FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 3, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1617 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ O SH RC N o. 98- 0048 5 EL AI NE CH AO , S ecre tary of L abor, Petitioner,

ve rs us CAGLE'S INC., OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALT H REVIEW COMM ISSI ON, Re spon de nts .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Pe tit ionf or Re vie w of

aD ec isi on o f the O cc upa tio na l S af

ety a nd H ea lthRe vie w Co m m iss ion

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (A ug us t 3, 200 7) Be fo re T JO FL A T , H U L L a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T his pe tit ionf

or re vie w co nc er

ns a fi na l or de r of the O cc upa tio na l Sa fe ty a nd H ea lthRe vie w Co m

m iss ion( Co m

m iss ion ) unde r

th e O cc upa tio na l S af

ety a nd H ea lth2

Ac to f 1 9 7 0 (“OSH Ac t ”) , 2 9 U.S .C . § § 6 5 1 -6 7 8 . Af t ert wo empl o yees at Ca g l e’s Inc.’s chicken processing pl ant in Collin sville, Ala bam a w ere asphy xiated after
en te rin g a tra il er co nt ai ni ng wa ste br ea din g c ont aminate d w ith carb on di ox id e, OSHA ins pe ct ed the w orksi te . Mu lti ple c itatio ns w er e iss ue d. A n A dm ini str at ive L awJud ge ( A L J) co nduc te d ahe ar ing pur suant t o se ct ion 12( j ) of the O SH A ct , 29 U
. S. C. § 66 (j ), a nd the re af te r iss ue d ade ci sio n a ff

irm ing
som e of the c itatio ns, but

va ca tin g th e ci ta tio n inque sti on h er e, w hic h a lle ge d a vio la tio n of

the pe rm it- re qui re d c onf ine d sp ac e (“pe rm it spa ce ”) stand ar d. T he Re vie w Co m

m iss ionr ev ie w ed

a nd a ff irm ed som e of the c itatio ns, but

va cat ed the citation in q uestion
. Petitioner E laine Chao, the Secr etary of L abor (Se cretary ), filed
a pe tit ionf

or r ev ie w , c ont es tin g on ly

the va ca tio n of

the a lle ge d vio la tio n of

the pe rm it sp ace s ta nd ard
. The disagree m ent betwee n the Secr etary and the ReviewCom

m issio n invo lves the r equir em en t un de r O SH A ’ s pe rm it sp ace st an da rd that a spa ce m ust be “ larg e enough and s o co nfigured that an em ploy ee can bod ily

enter and perform

assigned work. ” 2 9 C. F. R. § 1910 .146(b) (def initio n of a “ confined space”). T he Secr etary int er pr et ed thi s to m ean any

spa ce larg e en ougha nd so co nf igure d tha t som e w ork, if a ssi gne d, c oul d be pe rf

orm ed the re . T he A L J di sa gr ee d w iththi s in te rp ret at io n, ho l d i ng that th e trailer

wa s not a confined sp ace bec ause em ploy ees w ere never3

as sig ne d w ork in sid e the tr ai le r. The R ev ie w Co m m iss iona lso dis ag re ed

w iththe Se cr et ar y ’ s in te rp re ta tio n, f

ind ing that the re was no vio la tio n of O SH A ’ s pe rm itspa ce standard

be ca use “ nothin g inthe r ec or d indic at es tha t it wa s possi ble und er the ci rc um stanc es f

or a n e m plo y ee to pe rf

orm [ curr en tly ] as signe d w ork in sid e the tr ai le r. ” (R
. 16- 69 at 5. ) In shor t, the Re vie wCo m

m iss ionint er

pr et ed the r eg ula tio n to m ean th at

e m plo y ee s m ust ha ve c ur

re nt a ssi gnm en ts tha t the y c oul d pe rf

orm ins ide the space. The S ecre tary

arg ues that her interpretation m ust be uph eld by

the Review Co m m iss iona nd this co ur t so l ong as the int er pr et at ionis re as ona

ble
. T hus, she contends , the R eview C omm issio n erre d as a m atter of l aw b y rej ecting her reasonable interpretation of the regulation, and we shoul d reverse the Review Co m m ission ’ s ho ldi ng. T he Re vie w Co m m iss ionc ount er s th at

it s in te rp re ta tio n is
co rr ec t, it c or re ct ly de te rm ine d th at

the c itatio n sh oul d be va cate d, a nd i ts d ec isi on is entitled to considerable defer ence, subject to being overturned only if it is arbitrary
or capricious. The Secr etary alternatively argues that even und er t h e R eview Co m m i s s i o n ’s i n t er

p re t at i o n , th e Re v i ew Co m m i s s i o n er re di n h o l d i n g t h at Ca g l e’s
em plo y ee s c oul d no t e nter t he tra ile r to p er fo rm the ir c ur re ntl y -a ssi gne d w ork of dum pin g w as te . W e ag re e w iththi s a lte rn at ive a rg um en t. 29 C.F. R. § 1910 .146(b) defines entry as “ the activity by which a per son pass es4

thr ougha n op en ing int o ape rm it -req ui re d c onf ine d sp ac e. E ntr

y inc lud es e nsui ng work ac tivities in that space and is considered to have occurred as soon as any part of the entrant’ s bodybreaks the plane of an opening int o a space. ” Cagle’ s em ploy ees
som et im es m anua lly dum p the w as te by

c utt ing out

asid e of abox a nd e m

pty ing the box thr oughone of

the r oof op en in gs. (R
. 14- 42 a t 6, 8. ) T he S ec re tary c or re ct ly poi nts ou t tha t e m

plo y ee s c oul d pu t the ir

hands in o ne of

the r oof ope nin gs w hil e doi ng s o. B ec au se e ntr

y oc curs “ as soo n a s any

part of the e ntr an t’ s bo dy

br eaks the plane of an opening into a space,” the entry of em ploy ees’ hands would q ualify under the regulation. 2 9 C. F.R. § 191 0.146(b). Thus, it w as rea sonablyforesee able that Cagle’ s em

ploy ees could enter the trailer i n the course of doing curre ntly -assigned work, nam ely

m anually dum ping wa ste into th e trailer
. A cc or din gly , w e ne ed

not r es olv e th e di spute be tw ee n th e Se cr et ar y a nd the Re v i ew Co m

m i s s i o n re g ar d i n g t h e i n t er p r e t at i o n o f t h e r eg u l at i o n , a s Ca g l e’s
em ploy ees could have entered the w aste b reading trailer in the course of doing work currently assigned. For that r eason, w e vacate the Review Com m issio n’ s hold ing th at Ca gl e ’ s e m

pl oy ees could not enter the trailer to perf orm their curr ently -assigned work of dum pin g w as te a nd r em an d to the Re vie w Co m m iss ionf or f urthe r pr oc eedings
co nsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. VACATED AND REMANDED.