The Honor able Da n Aar on Polst er, U nited States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0192n.06 No. 09-3449

UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT AE RO SP AC E TEST IN GAL LIA NC E, P etitioner , v. OC CU P AT ION AL SAF ETY AN D H EA LTH REVIEW COMMISSION, Respondent. / O N AP PEAL F R O M THE OC C U P A TI ON A L SA F ETY AN D HEA LTH REV IEWCO M M ISSI ON

OP IN ION

BEF OR E: CLAY and McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; P OLS TER, District Judge

. * CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge. Aer ospace Testing Alliance, I nc. (“ ATA” ) petitions for re view of a fina l ag ency

decision of the O ccupa

tional Saf ety and Hea lth Revie w Commi ssion f inding an other

than-ser ious violation and assessing a $1,400 fine . An Administrative L a w Ju dg e (“ AL J ”) f

ound that by failing to provide a guard f or t wo l athes at its fac ility , ATA ha d violated a standa rd promulg ated pursuant to the Oc cupational Saf ety and He alth Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-78. A TA petitions fo r r e v ie w , ar g u in g th a t s u

b s ta n ti a l e v id e n c e d id

n o t s u p p o rt t h e Co mm is s io n ’ s d e c is io n , th a t t he AL J fa ile d to pr op e rl y

a pp ly g uid anc e do c ume nts iss ue d b y th e Occu patio na l Sa fe ty and He a lth Administration, and that the AL J improperly rejected ATA ’s “g reater ha zard” de fense . For the following rea sons, we DENY ATA’s pe tition for review

.F AC TS

On May 12, 2008, the Occ upational Safety and Hea lth Administration (“ OSHA”) inspected ATA’s workplac e at the Arnold Eng ineer ing Deve lopment Ce nter Air For ce Ba se i n T ullahoma, Tenne ssee. Following the inspection, OSHA issued a citation and notification of penalty based on a fa ilure to provide pr oper guards on two lathe s in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)( 1). The citation was issued ba sed on th e failure to provide guards f or a L odg e and Shipley

lathe and a Har rison AA lathe. T he L odg e and Shipley lathe wa s larg er a

nd less fre q u en t l y u s ed

. OSHA

c l a s s i f i e d t h e v i o l a t i o na s a

s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o nan d

i m p o s e d a $ 2 , 1 2 5 p e n a l t y. On No v em b er

1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , a h ea ri n g wa s h el d o nt h e c i t at i o nb ef

o re an ALJ

. At t h e h ea ri n g, six witnesses testified, two for OSHA and four for ATA. Michelle Stoak wa s the OSHA employ ee who per formed the inspection. Wil liam Cochran w as the a rea direc tor of the loca l OSHA office who attended the inspection of ATAto e valuate Stoak. ATA first ca lled Catherine Plunkett, the dire ctor of the saf ety and hea lth gr oup at ATA w ho testified about ATA’s eff orts at finding a satisfa ctory la the g ua rd

. Sup e rv iso r Gr e g Otwe ll, a lon g -t e rm e mpl oy e e , te sti fi e d b ri e fl y a bo ut h ist or ic a l e ff

or ts of AT A t o f ind g ua rd s f or the la the s. AT A’ s ne xt w itn e ss wa s Sc ott Pogue , wh o w a s th e ma c hin ist who most freque ntly used the lathes. Finally , Fr ank Kelly , a saf ety and hea lth professional for ATA, testified about ATA ’s re sponse to the citation and its alleg ed inability to find a satisfac tory

g uard. Pogue te sti fi e d th at w he n h e us e d th e la the s, the y ro ta ted a t a

sp e e d o f 6 25 rp m or

le ss. Pogue us e d th e Ha

rr iso n lathe on

a mon thl y ba sis , and se ve ra l ot he r p e op le us e the ma c hin e s w ith

even less fre quency . The lathes are both ma nual lathes that a

re use d for ve ry

prec ise work, suc h as making specia l thickness washers, and the work is prec ise to a level of “a couple ten- thousandths of an inch.” (Appx. 119). Due to the re quired pre cision, the work wa s d o n e very close to the ung uarde d chucks. For the finest details, the jaws holding the piece the operator was wo rk i n g onprotruded only two inches fr om the chuck, a nd the employ ee’ s hands could be w ithin two inches of the work. A TA admit s that it is possible for an operator’s hands to come into contact with the fa ce of the c hu c k. Coc hr an te sti fi e d that “ c uts , c on tus ion s, [an d] po te nti a lly br ok e n f ing e rs ” c ou ld r e su lt from cominginto contact with “the ke y opening s on the periphe ry of the chuck a s well as the irregular shape of the jaw s of the chuc k.” (A ppx . 171-7 2 ). T est imony from ATA ’s employ ees d o w np l aye d

t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f

i n j u r i e s , n e v e r

s u g g e s t i n g b r o k e nf

i n g e r s c o u l d

o c c u r . T h i s t e s t i m o n y, howeve r, was p re m ised on the theory that employ ees c omplied with company proce dure ba

nning loose clothes, ring s, and g loves while operating the lathes. No injury resulting from these lathes wa s put into the recor d, and Otwe ll testified that, to his knowledge , none had oc curr ed. Otwell t estified that the L odg e and Shipley lathe li kely was procure d in the 1950s. When the Ha rr iso n lathe wa s p ro c ur e d in the la te 19 80 s, it d id n ot h a ve a g ua rd or a pla c e wh e re a

g ua rd c ou ld be fitted. I n the ear ly 1990s, an employ er- wide movement to improve safe ty by placingg uards on all rotating equipment led to the plac ement of gua rds on these two lathes. Otwe ll testified the g uards

we re take n o ff

a ft e r s e ve ra l y e ars be c a

us e of sev eral “ ne ar m iss e s. ” (A pp x. 10 7) . T he pr ob le ms

we re that the g ua

rd s bloc ke d the op e rator ’s vis ion a nd that if the op e rator

g ot h is h and s to o c los e to the c hu c k, the natur a l r e a c tio n w a s to “ je rk ba c k, ” wh ic h w ou ld c a

us e the op e rator

to h it the sh ie ld and f o r c e h is h an d s b a c k

to w ar d s th e c h u c k

. O tw e ll a c kn o w le d g e d th a t i t w o u ld

n o t h a v e cause d a “la rg e injury ” but thoug ht it could cause “ small abrasions.” ( Appx. 107-08). Following the citation, ATA e x perimented with a var iety of lathe guards a

nd found them

un sa t i s f a c t o r y . P l u n k e t tt e s t i f

i e d t h a tt h e g u a

r d s w e r e n o ts a t i s f

a c t o r y b e c a u s e t h e g u ar d s c ou ld

c r e a te a “ p in c h p o in t” th a t w o u ld n o t o th e r w is e e xis t if th e h an d c o u ld le a v e th e ar e a f r e e ly

. ( A p p x. 73). Ke lly

testified that a g uard could be safe ly place d around the periphe ry of the mac hines but that “the guard doe s not bring a ny thing of value in mitigating or eliminating the ha zards to the operationsfor whic h they utiliz e it.” (A

ppx . 139). Cochra

n, howeve r, testified that guards e x ist for Har rison la the s g e ne ra lly

and tha t w hil e it w a s unc e rt a in w he the r a n e xac t g ua

rd e xist ed fo r t

he la the s in ques t i o n , “y ou could fa

bricate something like this or purcha se something like this either from the manufa cture r or from a machine- g uarding company .” (Appx. 59-60). These proposed guards a re “movea ble bar rier” g uards that c an be move d up and down a s neede d to allow th e oper ator c loser

a c c e ss t o th e ma c hin e a s n e c e ssa ry fo r t he de ta ile d w or

k p e rf or me d o n th e se la the s. On Fe bruar

y 22, 2009, the AL J issued a decision and order af firming the violation as “other

tha n- se ri ou s” and a sse ssi ng a $1 ,4 00 pe na lty . ATAsu bmi tte d a pe tit ion fo r d isc re tio na

ry re vie w t o the OSHA ReviewCommi ssion. The commission declined to revie w the AL J ’s dec ision and order

. ATA filed a

timely petition to thi s Court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 660(a).

DI SCU SSIO N I. A. Stand ard of Review I n re vie wi ng the Com mis sio n’ s de c isi on , we up ho ld t he Com mis sio n’ s f

ind ing s o f f

a c t so lo n g a s th e y ar e s u

p p o rte d b y s u

b s ta n tia l evidence

. CMC Elec., Inc . v. Oc cupational Safety and Health Admin. , 221 F.3d 861, 865 (6th Cir. 2000)

. “Substantial evidenc e is such rele vant evidenc e

as a re asonable mind might acc ept as a dequate to support a conc lusion.” National Engineering & Contracting Co. v. He rman , 181 F.3d 715, 721 ( 6th Cir. 1999) (citations and quotations omitted). “The substanti al ev i d ence test protects both the fa ctual finding s and the infe renc es der ived from the m, a nd if the fi nd ing s and inf

e re nc e s ar e re a so na

ble on the re c or d, the y mus t be af fi rm e d e ve n if thi s c ourt c ou ld j us tif

ia bly re a c h a dif fe re nt r e su lt de novo

. ” Id . We affir m the Commi ssion’s

c on c lus ion s o f l aw unle ss t he y are “ arb itr ary , c a

pr ic iou s, an ab us e of

dis c re tio n, or

oth e rw ise no t in

acc ordanc e with law.” CMC Elec. , 221 F.3d at 865 (quoting 5 U .S.C. § 706(2)(A))

.I n briefing , ATA arg ued that 29 C .F.R. § 1910.212(a )(1) is not applicable be cause a more 1 specific regulatio n , § 1 9 1 0.212(a) (3), a ctually provides the a

ppropriate standard. Sec tion 1910.212(a) (1) speaks to g ener al ty pes of machine guarding , while § 1910.212(a )(3) provides more specific ally

the re quirements for

“point of operation g uarding .” The Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the argument beca use i t was not made to the C ommissi on. “No objec tion that has not be e n urg e d b e fo re the Com mis sio n s ha ll b e c on sid e re d by the c ourt , unle ss the fa ilure or ne g le c t to urg e such objection s hall be ex cused beca use of extraordinary circ umstances.” 29 U.S.C. § 660(a). Review by

the Commiss ion “is a nec essar y prer equisi t e to reviewby this Court.” National Engineering &Contracting, Co. v. He rman , 181 F.3d 715, 720 ( 6th Cir. 1999). B. Ana lys is AT A w a s a c c us e d o f vi ol ati ng 29 C.F .R. § 1 91 0. 21 2( a )( 1) . T hat r e g ulatio n d e a ls w ith “mac hine guar ding” and states that “ [o] ne or more methods of machine g uardingshall be provided to protect the ope rator a

nd other e mploy ees in the ma chine a rea from hazar ds such as those c reated by point o f o p er ation, ingoingnip points, rotating par ts, fly ing c hips and sparks.” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a) (1). To establish a viol ation of t he Act, the S ecr etar y must show by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidence that (1) the cited st andar d applies to the fa cts, (2) the require ments of the standa rd we re

no t me t, ( 3) e mpl oy e e s ha d a c c e ss to the ha zar do us c on dit ion , and (4 ) the e mpl oy e r k ne w o r c ou ld have know n of the ha zardous condit i o n with the exercise of rea sonable dilig ence . Car lis le Equipment Co. v. United States Se cretary of Labor , 24 F.3d 790, 792 ( 6th Cir. 1994). 1 AT A’ s pr ima

ry c on te nti on is that the Com mis sio n ha s a do pte d a po sit ion that f a ils to a c tua lly pr ov e a vio la tio n. AT A c la ims the Com mis sio n ha s on ly sh ow n that the fa c e of the c hu c k le a ds to inj ur ie s, wh ile a

g ua rd is on ly fe a sib le ov e r the pe ri ph e ry of the c hu c k. Th is i s si mpl y no t c or re c t. Th e AL J cle arl y

fo un d th a t th e pe ri ph e ry of th e c hu c k p os e d a da ng e r, and thi s c on c lus ion

is supported by

substantial evidence . The AL J noted testimony from Kelly that “it is possibl e for an employ ee’ s hand to c ome in c ontact with the fac e of the chuck w hile perf orming this work.” The very next s entenc e of the AL J ’s opinion states: “Employ ees w ork within inches of the per iphery of the chucks.” Fur

thermore , ample testi mony was provided that long ha ir, jewe lry , or loose clothesc ou ld b e c a ug ht in the pe ri ph e ry . (A

pp x. a t 21, 55, 75 -7 6, 99 , 143 -4 4, 17 1)

. AT A’ s o wn pr oto c ols appea r to rec og nize this potential risk beca use jewe lry , long ha ir, and loose clothing is a lrea dy forbidden. When Ke lly

testified that g uards a

round the pe ri p h er y wo uld not serve a purpose, he pr e su me d th e e mpl oy e e ha d “ no loo se c lot hin g , n o je we lr

y , n o lo ngha ir , no th ing s th a t w ou ld actua lly spin into and ge t caug ht around that c huck.” ( Appx. 144). The fa ct that the employ ees a re tra ined and pr ohibited from wea ring l o o s e clot hing a

nd jewelr y does not mean that the rules will alway s be followed or that a mistake w ill not be made. The Se c re tary no te s th a t Plunk e tt, an A TAe mpl oy e e , a c kn ow le dg e d th at ni nety pe rc e nt o f a c c ide nts

oc c ur be c a us e of “ op e rator e rr or , op e ra tor a tti tud e or a pe rs on did so me thi ng that pu t the mse lve s in harm’s w ay .” (A p p x . 8 0 ). The r eleva nt regulation calls for “ one or more methods of machine g uarding ” to protec t the operator. Petitioner’s own wit ness admit ted that a guard c ould be fa shioned to at least protec t a g ainst contac t w ith the chuck periphe ry . Kelly testified: “A diff ere nt gua rd that is thinner, that does not come out ove r what we ca ll the point of operation but strictly is over the periphe ry of the c huck itself, that would not cr eate an y k i n d o f additi onal hazard.” (Appx. 160). Kelly also testified that it would not provide any benef it, but the AL J disag ree d, and subst antial evidenc e supports that dete rmination. Since the per iphery can be safe ly

g uarde d, the fa ct that ATA ha s add iti on a l saf

e ty pr e c a uti on s doe s not exc us e c omp lia nc e wi th bin din g re g ulatio ns . F or the se

rea sons, substantial evidence supports the finding of a violation. At a min imum, A TAha s th e re sp on sib ili ty to gua rd the pe ri ph e ry

of the c hu c k, wh ic h w ou ld support the Commiss ion’s finding of the other -than-se rious violation and the $1,400 pena lty . The AL J’s opi nio n itse lf pr ima ri ly sta nd s for thi s limit e d pro po sit ion

. Th e mos t ag g re ssi ve the AL J g e ts in gua rding other pa

rt s of the mac hine is acknow ledg ing Coc hran’ s testimony that “a guard previously

attache d to the l at h e b y

Respondent could be modifie d to cover the per iphery

and theOf c ourse, AT A must comp l y wi t h 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a) (1). Whether that means 2 installing a guard ove r the jaw s of the chuc k is not befor e thi s Court. I n testimony , Cochran stated that the g uard should cove r the jaw s as well as the chuck “ as much a s possible” and noted that it was “subjec t to ex periment.” Multipl e witnesses for Respondent testified that a g uard c overingany part of the fa ce of

the chuc k was not worka ble. irregular shaped j aws.” (AL J Op. at 4). At oral arg ument, it appea red uncontested that the fa ce of the chuck could not be entirely g uarde d. Some dispute rema ins a bout w hether the jaws of the c huck could be sa fely

g uarde d. The AL J does not c lear ly articulate whether he believed OSHA or ATA’ s wi tne sse s o n th e fe a sib ili ty of pla c inga g ua rd ov e r the jaws of the c hu c k. Th e AL J app e ars to a vo id this iss ue, dismissing ATA’ s fea sibili ty claim mere ly by citing Kelly ’s t estimony that a g uard ove r the pe ri ph e ry

is f e a sib le . Si nc e su

bs tanti a l e vid e nc e su

pp or ts a fi nd ingthat th e pe ri ph e ry po se s a dang er, the petition for re view is denied, a nd we ne ed not re ach the issue of the extent of w hat the g uard should cove r. 2 The fa ct that the Commissi on’s applicat i o n o f t he binding regulations is supported by substantial evidence undermines the r est of ATA ’s ar g uments. ATA ar g ues it complied with the rele vant standard based on its supposed compliance with a 1979 L etter of I nterpre tation from OSHA. The letter of interpre tation states: “When the work holding or driving device in the clamped mode has compone nts that e x tend bey ond the outside diameter of the holding de vice; or the periphe ry of the bo dy of the ho ldi ng de vic e is of ir re g ula r sha pe . . . a fi xed or mov e a ble g ua rd , d e vic e , a

wa re ne ss barr ier, or pe riphera l cover over a rea exposed to the operator

shall be re quired.” Crucially , this letter of interpr etation does not over rule the plain require ments of the binding regulations. The Secr etar y proper ly argues that the letter of interpr etation does not pre sent the “ on ly situations where the OSHA standard r equire s g uarding .” (Sec reta ry ’s B r. at 43, n.11). Even if the le tter of inter

pretation were the s ole determinant of a violation, ATA’s ar g ument would still fail. The AL J found that the per iphery of the c hucks we re “ irregular on both lathes” andTh e Com mis sio n’ s f ind ingthat th e se la the s r e qu ir e g ua rd s o f the peri ph e ry

do e s ma ke it 3 unlikely that any lathe could not be guarde d. The letter of i nterpre tation relied on by ATA, howe ver, ref er s to a ll w o r

k

- h o ld in g d e v ic e s , n o t m e r e ly la th e s . T h e e xc e p ti o nis th e r e f o r e n o t r e n d e r ed meaning less by

the Commiss ion’s deter

mination that these lathes re quire guards. noted t estimony that “in the per iphery of the c hucks there are rec esses for the chuc k key s and whe re the jaws move in a

nd out of the chuc ks.” (AL J Op. at 3). While these irr eg ularities may not provide the dang er of some of t he irreg ularities i n the j aws and fac e of the chuck, the factual finding t hat they

are “irre g ular” is supported by substantial evidence

. ATA a lso arg ues that it complied with t h e l et t er of interpr etation by perf orming its own thoroug h evaluation. The letter of i nterpre tation states: “All work-holding de vices do not re quire g uarding . There fore , a thoroug h evaluation must be conduc ted of the w ork -holding device s.” (A p p x . 1 9 1 )

. A T A c i t es t es t i m o n y b y t wo em p l o y ee s , P l u n k et tan d Ke l l y , t h at a “ t h o ro u gh 3 evaluation” had

b e e n p e r f o r me d b ut that ATA conc luded “that guards we re unne cessa ry beca use they would not eliminate or mitigate the hazards prese nted by the actual uses of the lathes.” (Petitioner B r. a t 27 ). AT A a lso a

rgue s th a t it

c omp lie d w itha

20 01 Am e ri c an N a tio na l Sta nd ard s Ins tit

ute (“A NSI ”) standa

rd on t he is sue, focusing on the fact that the l athes at issue are manual rather than automatic. Section 6.1 of ANSI B11.6 calls for chuck g uards “as require d.” Section 8.1 notes that

wher e an immediate or impending hazard e x ists an employ er ma y provide (a ) gua rd (s ); (b ) s a fe g ua

rd ingde vic e (s ); (c ) a wa re ne ss b arr ie rs and

de vic e (s ); (d) sa fe w ork proc edure s. The sele cted mea

ns of safe g uarding shall be consistent with identified hazards a nd the ir a sso c ia te d r isk s.Simi lar to the letter of interpr etation, the ANSI standard c annot be use d to rebut the a ctual 4 OSHA standar d as expounded in its bindi ng regulations. (Appx. 228). 4 ATA’s relianc e on the letter of interpre tation a nd the ANSI standard is unavailing. B oth of these c ite d s tand ard s in dic a te tha t a g ua rd is n ot a lw ay s r e qu ir e d. No bo dy argue s th a t a

g ua rd is alway s re q u ired. The fac t that gua rds ar e not alwa

y s nece ssary

does not mean that they are not

nece ssary in this case . The S ecr etar y has proved a viol ation of § 1910.212(a )(1) based on a showing that the per iphery

poses a da

ng er, a nd ATA’s ow n admission that a g uard c ould safely g uard the p e r i p h e r y o f t h e c h u c k

. T h e l o g i c a l f

l aw i nA T A ’ s ar g u m e n t i s t h e b e l i e f t h a t A T A i t s e l f c ana l w a ys deter mine whether

a g uard is nec essar

y . I t c ites to te stimony

from Ke lly , its own employ ee, that the lathes ar e operat ed safely during the g aug ing pr ocess. ( Appx. 155). The ANSIstandard r equire s ATA to do an evaluation a nd deter mine whether a g uard is ne cessa ry . I f ATA makes the incor rec t deter mination, it is not shielded from the c lear commands of § 1910.212( a)( 1) that re quire guarding

mere ly b e c a u s e it c o n d u c te d ane v a lu a ti o n . Su c h ane xc e p ti o nto c o mp li an c e w it h th e r e g u la tion would eff ec ti v e ly e v is c e r a te it, allowing c ompanies to perf orm “e valuations” that we re immune fr om revie w by the Commiss ion. ATA’s pe tition m ust be denied be cause the Commiss ion rea sonably deter mined based on the evidenc e pre sented that the pe riphery of the chuck posed a da

ng er. A TA itself admits that a g uard

c ov e ri ngthe pe ri ph e ry

is f e a sib le . T he re fo re , th e Com mis sio n’ s d e te rm ination that th e fa ilure to g uard the periphe ry

is an other- than-ser ious violation i s supported by substantial evidence

. We acknowle dg e that since the fac e of the chuc k cannot be g uarde d, the most serious dang er these lathe s prese nt r emains ever -pre sent. What AT A has done, howeve r, is to miss a smaller da ng er based on its deter

mination that a more ser ious dang er c annot be pr evente d. The Com mission appearsto h a ve re c og nize d th is, do wn g ra din g the vio la tio n to “ oth e r - tha n- se ri ou s” and

low e ri ngthe fi ne to $1,400. Th e d ec i s i o n that the fa ilure to g uard the periphe ry of the c huck violates 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a) (1), howe ver, is undoubtedly supported by

substantial evidence

. II

. ATA a lso arg ues that it satisfied the af firmative de fense o f “gr ea t er hazard.” OSHA

re g ulatio ns state that any ma c hin e g ua

rd “ sh a ll b e su c h th a t it

do e s no t of

fe r an a c c ide nt h a zar d in itself.” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a) (2). ATA argues that a g uard would cre ate “tra ppi n g p oints,” “nipping points,” and “she aringpoints” contrar y to the ANSIstandard w hich indicates that a manual too l in de xer

sh a ll b e sa fe g ua

rd e d to pr ote c t a g a ins t ju st s uc h d ang e rs . ATA is likely prec luded from makingthis arg ument beca use it failed to see k a var iance from the re qu ir e me nts of

the g ua rd ingsta nd ard . T he Ni nth Cir c uit ha s h e ld t hat a pe tit ion e r’ s “ fa ilure to seek a varia nce is suff

icient alone to sustain the a dminist rative la w judg e’s r ejec tion of petitioner’s defe nse that available machine g uards would have cre ated a g reater hazard than the un guarde d [m achine ].” True Drilling Co. v. Donov an , 703 F.2d 1087, 1091 ( 9th Cir. 1983). Se e als o Mo de rn Drop Forge Co. v. Se cretary of Labor , 683 F.2d 1105, 1116 (7th Cir. 1982) (holding that “[i] f the g reater ha zard defe nse could be raised i n an enf orce ment proce eding without first ex hausting the

va ri anc e pr oc e dure , e mpl oy

e r s w o u l d t e n d to by pa ss t hat pr oc e dure ” ); Ge ne ra l E le c . Co . v . S e c re tar y of Labor , 576 F.2d 558, 561 (3d Cir. 1978) (f inding that if “ a ‘g reater ha zard’ def ense is allowe d at an enf orce ment proce eding without requiring initial resort to the varia nce proce dures or a showing t h at s u ch re s o rt would be inappr opriate, the re w ould be little incentive for a n employ er to see k a varia nce unde r these c ircumstance s”). This Court has ne ver squa rely d ec ided this issue. I n the context of a petitioner attempting to pr esent an “impossibili ty ” defe nse, we decl i n ed t o decide wh e the r e xha

us tin g the va

ri anc e pr oc e dure “ is r e qu ir e d o r i s me re ly to be pr e fe rr e d” bu t in

any e ve nt,“ the fa c t r e ma ins tha t an e mpl oy e r wh ic h ha s no t pr e vio us ly so ug ht a va ri anc e or mod if

ic a tio n s tart s with a di stinct disadvantag e when it claims impossibi lity in an enf orce ment proce eding .” Diebold, In c . v . M ar sh all , 585 F.2d 1327, 1339 ( 6th Cir. 1978). Even if we could rea ch the merits, the ar g ument must fail beca use of Ke lly ’s unambig uous testimony . He testified that the periphe ry of the c huck could be safe ly protec ted. There fore , once it i s det erm in e d th a t th e pe ri ph e ry po se s a da ng e r, it i s c e rt a inl y

no t a g re a te r h a zar d to pr ote c t it

. Substantial evidenc e supports the C ommissi on’s determination that the periphery of t he chuc k poses a dang er a

nd that a g uard ove r the pe riphery does not cre ate a

n additional dang er. CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY AT A’ s p et i t i o nfo r r ev i ew o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s finding of an othe r-than- serious violation.