IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60887

BASIC ENERGY SERVICES, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION; 

THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

 Respondents. 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 

OSHRC No. 14-542

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

This is a petition for review relating to two workplace safety violations. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) cited Basic 

Energy Services (“Basic”) for violations of 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.24(b) and 

1910.23(c)(1) at a mobile well-servicing rig. Section 1910.24(b) requires fixed

stairs between platforms, and § 1910.23(c)(1) requires guardrails for elevated 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 22, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60887 Document: 00513809540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
No. 15-60887

2 

platforms. Basic argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), whose 

decision the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the 

“Commission”) declined to review, erroneously applied both regulations to 

Basic’s mobile rig. For the following reasons, we DENY the petition for review. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Basic operates mobile rigs that provide maintenance and upkeep for oil 

and gas wells. These rigs may travel as vehicles on highways from one well to 

another. At a particular well, the rigs transform into structures with multiple 

adjustable platforms, which can be connected by adjustable metal stairs.

Removable guardrails protect workers from falling off elevated platforms. 

On September 23, 2013, a five-man crew was operating a Basic wellservicing rig in Hawkins, Texas. OSHA inspector Ruth Solis-Lewis observed 

the crew pulling pipe out of a well and photographed this activity from a 

parking lot nearby. These photographs show that the crew had placed 

guardrails only around part of the upper platform. According to Solis-Lewis’s 

measurement, this platform was almost seven feet high. Solis-Lewis also 

observed a set of stairs leading from the ground to the lower platform but no 

stairs from the lower to the upper platform. 

Based on Solis-Lewis’s observations, OSHA cited Basic for violations of 

29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.24(b) and 1910.23(c)(1). These regulations are part of 

OSHA’s Walking-Working Surfaces standard, which “applies to all permanent 

places of employment, except where domestic, mining, or agricultural work 

only is performed.”1 29 C.F.R. § 1910.22. Under § 1910.24(b), “fixed stairs” are 

required “for access from one structure level to another where operations 

necessitate regular travel between levels.” The regulation does not define 

 

1 Basic does not contest the ALJ’s finding that the well-servicing rig is a permanent

place of employment within the meaning of the standard.

 Case: 15-60887 Document: 00513809540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
No. 15-60887

3 

“fixed stairs.” OSHA cited Basic for lacking fixed stairs between platforms. 

Section 1910.23(c)(1) requires that “[e]very open-sided floor or platform 4 feet 

or more above adjacent floor or ground level . . . be guarded by a standard 

railing . . . on all open sides except where there is entrance to a ramp, stairway, 

or fixed ladder.” OSHA cited Basic under § 1910.23(c)(1) for lacking guardrails 

around part of the work platform. 

Basic challenged these citations. A trial took place before ALJ Peggy Ball 

on March 31 and April 1, 2015. ALJ Ball found that §§ 1910.24(b) and 

1910.23(c)(1) apply to mobile well-servicing rigs like Basic’s and affirmed both 

citations. She rejected Basic’s affirmative defenses that compliance with the 

guardrail regulation was infeasible and would have presented a greater 

hazard. ALJ Ball also found that the fixed stairs violation was serious, and 

that the guardrail violation was a repeat violation. Based on these findings, 

she assessed penalties in the amount of $5,500 for the fixed stairs violation and 

$38,500 for the guardrail violation. 

Basic then petitioned the Commission for discretionary review. Basic 

raised five arguments before the Commission: (1) Section 1910.24(b) did not 

apply to Basic’s mobile rig; (2) the term “fixed stairs” used in § 1910.24(b) 

requires permanent attachment, clearly inappropriate for a mobile rig; 

(3) compliance with the guardrail requirement would have been infeasible or 

more hazardous than noncompliance; (4) Basic was not a repeat violator; and 

(5) insufficient evidence supported the ALJ’s decision. The Commission denied 

review, and the ALJ’s order became a final order of the Commission under 29 

U.S.C. § 661(j). This petition for review followed. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Under 29 U.S.C. § 660(a), a party may seek review of a Commission order 

in the “court of appeals for the circuit in which the violation is alleged to have 

occurred.” Because the alleged violations took place in Texas, this Court has 

 Case: 15-60887 Document: 00513809540 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
No. 15-60887

4 

jurisdiction. We review the Commission’s legal conclusions “for whether they 

are ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance 

with the law.’” Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Perez, 811 F.3d 730, 734–35 (5th Cir. 

2016) (quoting Austin Indus. Specialty Servs., L.P. v. Occupational Safety & 

Health Review Comm’n, 765 F.3d 434, 438–39 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam)). 

The Commission’s factual findings are conclusive if they are supported by 

substantial evidence. 29 U.S.C. § 660(a). We defer to the Secretary of Labor’s 

interpretation of OSHA regulations, reviewing the interpretation only “to 

assure that it is consistent with the regulatory language and is otherwise 

reasonable.” Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health 

Review Comm’n, 275 F.3d 423, 427 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Martin v. 

Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 499 U.S. 144, 156 (1991)). 

A. Application of the Fixed Stairs Regulation 

Basic makes two arguments on appeal for why the fixed stairs regulation 

does not apply to its mobile rig: (1) applying this regulation to mobile rigs

creates an absurd result; and (2) the rig falls into the exception for “articulated 

stairs,” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.24(a).

1. Absurd Result

 According to Basic, the word “fixed” in the fixed stairs regulation means 

“permanently attached.” Because stairs cannot be permanently attached to 

Basic’s mobile rig, the company argues, it would be absurd to apply the 

regulation in this context. The Secretary interprets “fixed” as “attached in 

some way to prevent movement.” According to Angel Guerrero, who worked on 

the rig in question, Basic’s stairs are hooked onto the rig platform and are 

stable enough to walk on. Thus, the Secretary’s interpretation of “fixed” does 

 Case: 15-60887 Document: 00513809540 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
No. 15-60887

5 

not lead to an absurd result; it merely describes the stairs Basic already uses. 

The merits of Basic’s argument depends on which interpretation controls. 

This Court must defer to the Secretary’s interpretation of “fixed stairs” 

as long as “it is consistent with the regulatory language and is otherwise 

reasonable.” Trinity Marine, 275 F.3d at 427 (quoting Martin, 499 U.S. at 156). 

Interpreting “fixed” in § 1910.24(b) as “attached in some way to prevent 

movement” is reasonable for several reasons. First, the Secretary’s 

interpretation of “fixed” accords with its plain meaning. See, e.g., Fixed,

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1975) (defining “fixed” as “1 a: securely 

placed or fastened”); Fixed, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary

(2d ed. 2001) (defining “fixed” as “1. fastened, attached, or placed so as to be 

firm and not readily movable; firmly implanted; stationary; rigid”).2 

Second, the Secretary’s interpretation serves the purpose of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act: “to assure so far as possible every working 

man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions.” 29 

U.S.C. § 651(b). It does so by ensuring that § 1910.24(b) protects workers on 

well-servicing rigs from the hazards of jumping between platforms. Basic’s 

preferred interpretation, by contrast, would not require any stairs or ladders 

on mobile rigs, notwithstanding their safety benefits. 

Third, the Secretary has applied the fixed stairs regulation to mobile 

well-servicing rigs before. See, e.g., Poole Co. Tex. Ltd., 19 BNA OSHC 1317 

(No. 99-0815, 2000) (ALJ); Well Sols., Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 1718 (No. 89-1559, 

1992). In Poole, for example, the Secretary cited a rig for featuring stairs 

without handrails, also required by the fixed stairs regulation. 19 BNA OSHC 

1317. Like Basic, Poole argued that the regulation should not apply because 

 

2 Basic’s interpretation also appears in the dictionary: the fourth definition of “fixed” 

in Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary is “definitely and permanently placed.”

Fixed, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, supra. 

 Case: 15-60887 Document: 00513809540 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
No. 15-60887

6 

“the stairs were not permanently attached to the mobile rig.” Id. The ALJ 

rejected this argument, finding that the stairs only need to be “secured to the 

platform to prevent their movement while in [use].” Id. Likewise, in Delta 

Drilling Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission, this Court 

affirmed the Commission’s application of the fixed stairs regulation to mobile 

well-servicing rigs. 91 F.3d 139 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (unpublished table 

decision). Thus, Basic had notice that § 1910.24(b) applied to its rig. 

Basic’s arguments against the Secretary’s interpretation are unavailing. 

Basic primarily argues in favor of its own interpretation of “fixed” as 

“permanently attached.” This interpretation draws from the Walking-Working 

Surfaces standard’s definition of “fixed ladder”: “a ladder permanently attached

to a structure, building, or equipment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.21(e)(2) (emphasis 

added). Basic’s argument on this point comports with the canon of statutory 

interpretation that “identical words used in different parts of the same act are 

intended to have the same meaning.” Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 484 

(1990) (quoting Sorenson v. Sec’y of Treasury, 475 U.S. 851, 860 (1986)). 

Admittedly, the Secretary’s interpretation appears inconsistent with the 

standard’s definition of “fixed ladder.” But the “fixed ladder” definition itself 

does not even apply to the section pertaining to the fixed stairs regulation. See 

29 C.F.R. § 1910.21(e) (“As used in § 1910.27, unless the context requires 

otherwise, fixed ladder terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this 

paragraph.” (emphasis added)). Moreover, Basic fails to explain why its 

inconsistency argument renders the Secretary’s plain meaning unreasonable. 

If the Court were interpreting “fixed stairs” on a blank slate, Basic’s argument 

would carry more weight. But the Court must defer to the Secretary’s 

reasonable interpretation, even if it is not the best interpretation. 

Basic also points to a Commission case affirming an ALJ who dismissed 

a fixed stairs citation of a tool trailer. Jess Howard Elec. Co., 1976–1977 CCH 

 Case: 15-60887 Document: 00513809540 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
No. 15-60887

7 

OSHD ¶ 20,809 (No. 15546, 1976) (ALJ). The ALJ in Jess Howard explained 

that the tool trailer “was a mobile vehicle. For that reason an allegation of 

violation of a standard which requires ‘fixed industrial stairs’ as a means of 

access to a ‘structure’ cannot be sustained. Something that is fixed is not 

movable.” Id. (citation omitted). Jess Howard is easily distinguishable: tool 

trailers are a far cry from multi-platform structures like mobile well-servicing 

rigs. Longhorn Service Co., a case cited by the Secretary, is more on point: 

there, an ALJ essentially adopted Basic’s interpretation of “fixed stairs” and 

held that § 1910.24(b) was therefore inapplicable to mobile well-servicing rigs. 

25 BNA OSHC 1572 (No. 13-1458, 2015) (ALJ), rev’d in part on other grounds, 

652 F. App’x 678 (10th Cir. 2016). We need not defer to that ALJ decision, 

however; it is the Secretary’s interpretations that warrant deference, not the 

Commission’s or an ALJ’s. Martin, 499 U.S. at 156.

Because the Secretary’s interpretation of “fixed” is reasonable, we must 

defer to it. Under the Secretary’s interpretation, it is not absurd to apply the 

fixed stairs regulation to mobile well-servicing rigs. Accordingly, we reject 

Basic’s argument that applying § 1910.24(b) to Basic’s rig yields an absurd 

result. 

2. Articulated Stairs Exception 

The fixed stairs regulation “does not apply . . . to articulated stairs, such 

as may be installed on floating roof tanks or on dock facilities, the angle of 

which changes with the rise and fall of the base support.” 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1910.24(a). Basic argues for this exception because its “well-servicing rig has 

several sections that independently articulate.” The ALJ rejected this 

argument, noting that “it seems clear that [the stairs] are rigid.” 

Basic and the Secretary advance different interpretations of the 

exception: Basic suggests that articulated platforms trigger the exception, 

while the Secretary argues that the stairs themselves must articulate. It is 

 Case: 15-60887 Document: 00513809540 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
No. 15-60887

8 

clear from the text that the exception only applies to stairs that move in 

relation to platforms, such as stairs that rest on water. Thus, the Secretary’s 

interpretation “sensibly conforms to the purpose and wording” of the fixed 

stairs regulation. Martin, 499 U.S. at 151 (quoting N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. 

Porter Cty. Chapter of Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc., 423 U.S. 12, 15 (1975)). 

Under the Secretary’s reasonable interpretation, the articulated stairs 

exception does not cover Basic’s mobile rig. Therefore, we agree with the ALJ’s 

conclusion that the fixed stairs regulation applies to Basic’s rig. 

B. Application of the Guardrail Regulation 

Basic next argues that the guardrail regulation does not apply to its 

mobile rig. Basic did not raise this argument before the Commission; it merely 

argued that compliance with § 1910.23(c)(1) was infeasible and presented a 

greater hazard. For this reason, the Secretary contends that the argument is 

waived under 29 U.S.C. § 660(a), which states: “No objection that has not been 

urged before the Commission shall be considered by the court, unless the 

failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of 

extraordinary circumstances.” While we do not require “great specificity” in a 

petition for review before the Commission, we may “not consider an argument 

unless the Commission has been ‘alerted to the issues.’” Power Plant Div., 

Brown & Root, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 659 F.2d 

1291, 1294 (5th Cir. Unit B Oct. 1981), reh’g granted, opinion modified, 673 

F.2d 111 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982); see also P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc. v. Occupational 

Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 115 F.3d 100, 107 (1st Cir. 1997) (“In an 

OSHA case, an objection is not ‘urged’ in the requisite sense (and will not be 

deemed preserved for judicial review) unless the [petition for discretionary 

review] conveys the substance of the objection face up and squarely, in a 

manner reasonably calculated to alert the Commission to the crux of the 

perceived problem.”). Basic failed to alert the Commission to the argument it 

 Case: 15-60887 Document: 00513809540 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/22/2016
No. 15-60887

9 

raises on appeal: that the guardrail regulation does not apply to its mobile rig. 

Nor does the company plead extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, under 29 

U.S.C. § 660(a), we cannot consider this argument.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. 

 Case: 15-60887 Document: 00513809540 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/22/2016