bi nd in g li m it at io ns on th e ex erci se of it s en fo rcem en t di sc ret io n” ). W e ne ed no t de ci de to da y whe th er OSHA’ s in cl us io n of th e co ll at eral du ty ex em pt io n in it s BBP Enfo rcem en t
Pro ced ur es co ul d bi nd OSHA in th e ap pr op ria t e c as e be cau se of ou r ho ld in g on al te rn at iv e g ro un ds

.

-7

-The st an da rd req ui res al l em pl oyers t o m ak e su re t he he pa ti ti s B va cci ne an d

va cci na ti on se rie s are “ [p ]rov id ed acco rd in g to reco m m en da ti on s of th e U.S. Pu bl ic

Heal th Serv ic e cu rren t at th e ti m e th es e ev al ua ti on s an d pr oc ed ur es ta ke pl ace, ex cep t

as sp eci fie d” in th e reg ul at io n. 29 C.F.R. § 19 10 .10 30 (f)(1 )(i i ) ( D )

. The CDC’s

reco m m en da ti on s se t fo rth a ti m et ab le fo r co m pl et in g th e th ree- sh ot he pa ti ti s B

va cci na ti on se rie s wit h th e th ird sh ot t o b e gi ve n fo ur to si x m on th s aft er th e fir st

sh ot

.

Bec au se W al -Ma rt di d no t pr ov id e fo ur SIRT m em be rs wit h th e th ird do se of

th e va cci ne (at le as t un ti l aft er th e in sp ec t i o n ), th e ALJ he ld W al -Ma rt vi ol at ed th e

st an da rd

. W e ge ne ral ly ag ree wit h th e ALJ’s as se ss m en t. The un di sp ut ed ev id en ce

sh ows W al -Ma rt’s su pe rv is or of th e SIRT te am kn owi ng ly fai le d to pr ov id e fo ur

SIRT m em

be rs th e th ird do se of th e va cci ne un ti l aft er th e in sp ect io n. As a res ul t, th e

la ps e be twee n th e se co nd an d th ird do se s fo r th es e em pl oyees ran ge d fro m

twen ty-o n e t o t wen ty-fou r m on th s, whi ch far ex ceed ed th e ran ge reco m m en de d by

th e CDC. Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t he refo re s up po rts th e ALJ’s d et erm in at io n t ha t t he

h e p at it is B va cci ne an d va cci na ti on se rie s was no t “ [p ]rov id ed acco rd in g t o

reco m m en da ti on s o f th e U.S. Pu bl ic Heal th Serv ic e.”

W al -Ma rt m ak es se ve ral arg um en ts as to why the A L J’ s conc lu si on was wro ng

. Our au th or it y to rev ie w th is pe ti ti on is ge ne ral ly li m it ed

, ho wev er, to th os e ob jecti on s

rai se d to th e Co m

m is si on

. Se e 29 U.S.C. § 6 60 (a) (“ No ob jecti on th at ha s no t been

ur ge d b efo re th e Co m

m is si on sh al l b e co ns id ered by the co ur t, u nl es s t he fai lu re o r

ne gl ect to ur ge su ch qu es ti on s sh al l be ex cu se d be cau se of e xt rao rd in ary

ci rcu m st an ces .”); Dak

ot a U n d e rg ro un d

, 20 0 F.3 d at 56 7 (h ol di ng th e pe ti ti on er

“ waiv ed it s arg ume n t

. . . be cau se it di d no t rai se th e is su e in it s ap pl ic at io n to th e

Re vie w Co m

m is si on ” an d th e pe ti ti on er fai le d to ide nti fy ex tr ao rd ina ry ci rc um sta

nc es jus ti fy in g su ch fai lu re or ne gl ect ); Fra nk Li ll & So n, In c. v. Se c’y of La bo r , 36 2 F.3 d

84 0, 84 4 (D.C. C i r

. 2 0 0 4 ) (co nc lu di ng ch al le ng es to an ALJ de te rm in at io n were

waiv ed an d ex pl ai ni ng th at be cau se of § 66 0’s pr oh ib it io n, ci rcu it co ur ts ha ve

-8

-un ifo rm ly he ld th ere is no juri sd ic ti on to en te rta in ob jecti on s no t rai se d in th e pe ti ti on

fo r di sc ret io na ry

rev ie w to th e Co m

m is si on ).

In it s Pet it io n fo r Dis cret io na ry Rev ie w di rect ed to th e Co m m is si on , W a l

Mar t’s on ly ob

jecti on to th e ALJ’s in te rp ret at io n of § 19 10 .10 30 (f)(1 ) was ba se d on

an as se rti on th e ALJ’s co nc lu si on res ts on a fla wed in te rp ret at io n o f t h e reg ul at io n

th at im pr op erl y tra ns fo rm ed th e CDC’s re co mmend at io ns in to m an da to ry

re qu ir emen ts

. Be ca

use W al -M ar

t ha s no t id en ti fie d an y ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces 2
gi vi ng us reas on to ex cu se it s fai lu re to rai se to th e Co m m is si on it s ot he r arg um en ts

a d v a n c e d to th is co ur t, we li m it ou r co ns id erat io n to th is is su e. Se e Dak ot a
Und er gr ou nd , 20 0 F .3d at 5 67

.

The cen tra l pr em is e of W al -Ma rt’s arg um en t pr op erl y be fo re us is th at th e

ALJ’s in te rp ret at io n of § 19 10 .10 30 (f)(1 )(i i)( D) vi ol at es can on s of s t a t u t or y

in te rp ret at io n be cau se it di sr eg ard s an d ren de r s s up erfl uo us th e wor d

“ reco m m en da ti on ” pr es en t in th e CDC gu id an ce do cu m en t. Se e , e.g

. , Uni te d St at es

v. Gomez -Her na nd ez , 30 0 F.3 d 97 4, 97 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (rec og ni zi ng “ th e pr in ci pl e

th at co ur ts av oi d a st at ut or y co ns tru ct io n th at wou ld ren de r an ot he r pa rt of th e sa m e

st at ut e su pe rfl uo us ”). W al -Ma rt al so cl ai m s th e Secr et ary’ s in te rp ret at io n ru ns afo ul

of a “ well -s et tl ed ” ru le th at “ th e Secr et ary can no t m ak e a reco m m en da ti on

en fo rcea bl e si m

pl y by sub st it ut in g t he word sh al l fo r sh ou ld .”

Wa l -Ma rt al so st at ed in a fo ot no te to it s arg um en t be fo re th e Co m m is si o n , 2

“ The ALJ’s de ci si on , req ui rin g th at em pl oyers fo ll ow reco m

m en da ti on s of a di ffer en t

ag en cy wit h no ru le -m ak in g au th or it y , m ay co ns ti tu te an im pe rm is si bl e de le ga ti on of

au th or it y , in vi ol at io n of the Adm in is tra ti ve Pro ced ur es [si c] Act an d d ue pro ces s.”

W al -Ma rt in cl ud ed th e sa m e fo ot no te in it s br ie fin g to th is co ur t. In ne it he r do cu m en t di d W al -Ma rt de ve lo p an y arg um en t or of fer an y au th or it y to su pp or t th is su gg es ti on

an d so we de cl in e to co ns id er it

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Za va la

, 42 7 F.3 d 56 2, 56 4– 65
& n.1 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (rel y in g on Fed

. R. App

. P. 28 an d h o l d i n g an ap pe ll an t ab an do ne d an is su e m erel y m en ti on ed i n b r i efi ng be cau se he fai le d to of fer an y

reas on s o r arg um en ts in su pp or t o f hi s ar gu m en t).

-9

-Neit he r of th es e arg um en ts are pe rs ua si ve

. W hi le it is tru e t h e g u i de li ne s as

is su ed by th e CDC are vo lu nt ary an d no t en fo rcea bl e by th e CDC or th e U.S. Pu bl ic

Heal th Serv ic e, th ey were in co rp or at ed in to th e B B P s ta nd ard as m an da to ry

req ui rem en ts

. The reg ul at io n ex pr es sl y st at es “ th e em pl oyer sh al l en su re th at al l

. . .

va cci na ti on se rie s

. . . are pr ov id ed in acco rd an ce wit h [CDC] reco m m en da ti on s.” 29

C.F.R. § 19 10 .10 30 (f)(1 )(i i)( D). Co nt rary to W al -Ma rt’s co nt en ti on , we are no t

aware of an y au th or it y or ru le th at wou ld cat eg or ic al ly fo rb id th e S e c r e t ary fro m

m ak in g i t m an da to ry

to fol lo w reco m

m en da ti on s. 3

W al -Ma rt ci te s au th or it y in vo lv in g 29 U.S.C. § 65 5( a) to arg ue fo r a li m it at io n

on OSHA’ s po wer in 29 U.S.C. § 65 5( b)

. The Co m m is si on an d se ve ral ci rcu it s ha ve

reco gn iz ed th at st an da rd s ado pt ed un de r se ct io n 6(a ) of th e Act — whi ch pe rm it te d

th e Secr et ary fo r a li m it ed ti m e to ad op t ex is ti ng na ti on al co ns en su s an d es ta bl is he d

fed eral st an da rd s as OSHA st an da rd s with ou t go in g th ro ug h th e fo rm al rul em ak in g

pr oc es s — co ul d no t ch an ge an Am eri can Nati on al St an da rd s I n st it ut e (“ ANSI”)

reco m m en da ti on in to a m an da to ry req ui rem en t. Se e, e.g

. , Mar sh al l v. Uni on Oil Co

. of Ca l.

, 61 6 F.2 d 11 13

, 11 15 –1 6 (9 th Ci r. 19 80 ) ; Mar sh al l v. Pit ts bu rg h- Des Moi ne s

St eel Co

. , 5 84 F.2 d 63 8, 64 3– 44 (3 d Ci r. 19 78 ); Use ry v. K en ne co tt Co

pp er Co rp

. , 57 7 F.2 d 11 13 , 1 11 7– 18 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 77 ); W il li am B. Ho

p ke, Co

. , 1 2 BNA OSHC

21 58 (No

. 81 -2 06

, 1 9 8 6 )

. The se cas es reco gn iz ed

, ho wev er, OSHA co ul d en fo rce

su ch a m an da to ry st an da rd so lo ng as th e Secr et ary pr om ul ga te d th e reg ul at io n us in g

th e fo rm al ru le -m ak in g pr oc ed ur es se t fo rth in se ct io n 6( b) of th e Act. Se e Ken ne co tt

,

Thi s cas e do es rev eal so m e pr act ic al di ffi cu lt ie s wit h in co rp or a t i n g 3

reco m m en da ti on s an d gu id el in es in to a m an da to ry st an da rd

. Fo r in st an ce, W al -Ma rt

co m pl ai ns th e reco m

m en de d ran ge in do si ng sc he du le s are va gu e an d do no t pr ov id e

su ffi ci en t no ti ce to em

pl oyers as to wha t is req u i red

. W al -Ma rt fu rth er pl au si bl y

a rg ue s th ere is reas on to in te rp ret CDC’s ti m et ab le as pr ov id in g m in im um ( a s

op po se d to m ax im

um ) in te rv al s be twee n do se s. Bec au se W al -Ma rt di d no t rai se the se ob jecti on s in it s pe ti ti on to th e Co mm i s s i o n , ho wev er, th es e arg um en ts are no t

pr op erl y be fo re t hi s co ur t an d we e xp res s n o o pi ni on as t o t he ir m eri ts

.

-1 0-57 7 F.2 d at 11 18 (“ In or de r fo r th e S e c r e t a r y to ha ve ren de red th e st an da rd

en fo rcea bl e wit h th e ch an ge in la ng ua ge , he was ob li ge d to ob se rv e th e ru le m ak in g

pr oc ed ur es co nt ai ne d in t h e A ct .”). Here, si nc e th e Secr et ary pr om ul ga te d
§ 19 10

. 1 0 3 0 u nd er se ct io n 6( b) of th e Act an d th us wen t th ro ug h th e no ti ce-a nd

co m m en t ru le -m ak in g pr oc ed ur e, th e reg ul at io n’s in c o r po rat io n of th e CDC

reco m m en da ti on s do es no t im

pl ic at e th e sa m e pr ob le m s reco gn iz ed in Ken ne co tt an d

it s p ro ge ny.

Bas ed on th e reco rd an d arg um en ts pr op erl y be fo re us , we co nc lu de su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce s up po rts th e ALJ’s d eci si on to up ho ld Cit at io n On e.

C.

W e ne xt ad dr es s Wa l

- M art ’s ch al le ng es sp eci fic to Ci ta ti on Two, whi ch

ch arg ed W al -Ma rt wit h vi ol a t i n g § 1 91 0.1 03 0( f)(2 )(i ) by fai li ng to of fer cert ai n

em pl oyees th e he pa ti ti s B va cci ne wit hi n te n wor ki ng da y s of as si gn m en t to th e SIRT

te am

. W al -Ma rt ch al le ng es bo th th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e ALJ’s co nc lu si on W al

Mar t vi ol at ed th e re g u l a ti on an d al so th e ALJ’s cl as si fic at io n of th e vi ol at io n as a

“ rep eat ” v io la ti on . Neit he r arg um en t i s m eri to rio us

.

The ALJ fo un d th e Secr et ary es ta bl is he d W al -Ma rt fai le d to m ak e th e he pa ti ti s

B va cci ne av a i l a b l e to cert ai n SIRT vo lu nt eers wit hi n te n wor ki ng da y s of

as si gn m en t. The ALJ rel ie d on two types of ev id en ce to reac h th is co nc lu si on

. Fi rs t,

th e ALJ rel ie d on te st im on y fro m W al -Ma rt’s AP m an ag er in ch arg e of th e SIRT te am

du rin g th e rel ev an t ti m e pe rio d, who co nc ed ed he fai le d to of fer th e va cci ne to cert ai n

SIRT vo lu nt eers aft er th ey ha d co m pl et ed th ei r tra in in g. The ALJ al s o rel ie d on

do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce su gg es ti ng m em be rs of th e SIRT te am we r e ne ve r of fere d

im m un iz at io n. This in fere nc e was crea te d by co m pa rin g a ro st er o f SIRT m em be rs

wit h do cu m en ta ti on mai n t ai ne d by W al -Ma rt (as req ui red by reg ul at io n, 29 C.F.R.
§ 1 91 0.1 03 0( h) (i) an d (ii )), whi ch sh owe d wh o h ad eit he r co m pl et ed im m

un iz at io n

-1 1-or de cl in ed im m un iz at io n. If th ere was no su ch do cu m en ta ti on fro m a kn own SIRT

m em be r sh owi ng ei th er im m

un iz at io n or de cl in at io n, th e ALJ in ferr ed W al -Ma rt di d

no t o ffer it to th em

.

W al -Ma rt arg ue s th at by co ns id eri ng th e la ck of do cu m en ta ti on , th e ALJ in

effe ct im pr op erl y sh ift ed th e bu rd en of pr oo f away fro m th e Secr et ary to W al -Ma rt.

In st ead of req ui rin g th e Secr et ary to m eet it s bu rd en of pr ov in g W al

- M a r t di d no t

co m pl y wit h th e st an da rd

, Wa l

- M art co m pl ai ns th e ALJ req ui red it to pr ov e it di d

co m pl y

. W e reject th is arg um en t be cau se it fai ls to co ns id er th e te st im on y fro m W al

Mar t’s AP m an ag er, who te st ifi ed th at d e s p i te kn owi ng SIRT m em be rs ha d to be

of fere d th e va cci na ti on an d th at he was res po ns ib le fo r en su rin g co m pl ia nc e, he “ di d

no t co m pl y wit h th os e res po ns ib il it ie s.” Co m bi ne d wit h th e ga ps in do cu m en ta ti on

in di cat in g m

ul ti pl e SIRT m em

be rs were no t of

fere d va cci na ti on s , we co nc lu de

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e A LJ ’s fin di ng th at W al -Ma rt vi ol at ed
§ 1 91 0.1 03 0( f)(2 )(i ).

Thi s le av es on e fin al arg um en t fo r us to co ns id er — W al -Ma rt’s co nt en ti on th e

ALJ erre d b y

de si gn at in g i ts vi ol at io n of § 19 10 .10 30 (f)(2 )(i ) as a rep eat vi ol at io n.

Co ng res s pr ov id ed th at an “ em pl oyer who

. . . rep eat ed ly v io la te s th e req ui rem en ts

of

. . . an y st an da rd

. . . p r o mu l ga te d pu rs ua nt to se ct io n 65 5 of th is ti tl e, or

reg ul at io ns pr es cri pt ed pu rs ua nt to th is ch ap te r m ay be as se ss ed a ci vi l pe na lt y of no t

m or e t ha n $7 0,0 00 fo r each vi ol at io n, bu t no t le ss th an $5 ,00 0 fo r each wil lfu l

vi ol at io n.” 29 U.S.C. § 6 66 (a).

Bo th pa rti es ci te t o a C o mm is si on cas e as se tt in g th e st an da rd fo r pr ov in g a

ci ta ti on sh ou ld be cl as si fie d as “ rep eat .” Se e Pot la tc h Co rp

. , 7 BNA OSHC 10 61

, 10 63 (No

. 16 81 3, 19 79 ). Und er Pot la tc h

, “ th e Secr et ary mak e s a p ri ma fa ci e
sh owi ng th at a vi ol at io n i s ‘ rep eat ’ if th e pr io r an d p res en t v io la ti on s ar e fo r fai lu re

to co m pl y wit h t h e s a m e st an da rd .” Man ga na s Pai nt in g Co .v. Se c’y of La bo r , 2 73

F.3 d 11 31

, 11 35 (D.C. Ci r. 20 01 ) (ap pl y in g Pot la tc h ). “ The bu rd en th en sh ift s to th e

-1 2-em

pl oyer to de m on st rat e th at th e vi ol at io ns to ok pl ace un de r di sp arat e co nd it io ns an d

ha zard s as so ci at ed wit h t he sep arat e v io la ti on s.” Id

.

T he A LJ de te rm in ed th e vi ol at io n was a rep eat vi ol at io n be cau se W al -Ma rt had

en te red in to a Co m

m is si on -ap pr ov ed st ip ul at e d se tt le m en t wit h th e Secr et ary

up ho ld in g a se rio us vi ol at io n of § 19 10 .10 30 (f)(2 )(i ) in Ja nu ary 20 12 at a st or e in

Ro ch es te r, New Yor k. The ALJ de te rm in ed W al -Ma rt fai le d to reb ut th e pr es um pt io n

th es e vi ol at io ns were su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar. W e ag ree, ev en th ou gh th e 20 12 ci ta ti on

was fo r a vi ol at io n at a W al -Ma rt st or e, as op po se d to a W al -Ma rt di st rib ut io n cen te r.

The re is no al le ga ti on th e st or e an d th e di st rib ut io n cen te r a r e o w n ed by se pa rat e

en ti ti es

. Se e W

al -Ma rt St or es , I nc . v . S ec’y of La bo r , 4 06 F.3 d 73 1, 73 7 (D.C. Ci r.

20 05 ) (h ol di ng a rep eat ci ta ti on w a s w a r ran te d fo r a se co nd vi ol at io n of th e sa m e

st an da rd at a di ffer en t st or e be cau se th ey were own ed by th e sa m e co rp or at io n)

. And

W al -Ma rt ha s fai le d to art ic ul at e th ro ug h reco rd ev id en ce ho w th e fai lu re to of fer th e

he pa ti ti s B va cci ne to th e SIRT em pl oyees res ul te d in a di ffer en t ha zard th an oc cu rred

fro m th e fai lu re to of

fer th e va cci ne to th e ret ai l s t o r e em pl oyees in 20 12

. In de ed

, bo th cl as se s of em

pl oyees face d th e sa m e ha zard
— co nt ract io n of he pa ti ti s B wit ho ut

va cci na ti on — as a res ul t of th e vi ol at io n. Acco rd in gl y , th e rep eat de si gn at io n is

affi rm ed

.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we d en y W al -Ma rt’s p et it io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-