Gates & Fox Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Com'n
| Decision Date | 13 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | 84-1614 and 85-1054,80-1447,Nos. 80-1446,s. 80-1446 |
| Citation | 790 F.2d 154 |
| Parties | , 12 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 1838, 1986-1987 O.S.H.D. ( 27,585 GATES & FOX COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION and William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, Respondents. GATES & FOX COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION and William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, Respondents. GATES & FOX COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION and William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, Respondents. William E. BROCK, Secretary of Labor, Petitioner, v. GATES & FOX COMPANY, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Harold Gordon, with whom Robert D. Roadman, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for petitioner in Nos. 80-1446, 80-1447 and 84-1614 and cross-respondent in No. 85-1054. William H. Roberge, Jr., Silver Spring. Md., also entered an appearance for petitioner in Nos. 80-1446 and 80-1447.
Kenneth Hellman, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondents in Nos. 80-1446, 80-1447 and 84-1614 and for cross-petitioner in No. 85-1054.
Joseph M. Woodward, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for respondents in Nos. 80-1446, 80-1447 and 84-1614 and for cross-petitioner in No. 85-1054.
Anthony J. Steinmeyer and Marleigh D. Dover, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for respondents in Nos. 80-1446 and 80-1447.
Linton W. Hengerer and Judith N. Macaluso, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Labor, Arlington, Va., entered appearances for petitioner in No. 85-1054.
Before WALD, SCALIA and SILBERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SCALIA.
Gates & Fox Company, Inc., challenges its citation for violating 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1926.800(b)(3) (1985), a safety regulation which requires companies engaged in excavating tunnels and shafts to provide their employees with rescue equipment in certain circumstances. The issue we address is whether the regulation describes the circumstances with sufficient clarity to provide constitutionally adequate warning of the conduct prohibited.
In 1978, Gates & Fox worked as a subcontractor on the extension of the Metro subway system in northwest Washington, D.C. The company was responsible for constructing an entrance beam connecting a vertical shaft to a completed underground tunnel at the Brandywine Street worksite. On April 17, 1978, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration compliance officer cited Gates & Fox for violating 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1926.800(b)(3), an OSHA regulation applicable to tunnels and shafts which provides:
Bureau of Mines approved self-rescuers shall be available near the advancing face to equip each face employee. Such equipment shall be on the haulage equipment and in other areas where employees might be trapped by smoke or gas, and shall be maintained in good condition.
"Self-rescuers" are cannister-like devices through which tunnel employees can breathe in the event of a loss of oxygen caused by a cave-in or other emergency. An "advancing face" is a wall of earth at the end of a tunnel upon which excavation work is progressing. It is undisputed that the area in which Gates & Fox was working was not near an advancing face, but was nevertheless an area in which employees could have been trapped by smoke or gas. Gates & Fox concedes that it had not provided its employees with self-rescuers.
Gates & Fox challenged its citation before an Administrative Law Judge, who agreed with the OSHA compliance officer that the company had willfully violated Sec. 1926.800(b)(3). See Secretary of Labor v. Gates & Fox Co., OSHRC Nos. 78-2830 & 78-2831, Decision and Order at 8 (Jan. 30, 1980). On review, the Commission split 1-1 on whether the regulation had been violated. (The third Commission seat was vacant.) Chairman Buckley was of the view that Sec. 1926.800(b)(3) requires self-rescuers to be available only near an advancing face. See Secretary of Labor v. Gates & Fox Co., 12 O.S.H. REP. (BNA) 1092, 1096 (Nov. 30, 1984). Commissioner Cleary disagreed, reading the regulation to require self-rescuers both near an advancing face and "in other areas where employees might be trapped by smoke or gas." See id. at 1095-96 (emphasis added). The Commissioner believed, however, that Gates & Fox's violation was attributable to a good-faith misunderstanding of the regulation, so that the violation was not "willful." Id. at 1096. Under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 661(f) (1982), the OSHRC can act officially only with the affirmative votes of at least two Commissioners. Therefore, "[t]o resolve their impasse on the merits," Chairman Buckley and Commissioner Cleary agreed to affirm the finding of a violation, reverse the finding of "willfulness," and accord the ALJ's decision no precedential effect. Gates & Fox, 12 O.S.H. REP. (BNA) at 1096.
Gates & Fox petitions for review, contending that Sec. 1926.800(b)(3) cannot reasonably be read to require self-rescuers in the absence of an advancing face. The Secretary of Labor also petitions for review arguing that the Commission's finding of a lack of "willfulness" was not based upon substantial evidence. We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 660(a) & (b).
Courts must give deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555, 566, 100 S.Ct. 790, 797, 63 L.Ed.2d 22 (1980); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965). Where the imposition of penal sanctions is at issue, however, the due process clause prevents that deference from validating the application of a regulation that fails to give fair warning of the conduct it prohibits or requires. See, e.g., Phelps Dodge Corp. v. FMSHRC, 681 F.2d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir.1982); Kropp Forge Co. v. Secretary of Labor, 657 F.2d 119, 122-24 (7th Cir.1981); Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall, 585 F.2d 1327, 1335-39 (6th Cir.1978). See also Brock v. L.R. Willson & Sons, Inc., 773 F.2d 1377, 1386-88 & n. 11 (D.C.Cir.1985) (dictum). In a discussion frequently relied upon by other courts, the Fifth Circuit stated in reviewing an OSHRC decision:
The respondents contend that the regulations should be liberally construed to give broad coverage because of the intent of Congress to provide safe and healthful working conditions for employees. An employer, however, is entitled to fair notice in dealing with his government. Like other statutes and regulations which allow monetary penalties against those who violate them, an occupational safety and health standard must give an employer fair warning of the conduct it prohibits or requires....
If a violation of a regulation subjects private parties to criminal or civil sanctions, a regulation cannot be construed to mean what an agency intended but did not adequately express.... [T]he Secretary as enforcer of the Act has the responsibility to state with ascertainable certainty what is meant by the standards he has promulgated.
Diamond Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 528 F.2d 645, 649 (5th Cir.1976). Citations of employers for occupational safety and health standard violations have frequently been overturned for lack of "fair" or "constitutionally adequate" warning. See, e.g., Kropp Forge, 657 F.2d at 123-24; Lloyd C. Lockrem, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.2d 940, 943-44 (9th Cir.1979); Diebold, 585 F.2d at 1335-39; Diamond Roofing, 528 F.2d at 648-50.
While we express no opinion on whether, in a non-penal context, the Commission's interpretation of Sec. 1926.800(b)(3) might be permissible, we hold that Gates & Fox did not receive constitutionally adequate notice that it could be sanctioned for failing to provide self-rescuers to employees...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Sugar Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...fair warning of the conduct it prohibits.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA , 53 F.3d 1324, 1328 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting Gates & Fox Co. v. OSHRC , 790 F.2d 154, 156 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ).17 The Industry Petitioners also contend that the CISWI Rule functions as a form of injunctive relief in violation ......
-
United States ex rel. Sheldon v. Allergan Sales, LLC
...labyrinthine reporting requirements, it at least needs to indicate a way through the maze. See, e.g., Gates & Fox Co. v. OSHRC , 790 F.2d 154, 156 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Scalia, J.) (citation omitted) ("If a violation of a regulation subjects private parties to criminal or civil sanctions, a reg......
-
Reich v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona
...published statute easily looked up, with a body of case law interpreting it. Similarly, Gates & Fox Co., Inc. v. O.S.H.R.C., 790 F.2d 154, 156 (D.C.Cir.1986) (opinion by then-Circuit Court Judge Scalia) was decided against the agency, there the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commissi......
-
Center for Auto Safety v. National Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 85-1231
...not comply with a new, higher standard set after the model years were over and applied retroactively. See, e.g., Gates & Fox Co. v. OSHRC, 790 F.2d 154, 156-57 (D.C.Cir.1986); Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall, 585 F.2d 1327, 1335-37 (6th Cir.1978); Diamond Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 528 F.2d 645, 649 (......
-
Fourth Circuit Joins Other Circuits Recognizing Safeco 'Objectively Reasonable Interpretation' Standard As FCA Defense
...40 Allergan, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2310, at *27. 41 Id. at *31. 42 Id. at *34. 43 Id. 44 Id. at *19 (citing Gates & Fox Co. v. OSHRC, 790 F.2d 154, 156 (D.C. Cir. 45 Id. at *38 (Wynn, J., dissenting); see also id. ("[T]he majority opinion's legal hand-waving cannot cover the stench here."). ......
-
DOJ To Join Oral Argument In En Banc Rehearing Of Fourth Circuit Case On 'Objectively Reasonable' Defense
...specific guidance," to calculate Best Price using "reasonable assumptions." Id. at 355. 22. Id. at 350 (citing Gates & Fox Co. v. OSHRC, 790 F.2d 154, 156 (D.C. Cir. 23. Id. at 357 (Wynn, J., dissenting); see also id. ("[T]he majority opinion's legal hand-waving cannot cover the stench here......
-
CHAPTER 8 DEFERENCE? FAIR NOTICE? RULEMAKING? MATERIALITY? KEY (NON- ROYALTY) DECISIONS THAT DIRECTLY IMPACT THE FEDERAL AND INDIAN ROYALTY PROGRAM
...context. . . . This requirement has now been 'thoroughly incorporated into administrative law.'"); Gates & Fox Co. v. OSHRC, 790 F.2d 154, 156 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Scalia, J.) (reversing OSHA assessment of penalties based on violation of mining safety regulation, because the regulation did not......
-
Under the Umbrella: Promoting Public Access to the Law
...the world . . . of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed."); Gates & Fox Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Rev. Comm'n, 790 F.2d 154, 156 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ("[T]he due process clause prevents . . . validating the application of a regulation that fails to give fair warning ......
-
A QUALIFIED DEFENSE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
...Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144, 157-59 (1991). (123) See, e.g., Gates & Fox Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 790 F.2d 154,156 (D.C. Cir. 1986) ("Citations of employers for occupational safety and health standard violationshave frequently been overturned for lac......
-
CHAPTER 8 THE UPSTREAM OIL AND GAS STORAGE TANK ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE: NEW DESIGN, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES
...v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997)). [140] Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1328 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting Gates & Fox Co. v. OSHRC, 790 F.2d 154, 156 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Scalia, J.)). [141] Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142, 155 -56 (2012). [142] Wis. Res. Prot. Cou......