<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15">
<meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 15">
<link rel=File-List href="08-1318_files/filelist.xml">
<link rel=Edit-Time-Data href="08-1318_files/editdata.mso">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title> LJC Dismantling Corp., Docket No. 08-1318</title>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:DocumentProperties>
  <o:Author>Walter, J. David</o:Author>
  <o:Template>Normal</o:Template>
  <o:LastAuthor>Walter, J. David</o:LastAuthor>
  <o:Revision>2</o:Revision>
  <o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
  <o:Created>2018-08-07T15:11:00Z</o:Created>
  <o:LastSaved>2018-08-07T15:11:00Z</o:LastSaved>
  <o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
  <o:Words>13822</o:Words>
  <o:Characters>78790</o:Characters>
  <o:Lines>656</o:Lines>
  <o:Paragraphs>184</o:Paragraphs>
  <o:CharactersWithSpaces>92428</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
  <o:Version>16.00</o:Version>
 </o:DocumentProperties>
 <o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
  <o:AllowPNG/>
 </o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<link rel=themeData href="08-1318_files/themedata.thmx">
<link rel=colorSchemeMapping href="08-1318_files/colorschememapping.xml">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <w:WordDocument>
  <w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
  <w:TrackFormatting/>
  <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
  <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
  <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
  <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
  <w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
  <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
  <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
  <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
  <w:Compatibility>
   <w:BreakWrappedTables/>
   <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
  </w:Compatibility>
  <m:mathPr>
   <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
   <m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
   <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
   <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
   <m:dispDef/>
   <m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
   <m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
   <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
   <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
   <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
   <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
  </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="false"
  DefSemiHidden="false" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
  LatentStyleCount="375">
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 7"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 8"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index 9"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 7"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 8"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 9"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Normal Indent"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="footnote text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="annotation text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="header"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="footer"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="index heading"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="table of figures"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="envelope address"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="envelope return"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="footnote reference"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="annotation reference"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="line number"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="page number"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="endnote reference"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="endnote text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="table of authorities"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="macro"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="toa heading"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Bullet"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Number"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Bullet 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Bullet 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Bullet 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Bullet 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Number 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Number 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Number 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Number 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Closing"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Signature"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text Indent"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Continue"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Continue 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Continue 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Continue 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="List Continue 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Message Header"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Salutation"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Date"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text First Indent"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text First Indent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Note Heading"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text Indent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Body Text Indent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Block Text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Hyperlink"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="FollowedHyperlink"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Document Map"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Plain Text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="E-mail Signature"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Top of Form"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Bottom of Form"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Normal (Web)"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Acronym"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Address"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Cite"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Code"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Definition"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Keyboard"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Preformatted"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Sample"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Typewriter"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="HTML Variable"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Normal Table"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="annotation subject"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="No List"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Outline List 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Outline List 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Outline List 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Simple 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Simple 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Simple 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Classic 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Classic 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Classic 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Classic 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Colorful 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Colorful 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Colorful 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Columns 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Columns 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Columns 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Columns 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Columns 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 7"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Grid 8"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 7"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table List 8"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table 3D effects 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table 3D effects 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table 3D effects 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Contemporary"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Elegant"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Professional"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Subtle 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Subtle 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Web 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Web 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Web 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Balloon Text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="Table Grid"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Table Theme"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" Name="Revision"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" QFormat="true"
   Name="List Paragraph"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" QFormat="true"
   Name="Intense Quote"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" QFormat="true"
   Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" QFormat="true"
   Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" QFormat="true"
   Name="Subtle Reference"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" QFormat="true"
   Name="Intense Reference"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="Bibliography"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" SemiHidden="true"
   UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="41" Name="Plain Table 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="42" Name="Plain Table 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="43" Name="Plain Table 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="44" Name="Plain Table 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="45" Name="Plain Table 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="40" Name="Grid Table Light"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="Grid Table 1 Light"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="Grid Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="Grid Table 2 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="Grid Table 3 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="Grid Table 4 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="Grid Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="Grid Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="Grid Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46" Name="List Table 1 Light"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51" Name="List Table 6 Colorful"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52" Name="List Table 7 Colorful"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 1"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 2"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 3"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 4"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 5"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="46"
   Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="47" Name="List Table 2 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="48" Name="List Table 3 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49" Name="List Table 4 Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="50" Name="List Table 5 Dark Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="51"
   Name="List Table 6 Colorful Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"
   Name="List Table 7 Colorful Accent 6"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Mention"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Smart Hyperlink"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Hashtag"/>
  <w:LsdException Locked="false" SemiHidden="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true"
   Name="Unresolved Mention"/>
 </w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--table
	{border-spacing: 0pt;
	empty-cells: show;}
span.WPFLOATSTYLE
	{left:10px;
	position:absolute;
	right:10px;
	visibility:hidden;}
div.WPPARABOXWRAPPER
	{float:left;}

 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
	mso-font-charset:0;
	mso-generic-font-family:roman;
	mso-font-pitch:variable;
	mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Times;
	panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;
	mso-font-charset:0;
	mso-generic-font-family:roman;
	mso-font-pitch:variable;
	mso-font-signature:-536858881 -1073711013 9 0 511 0;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{mso-style-unhide:no;
	mso-style-qformat:yes;
	mso-style-parent:"";
	margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
	mso-believe-normal-left:yes;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;
	text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;
	text-underline:single;}
p
	{mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-priority:99;
	margin-top:0in;
	margin-right:0in;
	margin-bottom:.75pt;
	margin-left:0in;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
	{mso-style-name:msonormal;
	mso-style-unhide:no;
	margin-top:0in;
	margin-right:0in;
	margin-bottom:.75pt;
	margin-left:0in;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
span.wpfloatstyle
	{mso-style-name:wpfloatstyle;
	mso-style-unhide:no;
	border:solid black 1.0pt;
	mso-border-alt:solid black .75pt;
	padding:5.0pt;
	background:#FFFFE1;}
span.wpnormal
	{mso-style-name:wpnormal;
	mso-style-unhide:no;
	mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
	mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
	mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-hansi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
	mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
	font-variant:normal !important;
	color:black;
	mso-text-animation:none;
	font-weight:normal;
	font-style:normal;
	text-decoration:none;
	text-underline:none;
	text-decoration:none;
	text-line-through:none;}
span.wpparabox
	{mso-style-name:wpparabox;
	mso-style-unhide:no;
	mso-hide:none;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	mso-default-props:yes;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
	mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
	mso-header-margin:.5in;
	mso-footer-margin:.5in;
	mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
 /* Style Definitions */
 table.MsoNormalTable
	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
	mso-style-noshow:yes;
	mso-style-priority:99;
	mso-style-parent:"";
	mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
	mso-para-margin:0in;
	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
</style>
<![endif]--><![if mso 9]>
<style>
p.MsoNormal
	{margin-left:2.5in;}
</style>
<![endif]>
<meta name=KEYWORDS
content="OSHRC Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
  <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/>
 </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>

<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='tab-interval:.5in;
margin-left:2.5in'>

<div class=WordSection1>

<p align=center style='margin-top:24.0pt;text-align:center;line-height:22.45pt'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"> The parties stipulated that “the space between adjacent planks of the [scaffold platform] exceeded\
one inch,” which is generally the maximum space permitted by the standard.  <i>See</i> 29 C.F.R. §\
1926.451(b)(1)(i).  In addition, the record establishes that there was a 36-inch gap from the planking\
to the uprights.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote2 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"> The foreman’s testimony regarding whether he saw Employee A build the scaffold is equally\
unclear, as he seems to give contradictory answers:</p>\
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in">Q: [Y]ou didn’t see him build that scaffold, did you?</p>\
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in">A: No.  I don’t see.</p>\
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in">*<span>                                  </span>*<span>          </span>*</p>\
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in">Q: So, you never saw him build a scaffold.</p>\
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in">A: No.  <i>Just one frames</i> [<i>sic</i>] [emphasis added]. </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote3 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"> The Secretary argues that by asserting that Employee A was properly trained, LJC has, in effect,\
raised the affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct, and thus has the burden of\
proof on this point.  But whether LJC could establish that defense is not relevant unless the Secretary\
has first met his burden to show knowledge of the violation.  <i>See N.Y. State Elec. & Gas, </i>88 F.3d\
at 108.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote4 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"> To support his claims, the Secretary relies on <i>Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of Am</i>., 8 BNA OSHC\
1384, 1980 CCH OSHD ¶ 24,495 (No. 76-5089, 1980) and <i>Active Oil Serv., Inc.</i>, 21 BNA OSHC\
1184, 2005 CCH OSHC ¶ 32,803 (No. 00-0553, 2005).  But the circumstances here are not similar\
to those in either case.  In <i>Automatic Sprinkler</i>, the Commission found the instructions inadequate\
because they did not address what the employee should do if it was impractical to follow them—a\
condition the employer would have discovered had it inspected the site beforehand.  8 BNA OSHC\
at 1387-88, 1980 CCH OSHD at p. 29,926.  Here, as discussed above, LJC did inspect the worksite\
and the Secretary has not shown LJC had any indication that the instructions it provided Employee\
A would be inadequate or disregarded.</p>\
<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.0833333in">In <i>Active Oil</i>, the Commission found constructive knowledge based in part on the fact that the\
company’s president had made clear his belief that safety was not important, and that workers felt\
free to disregard safety procedures.  21 BNA OSHC at 1187-88, 2005 CCH OSHD at p. 52,499.  But\
here, Employee A testified that he thought LJC wanted him to be safe and he felt free to talk about\
any safety issue; indeed, the shop steward acknowledged that LJC’s superintendent was concerned\
about safety and had directed him to check on safety issues.  Also, unlike <i>Active Oil</i>, there is no\
evidence LJC had a history of employees disregarding safety requirements.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote5 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"> We agree with the judge’s determination that the cited standard applied, there was non-compliance,\
and Employee A was exposed to the hazard.  We therefore discuss only the issue of LJC’s\
knowledge of the violative condition.  <i>See Astra Pharm. Prods</i>., 9 BNA OSHC 2126, 2129, 1981\
CCH OSHD ¶ 25,578, p. 31,899-900 (No. 78-6247, 1981) (“In order to prove a violation . . . the\
Secretary must show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the cited standard applies, (2) there\
was a failure to comply with the cited standard, (3) employees had access to the violative condition,\
and (4) the cited employer either knew or could have known of the condition with the exercise of\
reasonable diligence”), <i>aff’d</i>,<i> in relevant part,</i> 681 F.2d 69 (1st Cir. 1982).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote6 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"> The compliance officer determined that one of the straps, if cut, was long enough to strike\
Employee A.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote7 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"> As with Item 5, the Secretary also argues that an LJC supervisor either saw, or could have seen,\
Employee A working from the scaffold without overhead protection.  For the same reasons\
discussed above, we find that the record does not establish that a supervisor actually saw Employee\
A on the scaffold, and the visibility of the condition alone is not sufficient to establish knowledge\
here.  <i>See Thomas Indus.</i>, 23 BNA OSHC at 2085-86, 2009-2012 CCH OSHD at p. 55,770; <i>Major\
Constr.</i>, 20 BNA OSHC at 2111, 2004-2009 CCH OSHD at p. 53,042.  </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote8 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"> Below, LJC argued that the superintendent instructed workers not to cut the straps on the morning\
of the accident.  The judge rejected this argument in part because the superintendent also testified\
that he intended to have the last straps cut <i>before</i> the remaining boards were removed.  LJC does not\
rely on this argument on review and, like the judge, we conclude that the record does not establish\
that such an instruction was given.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote9 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><span style="font-size: 12pt"> We note that the foreman denied that the shop steward made this complaint. </span></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote10 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"> Three other witnesses addressed the presence of a scaffold adjacent to the water tank on the day\
before the accident.  The foreman and site supervisor both referred to a scaffold that was erected on\
one side of the platform structure that provided access to the tank platform, but neither stated\
whether the tank workers were on it or, as the shop steward testified, were on the tank platform\
itself, when they were working with the straps that day.  Employee A testified, contrary to the shop\
steward, that on the day before the accident, workers were cutting straps while on the scaffold\
adjacent to the water tank.  But unlike the shop steward, Employee A did not say that LJC had\
reason to believe that the tank workers were creating an overhead hazard; in fact, as discussed <i>supra</i>,\
Employee A testified that the area below was cleared before the straps were cut that day.  </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote11 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"> In response to LJC’s inapplicability argument, the Secretary asserts that the standard also applies\
to workers who are not on a scaffold but whose actions pose an overhead hazard to a worker who\
is on a scaffold.  Because we find that the record fails to establish that LJC had reason to believe that\
the tank workers needed retraining on overhead hazards pertaining to scaffolds, we need not reach\
this issue.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote12 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify"> The Secretary claims that the circumstances of the accident show LJC had reason to believe\
retraining was needed.  However, he does not explain how “on or about” the day after the\
accident—the time specified in the citation—LJC could have obtained that information and provided\
the retraining, since at that point work had ceased at the site, Employee A was at home recovering\
from his injury, and LJC was still investigating the cause of the accident.  </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote13 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>LJC had temporary electric and water service to do its work at the site. (Tr. 382-84).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote14 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>Mr. Roberts worked as a <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>burner<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> for LJC from about February, 2008 through August,\
2008.  He was responsible for cutting metal beams at the work site.  (Tr. 22-23).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote15 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>The employees removing the wood were Enrique Bahamanda, John Dcaizara and\
Gershan Williams. They performed this work from a 24-foot-high scaffold that had been set up\
next to the steel tower and water tank before the dismantling of the tank began. They were as\
much as twenty feet away from Mr. Roberts and could not be seen by Mr. Roberts when he was\
on his scaffold. Mr. Williams had worked with Mr. Roberts previously as his burning\
partner.(Tr. 24, 35-36, 58, 60-61, 71, 399-402, 447).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote16 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>Mr. Tudek<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s supervisor on the job was Mr. Wilhelm.  (Tr. 346). </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote17 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>The Secretary<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s complaint, dated November 4, 2008, withdrew Item 1b, a second instance\
of the alleged violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">\'</span> 1926.150(a)(2), and Item 2, which alleged a violation of\
29 C.F.R. <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">\'</span> 1926.350(h). On May 29, 2009, the Secretary also withdrew Item 9b, a second\
instance of the alleged violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">\'</span> 1926.856(b). (Tr. 7-11).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote18 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>Mr. Steinke has served as an OSHA CO for nineteen years. He has conducted about 980\
inspections, of which, about 80 percent involved the construction industry. (Tr. 147).  </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote19 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>OSHA used the same formula, that is, a 40 percent credit for size and no credit for\
history or good faith, to arrive at the proposed penalties for all the items in this case. (Tr. 166).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote20 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>Respondent was unable to locate and produce any records of safety meeting sign-in\
sheets or safety inspections for the job site. (Tr. 458-59; Exh 24, at pp. 2, 4). The absence of a\
record of an event that would ordinarily be documented in company records is probative of the\
fact that the event(s) did not occur.  <i>See</i> <i>Wiley v. United States</i>, 20 F.3d 222, 227 (6<sup>th</sup> Cir. 1994).\
As such, the Court finds that Respondent conducted only one safety meeting with employees\
during the course of the project and no safety inspections.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote21 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>The CO noted that Exhibits 4 through 6 were duplicates of the same view and that\
Exhibits 4 and 5 were taken without a flash to light up the scene. (Tr. 269).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote22 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>Mr. Wilhelm also admitted that the light bulb shown in Exhibit 2 was <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>supposed to have\
a plastic cover on it, a cage.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> (Tr. 416).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote23 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>The CO agreed the Santronics AC Tester shown in Exhibit J was what he used. He also\
agreed his worksheet from the inspection stated he used a Sure Test, a different tester. He said\
that the worksheet entry was a mistake, as he had used the Santronics tester. (Tr. 267-72; Exh. I,\
p. I-9).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote24 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>Mr. Castillo worked in the construction field for ten years. He has been a union shop\
steward for eight years. He has worked for LJC several times. He has twenty-one different work\
certifications, including scaffolding, OSHA training, fire watch, and first aid, as well as a license\
to be a shop steward. He has helped demolish between 13 to 14 different buildings with different\
companies. On the work site, he performed various jobs for LJC, including fire watch and\
checking trucks for materials. (Tr. 78-82).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote25 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>Mr. Castillo testified that there were two foreman at the job site, <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>Walter<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> and <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span>Richard.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span>.\
When referring to <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>Walter,<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> Mr. Castillo was referring to Mr. Tudek. Mr. Wilhelm testified that\
Richard (also referred to as <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>Richie<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> or <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>Richey<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span>) was a lead man at the job site who exercised\
supervisory responsibilities for LJC on other jobs. He may also have supervised activities at the\
work site after May 7, 2008. (Tr. 85-86, 95, 392, 445-46). </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote26 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>Mr. Tudek did not testify whether or not he told Mr. Castillo to use the defective cord.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote27 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>The CO testified the proposed penalty was $2,500.00. (Tr. 174). The citation shows it as\
$1,500.00. I conclude that the CO was mistaken about the proposed penalty.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote28 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>The CO did not observe the scaffolding. Mr. Wilhelm testified that it had been taken\
down to facilitate the Emergency Medical Services<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span> removal of Mr. Roberts from under the\
scaffold after he fell. (Tr. 222, 370, 395-97). Mr. Roberts told the CO, however, that he had used\
only three planks on the scaffold. (Tr. 174-175).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote29 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>Mr. Roberts agreed that Mr. Wilhelm did not see him building the scaffold. (Tr. 65-66).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote30 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>Mr. Roberts also indicated that such discussions took place. (Tr. 54-55).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote31 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>Mr. Wilhelm said he did not notice how many planks were on the scaffold. (Tr. 406).\
This testimony does not change the fact that Messrs. Wilhelm and Tudek either knew, or should\
have known in the exercise of reasonable diligence, that Mr. Roberts would have to use a\
scaffold to do his cutting work on the day of the accident. <i>See, e.g.</i>, Tr. 370.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote32 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>The CO first indicated he measured the <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>A<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> and <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>B<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> shown in Exhibit 11. He later\
indicated he measured other identical scaffolding at the site. (Tr. 177-78, 297-98, 305, 308-13).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote33 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>The CO indicated that no one had yet worked from the scaffolding shown in Exhibit 11.\
Mr. Wilhelm told him, however, that work had been done from the scaffolding depicted in\
Exhibit 10, a view from the other direction of the roof-level perimeter scaffolding on the\
building. (Tr. 182).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote34 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="margin-bottom: 0.166667in"> </p>\
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0.166667in"> Mr. Wilhelm testified that, running horizontally, there was a distance of eight feet between\
each attachment point of the netting.   (Tr. 450-451).  This was the distance between the scaffold\
uprights. Mr. Wilhelm further testified that the netting was attached to the scaffold frame <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>every two\
feet.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> (Tr. 428).  He later admitted he was referring to the vertical distances between attachment\
points along the scaffold uprights.  (Tr. 450-451).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote35 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>The scaffold guardrail standard requires a mesh/screen midrail to be <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>capable of\
withstanding, without failure, a force applied in any downward or horizontal direction at any point\
<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">Y</span> of at least 75 pounds (333 n) for guardrail systems with a minimum 100 pound toprail capacity,\
and at least 150 pounds (666 n) for guardrail systems with a minimum 200 pound toprail capacity.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> \
29 C.F.R. <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">\'</span> 1926.451(g)(4)(ix). The Court is not persuaded that the netting used by Respondent here\
was capable of withstanding, without failure, at any point the weight identified in the standard. The\
netting was not attached along the scaffold platform. A distance of eight feet separated each\
attachment point of the netting. (Tr. 450-451).  <i>See Big Apple Wrecking & Constr. Corp</i>., 19 BNA\
OSHC 1290 (No. 99-0313, 2000)(CALJ decision)(violation of the scaffold guardrail standard\
affirmed where wire mesh observed by CO along the sides of the scaffolding did not meet the\
standard at 29 C.F.R. <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">\'</span> 1926.451(g)(4)(xv).).</p>\
<p style="text-align: justify; margin-bottom: 0.166667in"></p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote36 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>In affirming this item, I have noted LJC<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s argument that the netting was a substitute for a\
mid-rail. <i>See</i> R. Brief, pp. 29-30. The CO testified it was not, as it was not attached to the work\
platform and an employee could fall through it. (Tr. 180-81, 299-308, 338-39). Mr. Wilhelm\
agreed the netting was not attached to the platform. He admitted that the netting had <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>a couple of\
inches at the most of give at the bottom.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> Mr. Wilhelm did not believe a body could fall through\
it. (Tr. 428-29, 450-51). The CO<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s testimony is credited, and LJC<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s argument is rejected.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote37 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><sup></sup>Mr. Roberts said the workers were removing wood pieces and lowering them down with\
rope. They also had tools for this work. (Tr. 25-26, 39-40). Mr. Roberts stated that this work was\
being done on the other side of the tank from where he was working. (Tr. 25-26, 60).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote38 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in">I also conclude that Mr. Roberts was telling the truth about what Mr. Williams told him. I\
observed his demeanor on the stand, and I found him to be a reliable and credible witness.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote39 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in">Mr. Wilhelm said the reports were based on what Mr. Roberts told him and what he\
could <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>put together,<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> in that no one saw the accident. He also said he talked to the workers who\
had been dismantling the tank. Mr. Williams stated he did not cut anything and was helping the\
other two lower down wood. The other two stated that they had not seen anything happen. (Tr.\
410-11, 440-41, 447-48, 453). These statements, in my view, do not detract from what Mr.\
Williams told Mr. Roberts, as he may not have wanted to admit to a superior a strap was cut.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote40 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in">The Accident Report, dated May 7, 2008, stated that <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>A steel band from Water Tower 15-20 feet away came loose as workers were dismantling tower. The steel band fell and struck\
employee on the neck and shoulder.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> (Exh. 23).  At Exhibit 22, in the Report to New York<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s\
Workers<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span> Compensation Board, dated May 7, 2008, Mr. Wilhelm stated the following in\
response to the question at block 23:</p>\
<p style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; border-bottom: none"> </p>\
<p style="text-indent: 0.5in">23. HOW DID THE ACCIDENT OR EXPOSURE OCCUR? (Please describe fully the\
events that resulted in injury or occupational disease. Tell what happened and how it happened.\
Please use separate sheet if necessary.) </p>\
<p style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; border-bottom: none"> </p>\
<p style="text-indent: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0.166667in">STEEL BAND FROM WATER TOWER WAS DROP[<i>SIC</i>] & HIT HIM IN THE\
SHOULDER & EMPLOYEE FELL FROM ON FRAME OF SCAFFOLD.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote41 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in">He also testified the straps were too strong to come apart accidentally. (Tr. 439-41).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote42 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in">Exhibits 12-16 were taken by the CO on May 8, 2008. (Tr. 184-90; Exh. J-I, p. 2).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote43 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in">Mr. Castillo testified that several LJC employees working at the water tank were exposed\
to falling straps on May 7, 2008. (Tr. 94-98).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote44 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"> Brian Wilhelm presented Mr. Tudek to the CO as LJC<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s chief foreman.  (Tr. 319).  The\
OSHA-1B Worksheet prepared by the CO identified the <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>demo foreman<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> or <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>Foreman<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> on the\
work site as <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>Richard (Voitek) Tudek<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> or <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>Richard Tudek.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span>  (Exh. I, pp. I-1, 5-7, 11-12).  \
Respondent<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s discovery responses identified Mr. Tudek<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s first name as <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>Wojcicech.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span>  The parties\
stipulated that <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>Wojciech Tudek<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> was LJC<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s foreman at the work site.  (Exh. J-I, at p. 5, #4).  At\
the trial, Mr. Tudek identified his first name as <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>Wojtek.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span>  (Tr. 343). </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote45 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in">The CO testified at trial that Mr. Castillo told him on May 8, 2008 that he (Mr. Castillo)\
had told LJC employees before the accident not to cut the water tank straps while employees\
were working down below. (Tr. 193-94).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote46 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in">Mr. Castillo testified that Mr. Tudek overheard him telling his coworkers <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>[Y]ou guys\
shouldn<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>t be here. [I]t<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s too dangerous here. [N]obody should be underneath here.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> Mr. Tudek\
told Mr. Castillo to leave and that it was none of his business. He further told Mr. Castillo that he\
(Mr. Tudek) was <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>in charge here. [T]hat<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s why I<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>m the foreman.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> (Tr. 101-102). </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote47 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in">Mr. Wilhelm claimed that, on the day of the accident, he told several employees not to\
cut the remaining steel straps that day (Tr. 446-447).  However, this self-serving claim is\
contradicted by Mr. Wilhelm<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s aforementioned testimony that he intended to have the remaining\
steel straps cut before all the wood was removed from the tank.  Furthermore, this claim is belied\
by Mr. Wilhelm having documented, in Respondent<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s accident reports, that a steel strap was\
removed from the water tank and caused the accident.  If the employees on the tank <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">B</span> by cutting\
a strap on the day of the accident <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">B</span> had disobeyed a direct order that Mr. Wilhelm claims he\
gave, one would certainly expect that any employees who cut straps on May 7, 2008 would be\
disciplined. None of Respondent<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s employees were disciplined as a result of the accident. Mr.\
Wilhelm further testified that Respondent had no record of having ever disciplined any\
employees on this project. (Tr. 368-369, 452).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote48 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><span style="font-size: 10pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"><sup>6</sup></span></span><i>See</i> <i>Active Oil Service, Inc.</i>, 21 BNA OSHC 1184, 1187 (No. 00-0553, 2005)\
(constructive knowledge is shown by considering <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>the employer<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s obligation to have adequate\
work rules and training programs, to adequately supervise employees, to anticipate hazards to\
which employees may be exposed, and to take measures to prevent the occurrence of\
violations.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span>).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote49 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><span style="font-size: 10pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"><sup>7</sup></span></span> Mr. Wilhelm claimed that, the day before the accident, LJC had put up caution tape\
around the area below the water tank to keep employees out of the area. (Tr. 403).  Mr. Roberts\
testified that even when the caution tape was up on May 6, 2008, it was only intended to keep\
out unauthorized persons; <i>i.e.</i> non-LJC employees, not Respondent<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s employees. He also\
testified that he was never told not to work inside the taped area. (Tr. 38).</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote50 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><span style="font-size: 10pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"><sup>8</sup></span></span><span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>An employer that wishes to use a means of eliminating a hazard different from that\
provided in a standard must obtain a variance from the standard.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> <i>Sierra Construction Corp</i>., 6\
BNA OSHC 1278, 1282 n.11 (No. 13638, 1978) (citing 29 U.S.C. <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">\'</span> 655(d)).  LJC offered no\
evidence that it had obtained a variance to use the blade of the Takeuchi machine in lieu of\
compliance with the cited standard.</p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote51 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><span style="font-size: 10pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"><sup>9</sup></span></span>Even assuming <i>arguendo</i> that the blade, when lowered, could stop the machine from\
moving forward into the floor opening, Mr. Wilhelm testified that the operator must take the step\
of lowering the blade into the necessary position. (Tr. 429) The purpose of curbs or stop-logs is\
in part <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">A</span>to protect the operator <span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">Y</span> [who] is not paying attention.<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">@</span> (Tr. 196).  Unlike the blade,\
curbs or stop-logs do not depend on the operator to engage the protective mechanism. The Court\
finds that the stabilizer blade is not the equivalent of a barrier curb or stop-log.  </p>\
</span>'

var WPFootnote52 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p style="text-indent: 0.5in"><span style="font-size: 10pt"><span style="font-family: \'Calibri\', sans-serif"><sup>0</sup></span></span>Although the CO testified the auditorium had five stories, with an elevation of 40 feet, \
Mr. Wilhelm testified that the auditorium had three stories. (Tr. 198, 379). The citation states the\
building<span style="font-family: \'WP TypographicSymbols\', sans-serif">=</span>s elevation was 35 feet. Regardless, I find that the violation was a serious fall hazard.</p>\
</span>'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
  if( bInlineFloats )
    eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
  else
  {
    if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
      floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
    floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
    floatwnd.document.write( "<html><head>\r\n" );
    floatwnd.document.write( "<style> p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } </style>\r\n" );
    floatwnd.document.write( "</head><body>\r\n" );
    floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
    floatwnd.document.write( '<br>Close');
    floatwnd.document.write( "</body></html>" );
    floatwnd.document.close();
    floatwnd.focus();
  }
}

function WPHide( WPid )
{
  if( bInlineFloats )
    eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'hidden'" );
}
</script></span><b>United States of America</b></p>

<p align=center style='text-align:center'><b>OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION</b></p>

<p align=center style='text-align:center'>1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor</p>

<p align=center style='text-align:center'>Washington, DC 20036-3457</p>

<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>

<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
 style='border-collapse:collapse;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184;mso-padding-alt:4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt'>
 <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;height:.4in'>
  <td width="51%" style='width:51.0%;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
  border-left:none;border-bottom:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
  mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;mso-border-right-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
  padding:0in 5.85pt 0in 5.4pt;height:.4in'>
  <p style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Times",serif'>SECRETARY
  OF LABOR,</span></p>
  </td>
  <td width="49%" style='width:49.0%;border:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
  padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.85pt;height:.4in'>
  <p style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Times",serif'> </span></p>
  </td>
 </tr>
 <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:1;height:33.7pt'>
  <td width="51%" style='width:51.0%;border:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
  mso-border-right-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;padding:0in 5.85pt 0in 5.4pt;
  height:33.7pt'>
  <div>
  <p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.95pt;margin-left:
  35.05pt;text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Times",serif'>Complainant,</span></p>
  </div>
  </td>
  <td width="49%" style='width:49.0%;border:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
  padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.85pt;height:33.7pt'>
  <p> </p>
  <p style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Times",serif'> </span></p>
  <p> </p>
  </td>
 </tr>
 <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:2;height:38.15pt'>
  <td width="51%" style='width:51.0%;border:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
  mso-border-right-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;padding:0in 5.85pt 0in 5.4pt;
  height:38.15pt'>
  <div>
  <p style='margin-bottom:9.95pt;text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:
  "Times",serif'>v.</span></p>
  </div>
  </td>
  <td width="49%" style='width:49.0%;border:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
  padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.85pt;height:38.15pt'>
  <p style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Times",serif'>OSHRC
  Docket No. 08-1318</span></p>
  </td>
 </tr>
 <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:3;height:.4in'>
  <td width="51%" style='width:51.0%;border:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
  mso-border-right-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;padding:0in 5.85pt 0in 5.4pt;
  height:.4in'>
  <div>
  <p style='margin-bottom:9.95pt;text-align:justify'>LJC DISMANTLING CORP.,</p>
  </div>
  </td>
  <td width="49%" valign=top style='width:49.0%;border:none;mso-border-left-alt:
  solid windowtext .75pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.85pt;height:.4in'>
  <p style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Times",serif'> </span></p>
  </td>
 </tr>
 <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:4;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes;height:21.95pt'>
  <td width="51%" style='width:51.0%;border-top:none;border-left:none;
  border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
  mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;mso-border-right-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
  padding:0in 5.85pt 0in 5.4pt;height:21.95pt'>
  <div>
  <p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:9.95pt;margin-left:
  35.05pt;text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Times",serif'>Respondent.</span></p>
  </div>
  </td>
  <td width="49%" style='width:49.0%;border:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .75pt;
  padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.85pt;height:21.95pt'>
  <p style='text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Times",serif'> </span></p>
  </td>
 </tr>
</table>

<p style='margin-bottom:9.95pt;line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:20.95pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>ON
BRIEFS:</span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Heather
Phillips, Counsel for Appellate Litigation; Joseph M. Woodward, Associate
Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health; M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of
Labor; U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC </span></p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:.5in;
text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>For the
Complainant </span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Thomas
Bianco, Esq.; Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, Mineola, NY </span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt'>For the Respondent</span></p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in'> </p>

<p align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:22.45pt'><b>DECISION</b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>Before: ROGERS, Chairman;
ATTWOOD, Commissioner.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>BY THE COMMISSION:</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            Following
an inspection, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued LJC
Dismantling Corporation a nine-item citation alleging serious violations of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678,
with a total proposed penalty of $16,800. The Secretary withdrew one of the
citation items, and Administrative Law Judge Dennis L. Phillips issued a
decision affirming the remaining eight items. At issue on review are three of
the affirmed items—Citation 1, Items 5, 7 and 8—all of which
involve an LJC employee’s use of a scaffold, from which he fell when
struck from overhead by a falling object. For the reasons discussed below, we
vacate Items 5 and 8, and affirm Item 7. </p>

<p align=center style='margin-top:24.0pt;text-align:center;line-height:22.45pt'><a
name="TOC1_1"></a><b><span style='text-transform:uppercase'>Background</span></b></p>

<p style='margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            As
part of a multi-building dismantling project in New York City, LJC employees
were taking apart a large rooftop water tank that rested on an elevated
platform. The tank was made of wooden boards, joined in a tongue and groove
manner, and horizontally bound with several metal straps. Dismantling the tank
involved cutting the straps and prying apart the boards. As one group of
workers dismantled the tank, another employee (Employee A) worked on removing a
small house-like structure near the base of the tank’s platform. On the
day of the accident, Employee A built a small scaffold so that he could
reach the upper portion of the structure. Shortly after climbing onto his
scaffold, he felt something strike him in the neck and back shoulder, and he
fell off the scaffold to the roof. A co-worker told Employee A that someone had
cut one of the tank’s straps, causing it to swing around the tank and hit
him. </p>

<p style='margin-top:24.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'><a
name="TOC1_2"></a><b>DISCUSSION</b></p>

<p style='margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'><b>Item 5
- Improper Scaffold Planking </b></p>

<p style='margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            Under
this item, the Secretary alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. §
1926.451(b)(1), which requires scaffolds to be “fully planked or decked
between the front uprights and the guardrail supports.” Employee A
acknowledged at the hearing that he did not fully plank the scaffold from which
he was working on the day of the accident. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote1',%20WPFootnote1%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1186" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote1" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote1 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>The judge concluded that the Secretary met his burden of proving
knowledge. On review, we consider whether LJC knew or should have known that
the scaffold’s planking was deficient. <i>See e.g.,</i> <i>Kerns Bros.
Tree Serv</i>., 18 BNA OSHC 2064, 2067, 2000 CCH OSHD ¶ 32,053, p.
48,003 (No. 96-1719, 2000) (Secretary bears burden of establishing “that
the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the cited
conditions”). </p>

<p style='margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:
22.45pt'>LJC argues that its supervisors were unaware of the violative
condition and did not have reason to know that Employee A would plank the
scaffold incorrectly. The Secretary responds that LJC’s foreman testified
that he saw the non-compliant scaffold and, even if he did not, it was in plain
view and LJC failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the violation.
We find that the record does not establish the Secretary’s assertions. </p>

<p style='margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:
0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>To establish
actual knowledge, the Secretary relies on testimony from the foreman, who
described being on the roof only once before the accident—at the
beginning of the work day. The foreman testified that, when he saw Employee A
at that time, he “was on scaffold”:</p>

<p style='margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>Q: Was he
on a – [w]hen you saw him, was he on a scaffold, or was he on – </p>

<p style='margin-bottom:9.95pt;text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>A: No.
He working on – [h]e wasn’t on roof. He was on scaffold, because
– [t]hat scaffold was necessary.</p>

<p style='margin-top:6.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>But this testimony
was immediately followed by a confusing colloquy about why the scaffold was
necessary, in which the foreman stated that Employee A could not reach high
enough to do his work because “[h]e’s standing on roof.” In
addition, other evidence indicates that Employee A had not finished
building or started using the scaffold until after the foreman had left the
roof. As the record shows, the accident occurred about two hours after the
workday began, when the foreman was on another floor, and Employee A testified
that he had been on the scaffold for just a brief time before the accident. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote2',%20WPFootnote2%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1185" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote2" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote2 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><i>See</i> <i>Gary Concrete Prods., Inc</i>., 15 BNA OSHC 1051,
1052-53, 1991 CCH OSHD ¶ 29,344, p. 39,451 (No. 86-1087, 1991) (finding
employer lacked actual knowledge where supervisor left work area prior to
employee exposure to violative condition). In short, the foreman’s
testimony is unclear, appears to conflict with other evidence, and was not
clarified by the Secretary in further questioning. Thus, we find this testimony
insufficient to establish actual knowledge of the violative condition. <i>Cf.</i>
<i>Thomas Indus. Coatings, Inc</i>., 23 BNA OSHC 2082, 2085-86, 2009-2012 CCH
OSHD ¶ 33,200, p. 55,700 (No. 06-1542, 2012) (declining to find actual
knowledge where foreman only suspected a violation)<a name=n3></a>. </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>With respect
to constructive knowledge, we agree with the judge’s finding that LJC
instructed Employee A to work near the water tank and knew he would need a
scaffold to complete the assigned tasks. But the Secretary must also
demonstrate that LJC, knowing Employee A would construct and use a scaffold,
failed to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent and discover the
non-compliant planking. <i>See, e.g., N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp. v.
Sec’y of Labor</i>, 88 F.3d 98, 105 (2d Cir. 1996) <i>citing</i> <i>Pride
Oil Well Serv.</i>, 15 BNA OSHC 1809, 1814, 1992 CCH OSHD ¶ 29,807, p.
40,584 (No. 87-692, 1992) (“Reasonable diligence involves several
factors, including an employer’s obligation to inspect the work area, to
anticipate hazards to which employees may be exposed, and to take measures to
prevent the occurrence.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). In this regard, we find the record lacking.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>First, the
Secretary asserts that under <i>Simplex Time Recorder Co. v. Sec’y of
Labor</i>, 766 F.2d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1985), he satisfied his burden by showing
that the condition was in plain view and visible from a distance. However, in <i>Simplex</i>,
the court found constructive knowledge where the non-compliant conditions and
everyday practices of the employees were readily visible “<i>and</i>
indisputably should have been known to management.” 766 F.2d at 589
(emphasis added). Although in the instant case the 36-inch gap from the
planking to the uprights was in plain view, the record does not establish that
this condition existed while the foreman or any other LJC supervisor was in the
area prior to the accident. Employee A completed his scaffold, climbed up, and
was struck before he even finished making preparations to do his work. At that
time, about two hours after the beginning of the work day, the foreman and
superintendent—who were the only LJC supervisors on the
project—were on another floor and unable to see the scaffold. And as
discussed below, the Secretary has failed to establish a lack of reasonable
diligence by LJC in not discovering or preventing the condition, <i>i.e.</i>,
that the condition “should have been known to [LJC].” <i>Id.</i> In
these circumstances, we find that there is insufficient evidence to show that
the condition was present for a long enough time that the employer should have
known about it. <i>See Major Constr. Corp., Inc</i>., 20 BNA OSHC 2109, 2111,
2004-2009 CCH OSHD ¶ 32,860, p. 53,042 (No. 99-0943, 2005) (constructive
knowledge not established where violation might only have been capable of being
observed for a short period); <i>see also Cranesville Block Co.</i>, 23 BNA
OSHC 1977, 1986, 2009-2012 CCH OSHD ¶ 33,227, p. 56,017 (No. 08-0316,
2012) (consolidated) (knowledge not established where violative condition was
in plain view but evidence did not establish how long it existed or that
supervisors were in area); <i>Williams Enters., Inc.</i>, 10 BNA OSHC 1260,
1263, 1982 CCH OSHD ¶ 25,830, p. 32,306 (No. 16184, 1981) (knowledge not
established absent evidence that violative condition existed “for a
sufficient period of time that [the employer] should have discovered
it”).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Second, the
Secretary alleges, with little elaboration, that LJC failed to take adequate
measures to prevent the occurrence of violations—that it “failed to
fulfill” its obligations to inspect for existing or potential hazards and
give appropriate instructions. We find the evidence does not support these
allegations, and that the Secretary, therefore, has failed to establish a lack
of reasonable diligence by LJC. As for inspections, the record establishes that
LJC’s superintendent inspected the worksite multiple times a day and
directed the shop steward to check that employees were “being
safe.” The Secretary argues that such inspections were inadequate but
does not identify what would have been appropriate under the circumstances,
especially considering the brief amount of time the violative condition
existed. <i>See</i> <i>Trinity Marine Nashville, Inc.</i>, 19 BNA OSHC 1015,
1017, 2000 CCH OSHD ¶ 32,158, p. 48,527 (No. 98-0144, 2000) (no
constructive knowledge where employer conducted inspections and “the
Secretary has not suggested any reasonable additional measures that [the
employer] could have taken to detect the [violative condition]”), <i>rev’d
on other grounds</i>, 275 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2001); <i>Tex. A.C.A., Inc</i>.,
17 BNA OSHC 1048, 1050, 1993-1995 CCH OSHD ¶ 30,652, p. 42,525-526 (No.
91-3467, 1995) (no constructive knowledge of scaffold violation based on
inadequate inspections where Secretary failed to demonstrate inspections were
not reasonably diligent).<i> </i>Moreover, there is no evidence showing that
Employee A had ever previously violated safety requirements. <i>Compare</i> <i>N.
Y. State Elec. & Gas, Corp</i>., 19 BNA OSHC 1227, 1231, 2000 CCH OSHD
¶ 32,217, p. 48,847 (No. 91-2897, 2000) (Commission finding no
constructive knowledge where there were no circumstances alerting the employer
to a need for more intensive monitoring) <i>with</i> <i>N & N Contractors,
Inc.</i>, 18 BNA OSHC 2121, 2124, 2000 CCH OSHD ¶ 32,101, p. 48,329
(No. 96-0606, 2000) (constructive knowledge where employer knew that employees
routinely violated its work rule), <i>aff’d</i>, 255 F.3d 122 (4th Cir.
2001). </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>As for instructions,
LJC’s superintendent hired Employee A knowing he had extensive training
and experience, including two courses specifically addressing scaffolds, as
well as annual renewal training. The superintendent also went through
LJC’s safety policies with Employee A and had him review a copy of its
safety plan, which requires “scaffold planking” to be inspected
daily. Apart from a general assertion that LJC did not give “appropriate
instructions,” the Secretary faults LJC for failing to prove that it had
“every reason to believe that [Employee A] was properly trained.”</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>We agree
that the adequacy of Employee A’s prior training is relevant to assessing
whether LJC’s instructions were sufficient. <i>See Gary Concrete, </i>15
BNA OSHC at 1054-55, 1991 CCH OSHD at p. 39,451 (adequacy of instructions,
training and supervision assessed in light of employee’s work history and
extent of judgment involved in assigned task). But to the extent the Secretary
is asserting that LJC should have discounted Employee A’s prior scaffold
training (along with his extensive construction experience) and given more
specific instructions, it is the Secretary’s burden to identify and
establish that LJC should have been aware at the time that Employee A’s
training was deficient, and what additional instructions would have been
necessary under those circumstances. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote3',%20WPFootnote3%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1184" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote3" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote3 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><i>See N.Y. State Elec. & Gas, </i>88 F.3d at 108 (Secretary has
burden of proving inadequacy of safety program where that is asserted basis for
constructive knowledge); <i>Precision Concrete Constr</i>., 19 BNA OSHC 1404,
1407, 2001 CCH OSHD ¶ 32,331, p. 49,552 (No. 99-0707, 2001)
(Secretary has burden of identifying what reasonable diligence required)<i>.</i>
The record, however, contains no such assertions or evidence. And, as noted
above, there is no evidence that LJC had previously experienced any problems
with Employee A’s compliance with safety requirements, including those
related to scaffolds. Thus, the record fails to demonstrate that the company
should have anticipated that the cited provision would be violated in these
circumstances. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote4',%20WPFootnote4%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1183" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote4" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote4 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            Accordingly,
we find that the Secretary has not established knowledge of the violative
condition and therefore vacate Item 5. </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'><b>Item 7 - Overhead Hazards </b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Under this
item, the Secretary alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(h)(1),
which requires employees working on a scaffold to be protected from falling hand
tools, debris, and other small objects. The judge determined that workers cut
one of the metal straps holding the tank together while Employee A was on his
scaffold, exposing him to a hazard to which the cited standard applies. He then
concluded that LJC had knowledge of the violation because it failed to exercise
reasonable diligence to protect Employee A from overhead hazards associated
with the tank dismantling work. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote5',%20WPFootnote5%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1182" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote5" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote5 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            On
review, LJC does not deny that on the day of the accident, a tank strap was
cut, the cutting process created a falling object hazard, <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote6',%20WPFootnote6%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1181" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote6" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote6 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>and Employee A worked without overhead protection while on his
scaffold. Rather, it argues that it lacked knowledge of the violative condition
because it was unaware that the tank workers were cutting straps that day. The
Secretary responds that LJC nonetheless had constructive knowledge because it
should have been aware Employee A would be subjected to the overhead hazard
posed by the cutting of the straps while he performed his assigned work. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote7',%20WPFootnote7%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1180" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote7" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote7 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            We
agree with the Secretary. Even if LJC lacked actual knowledge that straps were
being cut that day,<a name=n1></a> it knew that the tank workers were to
continue the tank dismantling process, and that there were straps remaining
that would have to be cut to complete that process. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote8',%20WPFootnote8%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1179" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote8" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote8 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>And LJC does not deny that it knew Employee A was to work adjacent to
(and at a level below) the base of the water tank—an area that, as the
compliance officer described, was one of “competing operations” at
the time of the accident. While Employee A had training about overhead hazards,
he could not see from his position on the scaffold that the workers were
cutting a strap, nor could they see him. <i>See Ormet Corp</i>., 14 BNA OSHC
2134, 2137-38, 1991-1993 CCH OSHD ¶ 29,254, p. 39,201 (No. 85-531,
1991) (finding knowledge where it was reasonably foreseeable that employee
could have been injured by crane load approaching employee’s work area); <i>see
also</i> <i>Halmar Corp.</i>, 18 BNA OSHC 1014, 1016, 1995-1997 CCH OSHD ¶
31,419, p. 44,410 (No. 94-2043, 1997) (had employer exercised reasonable
diligence, it would have anticipated that crane might contact power lines), <i>aff’d,
without reported opinion, </i>152 F.3d 918 (Table) (2d Cir. 1998). Despite
this, LJC failed to implement any instructions or other measures to either
coordinate this work or otherwise provide protection from the overhead hazard.
This was in contrast to the previous day, when LJC did take preventive steps:
as Employee A testified, on that day, “[w]hen they were about to cut the
straps on the tower [the superintendent] ordered everybody out of the area so
that nobody would get hurt in case the straps fly.” LJC thus failed to
exercise reasonable diligence to prevent the violation. <a name=n2></a><i>See
Phoenix Roofing,</i> <i>Inc.</i>, 17 BNA OSHC 1076, 1079, 1995 CCH OSHD ¶
30,699, p. 42,606 (No. 90-2148, 1995) (finding failure to instruct employees to
avoid dangerous condition evidence of lack of reasonable diligence), <i>aff’d,
without reported opinion</i>, 79 F.3d 1146 (Table) (5th Cir. 1996); <i>Deep
South Crane & Rigging Co.</i>, 23 BNA OSHC 2099, 2102-03, 2012 CCH OSHD
¶ 33,232, p. 56,804 (No. 09-0240, 2012) (violation foreseeable where
employer gave insufficient instructions), <i>aff’d, </i>24 BNA OSHC 1089
(5th Cir. 2013). We therefore affirm Item 7.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>LJC does not
challenge the characterization or penalty of this citation item on review. The
judge characterized the violation as serious and assessed the Secretary’s
proposed penalty of $3,000. We find no reason to disturb his findings or the
assessed penalty amount. <i>See, e.g., KS Energy Servs., Inc.</i>, 22 BNA OSHC
1261, 1268 n.11, 2004-2009 CCH OSHD ¶ 32,958, p. 53,925 n.11
(No. 06-1416, 2008) (affirming alleged characterization and assessing proposed
penalty where characterization and penalty were not in dispute), <i>aff’d</i>,
703 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the violation as serious
and assess the proposed penalty of $3,000.</p>

<p style='margin-top:6.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'><b>Item 8 -
Retraining </b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Under this
item, the Secretary alleges that, “on or about” May 8,
2008—the day after the accident—LJC failed to retrain employees on
overhead hazards in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.454(c). This
provision requires retraining when “the employer has reason to believe
that an employee lacks the skill or understanding needed for safe work
involving the erection, use or dismantling of scaffolds.” The judge found
that LJC had reason to believe from the actions of the tank workers, who cut
the metal straps, and of Employee A, who was working within reach of the straps
on the day of the accident, that these employees needed retraining. As it is
undisputed that no retraining was provided subsequent to the accident, he
affirmed the violation. On review, LJC asserts that this was error because the
tank workers did not use a scaffold on the day of the accident and thus the
retraining requirement is inapplicable to them, and Employee A’s mere
presence beneath the tank dismantling operation on that day did not suggest a
need for retraining as he was unaware that straps were going to be cut then.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>We find that
the Secretary failed to prove LJC violated the provision because the record
does not show that the actions of either the tank workers or Employee A <a
name=n4></a>signaled a need for retraining. The Secretary relies on testimony
from the shop steward, who asserted that, “right from when [the tank
workers] began [cutting]” the straps—which he indicated was
“several days” before the accident—he complained to the
foreman about the overhead hazard. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote9',%20WPFootnote9%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1178" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote9" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote9 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>But the cited requirement addresses such a hazard only if it pertains
to “work involving” scaffolds, and the shop steward also testified
that the tank workers were not using a scaffold. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote10',%20WPFootnote10%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1177" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote10" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote10 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>The record also fails to establish that Employee A or any other worker
in the area was erecting, dismantling, or using a scaffold at that point. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote11',%20WPFootnote11%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1176" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote11" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote11 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>Moreover, Employee A, the foreman, and the superintendent all
testified that before LJC first started cutting straps—which, in contrast
with the shop steward, they indicated was on the day prior to the
accident—LJC cleared the area below. Consequently, we find the weight of
the evidence to be inconsistent with the shop steward’s testimony.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>The Secretary
also argues that a need to retrain was manifested by the accident
itself—that the tank workers cut a strap even though Employee A was
working below, and Employee A worked on a scaffold even though dismantling
operations were taking place above. But the record does not establish whether
the tank workers were even aware that Employee A was on his scaffold when they
cut the strap. And Employee A testified that he could not see what the tank
workers were doing when they cut the strap, was unaware that they would be
cutting straps, and if he had known he would have avoided the area—as he
had done the day before when he was instructed to stay clear of the area when
straps were to be cut. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote12',%20WPFootnote12%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1175" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote12" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote12 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>In sum, the evidence does not establish that LJC had “reason to
believe” that the tank workers or Employee A needed retraining. <i>Compare
Gen. Motors Corp</i>., 22 BNA OSHC 1019, 1037, 2004-2009 CCH OSHD
¶ 32,928, p. 53,612 (No. 91-2834E, 2007) (consolidated) (finding
similar retraining requirement in lockout/tagout standard violated where
supervisors had observed employees failing to follow required safety
procedures).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:22.45pt'>Accordingly,
we find that the Secretary failed to establish a violation of the standard and
therefore vacate Item 8.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'><b>ORDER</b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>            We
vacate Citation 1, Items 5 and 8, and affirm Item 7, assessing a penalty of
$3,000. </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>SO ORDERED.</p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'>                                                                        <u>/s/ </u></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'>                                                                        Thomasina
V. Rogers</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'>                                                                        Chairman</p>

<p style='text-indent:.5in'> </p>

<p style='text-indent:.5in'> </p>

<p style='text-indent:.5in'> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'>                                                                        <u>/s/ </u></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'>                                                                        Cynthia
L. Attwood</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>Dated: March 28,
2014                                              Commissioner</p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>

<hr size=2 width="100%" noshade style='color:green' align=center>

</span></div>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<div style='float:none'>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-no-proof:yes'><img border=0 width=282 height=6 id="_x0000_i1174"
src="08-1318decision/08-1318decision.gif" alt=08-1318decision.gif></span><span
style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<p style='mso-line-height-alt:1.3pt'> </p>

<p style='margin-left:3.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-3.0in;line-height:
22.45pt'><a name=QuickMark></a>SECRETARY OF
LABOR,                           :</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:3.0in;line-height:22.45pt'>:</p>

<p style='margin-left:3.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-2.0in;line-height:
22.45pt'>Complainant,                          :</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:3.0in;line-height:22.45pt'>:</p>

<p style='margin-left:4.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-3.5in;line-height:
22.45pt'>v.                                                         :                      OSHRC
DOCKET NO. 08-1318</p>

<p style='margin-left:2.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:
22.45pt'>:</p>

<p style='margin-left:3.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-3.0in;line-height:
22.45pt'>LJC DISMANTLING
CORP.,                       :</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>                                                                         :</p>

<p style='margin-left:3.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-2.0in;line-height:
22.45pt'>Respondent.                            :</p>

<div style='float:none'>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-no-proof:yes'><img border=0 width=282 height=6 id="_x0000_i1173"
src="08-1318decision/08-1318decision1.gif" alt=08-1318decision1.gif></span><span
style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

<p style='mso-line-height-alt:1.3pt'> </p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='margin-left:4.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-4.0in'>Appearances:              Daniel
Hennefeld,
Esquire                 Thomas
Bianco, Esquire</p>

<p style='margin-left:4.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-2.5in'>U.S.
Department of
Labor                  Metzer,
Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone</p>

<p style='margin-left:4.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-2.5in'>New York,
New
York                        Minealoa,
New York</p>

<p style='margin-left:4.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-2.5in'>For the
Complainant.                          For
the Respondent.</p>

<p> </p>

<p style='margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-1.5in'>Before:                        Dennis
L. Phillips</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:1.5in'>Administrative Law Judge</p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:22.45pt'>                                                        <b><i><u>DECISION
AND ORDER</u></i></b></p>

<p style='line-height:22.45pt'> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>This proceeding
is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>the Commission<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>) under section 10(c) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span> 651 <i>et seq</i>. (<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>the
Act<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>). The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>OSHA<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>) inspected a work site of
Respondent, LJC Dismantling Corp. (<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>Respondent<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> or <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>LJC<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>),
on May 8, 2008. The work site was located in New York, New York. OSHA conducted
the inspection after learning of an accident that had occurred at the site on
May 7, 2008. As a result of the inspection, on August 5, 2008, OSHA issued a
citation to LJC alleging various serious violations of the Act. LJC contested
the citation, and the hearing in this matter took place on June 9 and 10, 2009,
in New York, New York. Both parties have filed post-hearing briefs. The
Secretary has filed a reply brief.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                                                                <b><i><u>BACKGROUND</u></i></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>LJC is a
building demolition and dismantling contractor operating in the greater New
York City metropolitan area. In early 2008, a demolition project began in New
York City that involved four connected buildings that had been the site of the
Sony Music Company (<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>the
project<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>) at 460 West 54<sup>th</sup>
Street, New York, New York (the <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>work
site<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>, <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>job site<span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> or <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>site<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>). The first part of the project
consisted of asbestos abatement by another company. Then, after electric, gas
and water service was disconnected, LJC began its dismantling work. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote13',%20WPFootnote13%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1172" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote13" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote13 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>The main building, which had four stories, had a steel tower with a
water tank on its roof. The tower and tank together were about 30 feet high.
The tower<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s base was about
25 feet square, and the water tank<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
diameter was about 20 feet. The water tank was made of wood pieces fitted
together, and a number of steel straps encircled the tank. The steel straps
were approximately 1 inch thick and 45 feet long. </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>On May 6,
2008, Eric Roberts, a construction laborer and LJC employee, spent six to seven
hours working on dismantling the machine room. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote14',%20WPFootnote14%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1171" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote14" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote14 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>The machine room (also referred to as the <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>mechanical room<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>)
was also on the roof of the main building, and it was adjacent to and below the
water tank. Mr. Roberts<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span> work
that day involved using a torch cutter to burn through and remove parts of the
machine room, including beams. Late in the day on May 6, 2008, three other LJC
employees, a fire watcher, burner and helper, began removing the steel straps
from the water tank by burning through them with a torch cutter. Because it
could not be predicted where or how the straps might fall, Brian Wilhelm, LJC<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s superintendent on the project,
told employees to clear the area below the water tower before the strap removal
work began. Yellow caution tape was also put up around that part of the roof to
prevent any persons, who were not LJC employees, from entering that area. The
LJC employees who were removing the straps from the water tank left two of them
in place in order to keep the tank intact. (Tr. 21-41, 57-60, 71, 151, 185,
225-26, 346-49, 375-81, 386, 401-05; Exhibits (Exh) J-I, p. 5, 12-16).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>On May 7,
2008, Mr. Roberts continued his work of the day before. Since the beams that he
had to cut that day were higher up, he set up a scaffold to reach those beams.
The scaffold he put up was a 6-foot-high pipe scaffold, with cross-bracing,
that was 8 feet long and 5 feet wide. The steel tower interfered with planking
the scaffold correctly, so Mr. Roberts used only three sheet rock planks, each
of which was 9 inches wide, to plank the scaffold. Before he started his
burning work, Mr. Roberts saw that LJC employees were removing wood pieces from
the water tank and lowering them to the roof with rope. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote15',%20WPFootnote15%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1170" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote15" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote15 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>He did not see anyone cutting or burning the metal straps, and, as no
warnings had been given about clearing the area, he did not believe that any
straps would be removed that day. Between 9 and 9:30 a.m., Mr. Roberts was on
the scaffold and in the process of heating a beam he planned to cut when he
felt something strike him. He grabbed the scaffold with his hand and then fell
off the scaffold and onto the roof. He blacked out for a few seconds and then
felt someone touch him and ask him if he was all right. Mr. Roberts opened his
eyes and saw Gershan Williams. He asked what had happened, and Mr. Williams
said that a strap had been cut and it had swung around and hit him. Emergency
help was summoned, and an ambulance arrived shortly to take Mr. Roberts to the
hospital. Ernesto Castillo, the union steward, accompanied Mr. Roberts to the
hospital. Although Mr. Roberts suffered a blunt force trauma from being struck
on the neck and shoulder, for which he received physical therapy, he was
released from the hospital the day after the accident. He was off work for
about six weeks following the accident, after which he resumed working on the
project. Mr. Wilhelm wrote up reports of the accident on the same day it
occurred. (Tr. 24-26, 38-43, 46, 50-52, 55-56, 61-65, 71-72, 129, 187, 350,
395-97, 405-11; Exhs. 22-23).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>OSHA
Compliance Officer (<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>CO<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>) Peter Steinke arrived at the
site at 12:30 p.m. on May 8, 2008. He met with Mr. Wilhelm and held an opening
conference. The New York City Department of Buildings had stopped the job due
to the accident. LJC was the only contractor at the site. Mr. Wilhelm told him
that LJC had a skeleton crew making corrections and <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>buttoning up<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>
the site. The CO and Mr. Wilhelm viewed the scene of the accident and then
walked through the rest of the site. The CO spoke to Mr. Castillo and other
employees who were at the site. He also spoke to Mr. Roberts by telephone on
May 8, 2008. The CO saw a number of conditions he considered violations. One
was a sprinkler connection that was covered with plywood. Other conditions were
temporary light bulbs without protective cages, damaged electrical cords, a
scaffold without a mid-rail, and a jackhammer machine that had been used on the
roof of another building without a curb or <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>stop-log.<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> CO Steinke concluded that Mr.
Roberts had not fully planked the scaffold he was on and had not been protected
from objects falling from above. He also concluded that employees should have
been retrained in the OSHA standard requiring protection from overhead hazards.
After the inspection, which took two to three hours, the CO held a closing
conference with Mr. Wilhelm and Wojtek Tudek, LJC<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
main foreman at the site. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote16',%20WPFootnote16%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1169" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote16" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote16 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>The citation was issued on August 5, 2008. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote17',%20WPFootnote17%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1168" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote17" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote17 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>(Tr. 68, 150-56, 161-63, 166-67, 170-72, 174-81, 183-89, 192-96,
211-12, 346).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                                                               <b><i><u>JURISDICTION</u></i></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The parties
have stipulated that LJC, at all relevant times, was engaged in construction
work at the site. They have also stipulated that LJC was engaged in a business
affecting commerce within the meaning of sections 3(3) and 3(5) of the Act and
that LJC was an employer within the meaning of section 3(5) of the Act. The
parties further have stipulated that the Commission has jurisdiction of this
matter under section 10(c) of the Act. I find, therefore, that the Commission
has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter in this case. <i>See</i>
Exh. J-I, p. 6.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                                        <b><i><u>THE
SECRETARY</u></i></b><b><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>S
BURDEN OF PROOF</u></i></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>To prove a
violation of an OSHA standard, the Secretary must show by a preponderance of
the evidence that (1) the cited standard applies, (2) there was a failure to
comply with the cited standard, (3) employees had access to the violative
condition, and (4) the employer knew or could have known of the condition with
the exercise of reasonable diligence. <i>Astra Pharmaceutical Prod.</i>, 9 BNA
OSHC 2126, 2129 (No. 78-6247, 1981). The Secretary contends she has met her
burden of proof as to all of the cited conditions. LJC contends the Secretary
has not proved any of the alleged violations. Alternatively, LJC contends that
any violations that existed were not serious.</p>

<p style='line-height:24.0pt'> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                                                              <b><i><u>Citation
1, Item 1a</u></i></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Item 1a
alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span>
1926.150(a)(2), which states that <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>Access
to all available firefighting equipment shall be maintained at all times.<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> This item was issued because
the building<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s fire
sprinkler inlet pipes, called <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>Siamese
connections,<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> were covered
by plywood at the sidewalk in front of the building. CO Steinke testified that
he saw this condition as he arrived at the site. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote18',%20WPFootnote18%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1167" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote18" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote18 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>A blue plywood fence surrounded the site, and a green piece of
plywood, about 2 feet square, covered the Siamese connections. The CO
identified Exhibit A-1 as his photograph of the condition. He said the plywood
prevented the fire department from readily accessing the connections and that
any delay in access was a hazard for the employees at the site and the firemen
themselves. He also said that the sign stating <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>Siamese
Sprinkler Connection<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> above
the green plywood cover did not change the fact that the connections were not
readily accessible. The CO noted that when he arrived, he saw employees prying
off the cover with a crowbar. The cover was nailed down. The CO further noted
that when he asked about the condition, Mr. Wilhelm told him that when the fire
department or building department had been at the site the day before it had
cited LJC for the cover and asked LJC to remove it. (Tr. 155-58, 215, 242-45,
248, 332).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Mr. Wilhelm
testified he had employees put the cover over the connections because, during
his daily morning inspections of the site, he had found that people were
accessing the opening where the connections were to sleep and to store items.
He also testified he instructed his laborers how to cover the opening and
watched as they did so. Nails were put in only the top two corners, and the
nails were not driven in all the way, such that the cover could be removed by
prying it up at the bottom. Mr. Wilhelm agreed that the fire department had
been at the site the day of the accident. He denied that LJC had been told to
remove the cover. (Tr. 411-415).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The parties
have stipulated that the Siamese connections at the site were covered with
plywood that LJC had placed the plywood over the connections, and that a sign
above the plywood cover stated <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>Siamese
Sprinkler Connection.<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> <i>See</i>
Exh. J-I, p. 5, <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>&&</span>
5-7. Given these stipulations and the testimony above, the Secretary has met
all elements of her burden of proof, except for whether the plywood cover over
the connections violated the terms of the standard. I find that it did. As the
Secretary points out, a similar situation existed in <i>Bechtel Power Co.</i>,
7 BNA OSHC 1361, 1366 (No. 13832, 1979) (<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span><i>Bechtel</i><span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>). The Commission there affirmed
an alleged violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span>
1926.150(a)(2), as access to a fire extinguisher was <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>obstructed<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>
by panels and pipes leaning against it. Based on the facts of this case and <i>Bechtel</i>,
I conclude the plywood cover over the connections violated the standard. My
conclusion is supported by the CO<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
testimony that Mr. Wilhelm told him that the fire department had cited LJC for
the cover and had asked LJC to remove it. (Tr. 157). Mr. Wilhelm denied this
was so, but the Court credits the CO<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
testimony. If the opening was the nuisance Mr. Wilhelm indicated it was, he
most likely would not have removed the cover unless a government official
required him to do so. (Tr. 412). Item 1 is affirmed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>In assessing
penalties, the Commission is required to give due consideration to the gravity
of the violation and to the size, history and good faith of the employer. <i>See</i>
section 17(j) of the Act. The CO testified that this item was a serious violation
because it was a fire hazard that could have caused serious injury, burns or
smoke inhalation. The hazard had high severity, but low probability. The
proposed penalty, after LJC received a 40 percent credit due to its small size,
was $1,500.00. LJC received no credit for history, as it had an OSHA violation
in the previous three years, or for good faith, as it had no records showing it
had safety inspections or safety training at the site. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote19',%20WPFootnote19%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1166" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote19" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote19 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>(Tr. 158-61; Exhibit 24). <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote20',%20WPFootnote20%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1165" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote20" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote20 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>Based on the CO<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
testimony, Item 1a is affirmed as a serious violation. I find the proposed
penalty appropriate. A penalty of $1,500.00 is assessed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                                                               <b><i><u>Citation
1, Item 3</u></i></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Item 3
alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span>
1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(E), which provides in relevant part that <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>All lamps for general
illumination shall be protected from accidental contact or breakage.<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> This item was issued as there
were temporary light bulbs at the site that were not protected. CO Steinke
testified that he saw at least ten temporary light bulbs in hallways and
stairwells in the main building that did not have protective covers or cages.
He testified that none of the bulbs that he saw in the stairway were covered.
He identified Exhibits 2 and 3 as his photographs of two such bulbs in the
stairwells that led to the roof and Exhibits 6 and 7 as his photographs of
three more such bulbs in hallways, one of which was near the entrance. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote21',%20WPFootnote21%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1164" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote21" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote21 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>The CO said employees carrying items like pipes in the hallways and
stairwells could have struck the unprotected bulbs and broken them, creating
shattered glass and electric shock hazards. (Tr. 161-65, 253-56).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The CO
agreed that he did not see all the temporary lighting in the building and that
he saw no broken bulbs. He also agreed that he did not know how long the bulbs
had been uncovered and if employees had been carrying items through areas with
uncovered bulbs. He further agreed that some of the bulbs were above head
level. The CO noted, however, that Mr. Wilhelm told him that employees had been
carrying out building contents, including windows, during the previous week. He
did not recall Mr. Wilhelm saying that he tried to correct the condition
regularly or that the bulbs were recently unprotected. He did recall Mr.
Wilhelm saying that some of the cages he had did not fit the bulbs. (Tr.
253-62, 332-33).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Mr. Wilhelm
testified that he began each workday by walking through the site and correcting
any safety hazards he saw. This included putting covers or cages on light
bulbs. He noted that the box shown in Exhibit 7 contained covers that he could
use for any bulbs lacking covers. He also noted that there were probably 300 to
400 lights in the main building and that, when the OSHA inspection took place,
he had not seen the bulbs that were missing covers. Mr. Wilhelm further
testified that LJC employees did not carry items down hallways or stairwells,
except for equipment such as small hand tools. He explained that there was a
designated dumping area for debris from the demolition work at the back of the
building on each floor. (Tr. 387-88, 415-419, 448-49, 454).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The parties
have stipulated that at least four temporary light bulbs at the site were not
protected by a cage or similar device. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote22',%20WPFootnote22%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1163" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote22" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote22 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>They have also stipulated that the four temporary light bulbs were
installed by LJC. <i>See Exh.</i> J-I, p. 5, <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>&&</span>
8-9. In view of these stipulations and the testimony above, the Secretary has
shown the standard applies and that its terms were violated. As to employee
access to the hazard and LJC<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
knowledge of the violation, the testimony of the CO conflicts with that of Mr.
Wilhelm. I observed the demeanor of these witnesses as they testified,
including their facial expressions and body language. I found the CO to be a
credible and convincing witness, and, while Mr. Wilhelm was credible in some
respects, I found certain aspects of his testimony unreliable. The Court will
thus credit the CO<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
testimony over that of Mr. Wilhelm to the extent their testimony differs. I
credit the CO<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s testimony
that Mr. Wilhelm told him that employees had been carrying out contents of the
building, including windows, during the week before the inspection. I also
credit his testimony that Mr. Wilhelm said nothing about attempting to correct
the condition regularly or the bulbs being recently unprotected. Finally, I
credit the CO<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s testimony
that Mr. Wilhelm told him that some of the covers he had did not fit the bulbs.
(Tr. 255-62, 332-33). Based on this evidence, the Secretary has shown employee
access to the cited condition. She has also shown that LJC either knew or
should have known of the violation. Item 3 is affirmed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>CO Steinke
testified that this item was classified as serious, despite its low gravity and
lesser probability, because if a bulb broke and shattered an employee could get
glass in his eyes. The CO further testified that the proposed penalty for this
item was $900.00. (Tr. 164-66, 253). In light of the record, this item is
affirmed as a serious violation. I find the proposed penalty to be appropriate.
A penalty of $900.00 is assessed for this item.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                                                               <b><i><u>Citation
1, Item 4</u></i></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Item 4
alleges two instances of violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span>
1926.416(e)(1), which provides that <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>Worn
or frayed electric cords or cables shall not be used.<span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> Item 4a was issued as there was a damaged
extension cord at the site. CO Steinke testified that on the ground floor, near
the entrance of the building, there was an orange extension cord hanging about
5 feet from the floor. The CO identified Exhibits 7 and 8 as his photographs of
the cord, Exhibit 8 being a closeup. He said the cord was tied into a kind of <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>figure 8<span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> knot. He circled the cord on Exhibit 7 and its
damaged portion on Exhibit 8. The CO noted that the cord<span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s insulation was torn and its wiring exposed. He
stated that there was copper showing where the cord was nicked. He also stated
that the ground wire was visible. He also noted that he tested the cord with a
Santronics current AC Tester, which has a tip that lights up if a cord is live.
<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote23',%20WPFootnote23%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1162" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote23" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote23 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>He touched the sensor to the exposed wiring, the tip lit up, and he
showed it to Mr. Wilhelm. The CO said employees walking through the doorway
shown in Exhibit 7 could have contacted the cord and been shocked. He also said
LJC should have removed the cord. (Tr. 166-70, 281-82, 333-34).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Mr. Wilhelm
testified that Exhibit 7 showed a hallway and a doorway that led to the
three-story building and auditorium at the site. He said this location was
where Sony shot movies and that the whole area was covered with wires, cables,
cords and other equipment. He also said the area was de-energized, that the
cords in Exhibit 7 were not LJC<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s,
and that the only way to have powered the cords was through LJC<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s temporary electrical source.
Mr. Wilhelm had no reason to think the cords were energized. He never plugged
them into LJC<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s temporary
source. No one from LJC would have done so. He looked at the temporary
electrical source every day. Mr. Wilhelm recalled the CO testing the cord with
a sensor, but he did not see it light up and the CO never said anything to him
about the cord. Mr. Wilhelm stated he had not seen the hazard depicted in
Exhibit 8. (Tr. 420-24, 452).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The parties
have stipulated that an extension cord near the entrance of the work site was
damaged with torn insulation. <i>See</i> Exh. J-I, p. 5, <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>&</span> 10. This stipulation and
the CO<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s testimony
establish that the standard applies, that its terms were violated, and that
employees had access to the cited condition. Although Mr. Wilhelm<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s testimony was contrary to that
of the CO in regard to this item, the credibility of these two witnesses was
determined in the discussion relating to Item 3, <i>supra</i>. The CO<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s testimony is thus credited
over that of Mr. Wilhelm.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Ernesto
Castillo was the union shop steward who worked for LJC on the Sony project. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote24',%20WPFootnote24%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1161" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote24" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote24 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>He stated that work safety is one of the main reasons unions send a
shop steward to a project. Mr. Castillo testified that his number one job as
the steward is to make sure that workers are safe. He also testified about the
cords at the site. Mr. Castillo said there were many orange extension cords on
the project, and he recognized the cord in Exhibit 7 as one of those used at
the site. He testified that the cord had <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>the
potential to be able to hurt people.<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>
Mr. Castillo testified that when he reported the defective cord to an LJC
foreman, either Mr. Tudek or a man identified as <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>Richard,<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> he was told by both to go ahead
and use the cord anyway. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote25',%20WPFootnote25%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1160" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote25" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote25 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>The exposed extension cord was plugged in over water. He testified
that no one was aware when electricity was running because there was no
electrician on site to take charge of the connection. He also said that both
Mr. Wilhelm and an LJC foreman had told him to use the cord shown in Exhibit 7,
despite its damaged condition. (Tr. 78-89, 112, 124-126, 132, 140, 170). </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>LJC disputes
this testimony, asserting Mr. Castillo was a biased witness. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote26',%20WPFootnote26%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1159" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote26" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote26 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>R. Brief, pp. 7-10. Mr. Castillo testified, however, that he had
nothing in particular against LJC, especially since it had <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>given [him] a lot of work.<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> (Tr. 131). Mr. Roberts also
testified that he did not believe that Mr. Castillo was hostile to LJC. (Tr.
53-54). I observed Mr. Castillo<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
demeanor as he testified, and I found him to be a sincere and reliable witness.
Although LJC points to a number of claimed inconsistencies in his testimony, I
do not find the examples LJC has pointed out to be of any great moment. R.
Brief, pp. 8-10. Mr. Castillo<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
testimony is credited. I also find that the orange extension cord was damaged,
live with exposed electric, and used near the building<span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s entrance on May 8, 2008 by Respondent. The
Secretary has shown the element of knowledge. Item 4a is affirmed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Item 4b was
issued due to a welding machine at the site that had a damaged power cord. CO
Steinke testified that there was a repair shop on the ground floor at the site.
In the repair shop, he saw a welding machine with a damaged power cord. He
identified Exhibit 9 as his photograph of the machine, and he circled the cord<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s damaged area. The CO said the
cord had already been repaired once, in that there was a spliced area on the
end that was a different color than the rest of the cord. He also said the
spliced area had pulled apart, leaving the inner wires with just a little
insulation on them. The CO noted that the machine was useable in that
condition. If the cord ripped further, however, anyone using the machine could
receive an electric shock when welding where there was water on the floor. (Tr.
170-73, 336).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The parties have
stipulated that the cord on the welding machine in the repair shop was damaged
with cuts to the outer insulation. <i>See</i> Exh. J-I, p. 5, <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>&</span>11. This stipulation,
together with the CO<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
testimony, establishes that the standard applies and that the cord<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s condition violated the terms
of the standard. As to employee access, the CO agreed that he did not see the
machine being used and that no one told him it had been used in that condition.
He agreed that the proper way to abate the use of the welding machine was to
take it out of service. The CO testified that he did not know the welding
machine was out of service. He conceded that if he had been told that the
welding machine was in the repair shop to be repaired that <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>might change things.<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> (Tr. 264-65). He also admitted
that no one told him that the welding machine had been used since the prior
repair had come undone. The CO further admitted that Mr. Wilhelm did not tell
him the welding machine was in the repair shop not to be repaired. He conceded
that Mr. Wilhelm did not tell him that the welding machine was being used in an
unrepaired condition. The CO believed the machine was not out of service
because no one told him it was in the repair shop to be repaired. He also
believed it could have been used to repair other equipment in the shop. He
conceded that all he said to Mr. Wilhelm was that the cord needed to be fixed.
Mr. Wilhelm agreed to do so. (Tr. 172-73, 263-66, 337). </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Mr. Wilhelm
testified that the CO did not ask about the machine being used with the damaged
cord. He also testified that he himself had not seen it used in that condition.
Mr. Wilhelm surmised that since the welding machine was in the repair room, the
mechanic was going to repair it. (Tr. 424-25). The repair shop was locked with
the welding machine in it. Only the repair shop mechanic had access to the
welding machine. (Tr. 450). Respondent had no reason to believe that its
employees would have access to the welding machine, which was kept in an area
secured <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>with a chain and
lock.<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> In fact, it was
reasonable for LJC to predict that its employees would not have access to the
welding machine secured in the repair shop. (Tr. 450). <i>See Kokosing Constr.
Co., Inc.</i>, 17 BNA OSHC 1869, 1870 (No. 92-2596, 1996)(Access to unguarded
rebars exists if there is <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>reasonable
predictability<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> that
employees <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>will be, are, or
have been in<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> the <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>zone of danger.<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>)(<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>Kokosing<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>)(citing <i>Capform, Inc.,</i>
16 BNA OSHC 2040, 2041 (No. 91-1613, 1994). In view of the evidence, I find
that the Secretary has not shown that employees had access to the cited
condition. I also find that she has not shown the knowledge element. Item 4b is
vacated.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The CO
testified that Item 4a was classified as serious as the electrical shock hazard
could have caused serious injury. The condition had high gravity but lesser
probability. (Tr. 173). This item is affirmed as serious, and the proposed
penalty of $1,500.00 is assessed. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote27',%20WPFootnote27%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1158" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote27" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote27 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                                                               <b><i><u>Citation
1, Item 5</u></i></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Item 5
alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span>
1926.451(b)(1), which states as follows:</p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>Each platform on all working levels of scaffolds shall
be fully planked or decked between the front uprights and the guardrail
supports....</p>

<p> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Section
1926.451(b)(1)(I)-(ii) states what is required for a scaffold platform to be <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>fully planked<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> under the standard, as follows:</p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>(I) Each platform unit (e.g., scaffold plank,
fabricated plank, fabricated deck, or fabricated platform) shall be installed
so that the space between adjacent units and the space between the platform and
the uprights is no more than 1 inch (2.5 cm) wide, except where the employer
can demonstrate that a wider space is necessary....</p>

<p> </p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>(ii) Where the employer makes the demonstration
provided for in paragraph (b)(1)(I) of this section, the platform shall be
planked or decked as fully as possible and the remaining open space between the
platform and the uprights shall not exceed 9 <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>2</span>
inches (24.1cm).</p>

<p> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>This item
was issued because Mr. Roberts used only three planks for a platform when he
set up the scaffold he used at the site. Mr. Roberts testified he used three
planks, each of which was 9 inches wide, as the adjacent steel tower interfered
with planking the scaffold correctly. Mr. Roberts also testified the scaffold
was 5 feet, or 60 inches, wide. (Tr. 38-39, 46). CO Steinke testified that six
planks were needed to cover the scaffold<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
width. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote28',%20WPFootnote28%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1157" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote28" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote28 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>(Tr. 174-75). Based on the testimony of Mr. Roberts and the CO, the
scaffold was only half planked, leaving an open space of approximately 2.5 feet
through which Mr. Roberts could have fallen.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The parties
have stipulated that the scaffold platform at the site was planked such that
the space between adjacent planks of the platform was more than 1 inch wide. <i>See</i>
Exh. J-I, p. 6, <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>&</span> 18. I
find that the cited standard applies and that LJC was in violation of the
standard<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s terms. I also
find that Mr. Roberts<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>
explanation for why he used only three planks does not meet the exception set
out in section 1926.451(b)(1)(i), <i>i.e.</i>, that of demonstrating that a
wider space was necessary. Even if his explanation did meet the exception, the
remaining open space was over twice the 9 <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>2</span>
inches allowed in section 1926.451(b)(1)(ii). As to access to the hazard, the
Court finds that Mr. Roberts was exposed to falling through the 2.5-foot space
that was created by the three-plank platform.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The
remaining element of the Secretary<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
burden is that of employer knowledge. LJC contends that it had no knowledge of
the condition because neither Messrs. Wilhelm nor Tudek had instructed Mr.
Roberts to build the scaffold or knew that he was building one. Messrs. Wilhelm
and Tudek both testified that they did not see the accident, ran up to the roof
as soon as they learned of it, and saw Mr. Roberts laying under the scaffold on
the roof. (Tr. 349, 352-53, 367, 370, 394-97). They also testified they did not
see Mr. Roberts building the scaffold. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote29',%20WPFootnote29%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1156" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote29" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote29 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>(Tr. 370-72, 406). Mr. Tudek, however, said he had been up on the roof
earlier that day and had seen Mr. Roberts working then. (Tr. 370). He also said
that he discussed with employees every morning what they would be doing that
day. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote30',%20WPFootnote30%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1155" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote30" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote30 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>(Tr. 351, 358). Mr. Tudek<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
testimony makes it clear that he knew where Mr. Roberts had been working and
the work he had been doing the day before and day of the accident. (Tr. 356-67,
370). In addition, Mr. Roberts testified that it was Mr. Wilhelm who told him,
the day before the accident, to <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>take
apart what [he] could take apart<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>
of the machine room. (Tr. 34-35). </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Based on the
record, I find that LJC had either actual or constructive knowledge of the work
Mr. Roberts was doing and his use of the scaffold on the day of the accident. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote31',%20WPFootnote31%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1154" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote31" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote31 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>In so finding, I have noted the testimony of Messrs. Tudek and Wilhelm
that they did not see a torch in the area of the scaffold when they went up to
the roof after the accident. (Tr. 371-72, 398). This testimony would appear to
be an attempt to show that Mr. Roberts was still building the scaffold and had
not yet started his cutting or burning work when the accident occurred. Mr.
Roberts, however, testified that he was heating the metal of a beam he was
planning to cut when the accident took place. (Tr. 24-25, 55-56). His testimony
is consistent with the reports Mr. Wilhelm prepared after the accident. (Tr. 410-11).
Those reports state that Mr. Roberts was using a torch to cut and burn steel
beams from a 6-foot-high scaffold on the roof level. <i>See</i> Exhibits 22-23.
I conclude that the Secretary has met her burden of proving the alleged
violation.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>LJC next
suggests that Roberts<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span> use
of only three planks was a result of isolated employee misconduct. R. Brief at
pp. 5, 28. The Commission has long held that, to prove the affirmative defense
of unpreventable employee misconduct, the employer must show that: (1) it has
established work rules designed to prevent the violation, (2) it has adequately
communicated the rules to its employees, (3) it has taken steps to discover
violations, and (4) it has effectively enforced the rules when violations were
detected. <i>Jensen Constr. Co.</i>, 7 BNA OSHC 1477, 1479 (No. 76-1538, 1979).
LJC has not met its burden of proving that the violation was caused by
unpreventable employee misconduct.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>First, while
LJC had a safety plan for the project that addressed some aspects of scaffold
safety, the plan did not cover the issue of fully planking a scaffold. <i>See</i>
Exhibit E, pp. 21, 36, 39. Second, Mr. Roberts testified that he never received
any instructions from LJC about scaffold platform planking. He also testified
that he recalled no discussion of scaffold safety during the only toolbox
safety meeting that was held at the site while he was there. (Tr. 46-47).
Third, although Mr. Wilhelm testified that he conducted toolbox meetings and
safety inspections at the site, the record shows that LJC had no documentation
of such meetings or inspections when the Secretary requested them during
discovery. <i>See</i> footnote 8, <i>supra</i>. Fourth, Mr. Roberts testified
that LJC neither retrained him nor disciplined him in any way after the
accident. (Tr. 43-44). LJC<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
claimed defense is rejected, and this item is affirmed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>LJC disputes
the serious classification of this item, pointing out that CO Steinke stated in
his notes that Mr. Roberts <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>was
not seriously injured.<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> <i>See</i>
Exhibit I, p. I-11. Mr. Roberts also indicated that he was not seriously
injured. (Tr. 42-43). The CO, however, testified the classification was proper
because Mr. Roberts could have been seriously injured from falling off a
6-foot-high scaffold. He also testified that the severity of the violation was
high and the probability greater due to the size of the opening and the fact
that Mr. Roberts was wearing a helmet and holding a torch and it would not have
been easy for him to watch his footing as he was working. (Tr. 175-76). The
Court agrees with the CO<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
testimony about the serious classification. The Court also agrees that the
proposed penalty of $3,000.00 is appropriate for this item. (Tr. 176-77). This
item is affirmed as serious, and the proposed penalty of $3,000.00 is assessed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                                                               <b><i><u>Citation
1, Item 6</u></i></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Item 6
alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span>
1926.451(g)(1). That standard provides that:</p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>Each employee on a scaffold more than 10 feet (3.1 m)
above a lower level shall be protected from falling to that lower level.
Paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section establish the types of fall
protection to be provided to the employees on each type of scaffold.</p>

<p> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>This item
was issued because scaffolding that was set up around the main building did not
have mid-rails meeting the standard. CO Steinke testified that roof-level
scaffolding on the perimeter of the building did not have mid-rails that were
20 to 30 inches above the scaffold<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
work platform. He identified Exhibit 11 as his photograph of that scaffolding.
He marked a <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>B<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> and an <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>A<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>
on Exhibit 11 to show, in turn, the cross-point of the cross-bracing and the
guardrail that ran along the scaffold<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
exterior just under the cross-point. The CO determined the bottom of <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>A<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>
was 36 inches above the platform and that <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>B<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> was about 46 inches above the
platform. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote32',%20WPFootnote32%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1153" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote32" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote32 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>He noted that although <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>B<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> was a compliant top rail, it
was not a compliant mid-rail since it was 42 inches above the platform. He also
testified that <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>A<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> was not a compliant mid-rail as
it was more than 30 inches above the platform. He noted that while the
scaffolding<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s exterior had
debris netting, that was to prevent objects from falling off the scaffolding.
The CO said the netting was not a substitute for a mid-rail since it was
attached to the scaffold<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
uprights and not to the work platform. The CO also said that not having a
proper mid-rail left a 36-inch space through which employees could fall, and
the distance to the ground level below was 35 feet. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote33',%20WPFootnote33%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1152" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote33" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote33 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>(Tr. 177-82, 299-308, 338-39).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The parties
have stipulated that the scaffold on the top perimeter of the building did not
have a guardrail that was 30 inches or less above the scaffold<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s work platform. They have also
stipulated that the crossing point of the scaffold<span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s cross-bracing was over 30 inches above the work
platform. <i>See Exh.</i> J-I, p. 5, <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>&&</span>
13-14. Based on the stipulations and the CO<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
testimony, I find the Secretary has proved the alleged violation. As she notes,
the cited scaffold was pipe frame scaffolding and was not covered by paragraphs
(g)(1)(i) through (vi). The scaffold was thus subject to the guardrail system
requirements of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span>
1926.451(g)(4). <i>See</i> 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span>
1926.451(g)(1)(vii). As she also notes, the term <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>guardrail
system<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> is defined as <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>a vertical barrier, consisting
of, but not limited to, toprails, midrails, and posts, erected to prevent
employees from falling off a scaffold platform or walkway to lower levels.<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> <i>See</i> 29 C.F.R. <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span> 1926.450(b). The standard
requires that <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>[w]hen
midrails are used, they shall be installed at a height approximately midway
between the top edge of the guardrail system and the platform surface.<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> <i>See</i> 29 C.F.R. <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span> 1926.451(g)(4)(iv). <i>See also</i>
S. Brief, pp. 15-17.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The CO<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s testimony establishes that
while either the cross-bracing or the guardrail just under the cross-bracing
cross-point met the requirements for a top rail, neither was a compliant
mid-rail. (Tr. 178-79, 310-13). Paragraph (g)(4)(xv) states as follows:</p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>Crossbracing is acceptable in place of a midrail when
the crossing point of two braces is between 20 inches (0.5 m) and 30 inches
(0.8 m) above the work platform or as a toprail when the crossing point of two
braces is between 38 inches (0.97 m) and 48 inches (1.3 m) above the work
platform.</p>

<p> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>Respondent has argued that
the debris mesh netting along the cited scaffold constituted a compliant
midrail and/or guardrail system. As the CO explained, the purpose of that mesh
netting is to prevent small objects, such as debris, from being blown or
falling off of the scaffold onto the sidewalk below. It does not provide fall
protection for employees. (Tr. 338). The CO testified that the netting was
attached only to the uprights of the scaffold, not to the guardrails or along
the length of the scaffold platform. (Tr. 180-181). The CO<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s testimony as to the attachment
points of the netting was unrebutted. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote34',%20WPFootnote34%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1151" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote34" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote34 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>The CO testified that because the netting was not attached at all to
the guardrails, or along the length of the scaffold platform, the netting did
not form an effective barrier that would prevent a person from rolling over the
edge of the scaffold. (Tr. 180-181, 333, 338-339). The Court finds that the
mesh netting at the job site was inadequate to serve as fall protection in
compliance with the OSHA scaffold standard. The Court also finds that the mesh
netting was not a compliant guardrail. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote35',%20WPFootnote35%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1150" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote35" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote35 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>The debris netting here did not constitute a compliant midrail and/or
guardrail system.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The
Secretary has shown that the cited standard applies and that its terms were not
met. She has also shown that employees were exposed to the cited hazard. Mr.
Wilhelm told the CO that work had been done on the scaffolding depicted in
Exhibit 10, which shows the roof-level perimeter scaffolding from the other
direction than that in Exhibit 11. (Tr. 182). The CO testified that the fall
distance from the scaffold platform to the ground below was 35 feet. (Tr. 180).
Finally, the Secretary has shown that LJC had knowledge of the cited condition.
Mr. Wilhelm testified that he oversaw the scaffolding<span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s erection, which LJC subcontracted to Skyline
Scaffold. (Tr. 297, 379). This item is affirmed. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote36',%20WPFootnote36%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1149" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote36" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote36 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>CO Steinke
testified this item was a serious violation due to the fall distance involved.
He rated the condition as having high gravity and lesser probability. (Tr.
183). I agree with the CO<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
classification of this item, and Item 6 is affirmed as a serious violation. I
also agree with the proposed penalty for this item and find it appropriate.
(Tr. 184). A penalty of $1,500.00 is assessed.</p>

<p style='line-height:24.0pt'> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                                                               <b><i><u>Citation
1, Item 7</u></i></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Item 7
alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span>
1926.451(h)(1), which states that:</p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>In addition to wearing hardhats each employee on a
scaffold shall be provided with additional protection from falling hand tools,
debris, and other small objects through the installation of toeboards, screens,
or guardrail systems, or though the erection of debris nets, catch platforms,
or canopy structures that contain or deflect the falling objects. When the
falling objects are too large, heavy or massive to be contained or deflected by
any of the above-listed measures, the employer shall place such potential
falling objects away from the edge of the surface from which they could fall
and shall secure those materials as necessary to prevent their falling.</p>

<p> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>This item
was issued because Mr. Roberts was exposed to being struck by metal straps
falling from the roof-top water tank as he worked on the welded frame pipe
scaffold. Mr. Roberts testified that he was beginning to perform work from the
6-foot-high scaffold he had set up next to the base of the water tank tower
when the accident occurred. He also testified that, at that same time, other
LJC employees were working on demolition of the water tank. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote37',%20WPFootnote37%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1148" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote37" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote37 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>(Tr. 24-28, 39-40). The Secretary asserts the standard applied and
that LJC was required to protect Mr. Roberts from objects falling from the
water tank, including the straps holding the tank together. The CO testified
that LJC should not have allowed Mr. Roberts to work on the scaffold in close
proximity to the water tank where dismantling work was being done without any
overhead protection because of the straps. The Secretary also asserts that Mr.
Roberts was struck by one of the straps. S. Brief, pp. 18-21. LJC disputes this
assertion, arguing that the Secretary has not shown this occurred. R. Brief,
pp. 31-32. I agree with the Secretary.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>First, Mr.
Roberts testified that Mr. Williams told him, when he came to and asked what
had happened, that a strap had been cut and it swung down and hit him. (Tr.
41-42, 233, 237-38). Mr. Williams had previously been Mr. Roberts<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span> burning partner and served as a
reference when Mr. Roberts was hired by LJC. When the accident occurred, he was
one of the employees working on dismantling the tank. (Tr. 58, 61, 71-72, 396,
447-48). As the Secretary notes, in the heat of the moment, Mr. Williams was
most likely telling Mr. Roberts the truth. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote38',%20WPFootnote38%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1147" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote38" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote38 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>Mr. Wilhelm testified that when he got to the roof and asked what had
happened, Mr. Roberts told him <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>he
felt a strap hit [him].<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> (Tr.
395). This response was most likely based on what Mr. Williams had said, as Mr.
Roberts agreed he did not actually know what hit him. (Tr. 63). Mr. Wilhelm
investigated the accident and prepared two handwritten reports that very same
day. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote39',%20WPFootnote39%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1146" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote39" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote39 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>One was an internal <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>Accident
Report,<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> and the other was
a report required by the State of New York Workers<span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span> Compensation Board. Both reports stated that a
steel band from the water tower fell and struck Mr. Roberts on the neck and
shoulder. (Tr. 410-11; C-22-23). <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote40',%20WPFootnote40%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1145" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote40" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote40 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>Mr. Wilhelm testified that a strap could not have struck Mr. Roberts
because he had told the employees not to cut any straps that day. <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote41',%20WPFootnote41%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1144" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote41" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote41 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>(Tr. 439-40, 446-47). This testimony is unpersuasive based on his
prior testimony that he intended to have the bands cut before the wood was
taken out. (Tr. 404). The Court finds the reports to be the more reliable
evidence as to the cause of the accident. Mr. Wilhelm admitted that he tried to
insure that the information he provided on reports to government agencies and
accident reports to LJC were accurate and truthful. He also conceded that he
made no attempt to later correct either report. (Tr. 433-38).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Secondly,
Mr. Castillo testified that when Mr. Robert<span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>=</span>s
accident was first reported to him right after it happened, he was told that a
piece of metal had knocked Mr. Robert<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
down. (Tr. 90-91). Mr. Castillo stated that he found Mr. Roberts unconscious at
the base of the water tower. He stated that Mr. Roberts would have been killed
if he had been on the other side of the water tower because he would have
fallen directly down. (Tr. 93). </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>A third
reason for finding that a strap hit Mr. Roberts is the photographic evidence in
the record. Both the CO and Mr. Roberts identified cut straps hanging down from
the tank, as shown in Exhibits 15-16, that were near the area where Mr. Roberts
was working. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote42',%20WPFootnote42%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1143" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote42" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote42 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>(Tr. 29, 188-90). Mr. Wilhelm testified, in addition, that on the day
before the accident two straps were left on the tank to keep it intact. Mr.
Wilhelm testified that he intended to have these two straps cut before wood was
removed from the tank. He also stated that LJC was going to remove the wood on
May 7, 2008. (Tr. 404-05, 438-39). Exhibit 13, depicting the water tank the day
after the accident, appears to show only one strap still in place, at the point
marked <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>A.<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> (Tr. 60-61). As the Secretary
notes, no straps would have been removed after the accident, as the job was
shut down. The CO testified that when he visited the accident site on May 8,
2008, it looked to him like a tank strap had sprung around and hit Mr. Roberts.
One of the straps was thus removed the day of the accident. The Secretary
concludes that this strap was the one that struck Mr. Roberts. The CO stated
that if a strap had sprung out it could easily have whipped around and reached
Mr. Roberts. (Tr. 188-90). The Court agrees with the Secretary<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s conclusion.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>A fourth
reason for finding that a strap caused the accident is the testimony indicating
it could not be predicted how a cut strap would fall. Mr. Roberts testified a
strap could <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>fly any which
way<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> when cut. (Tr. 27, 33,
35). Mr. Wilhelm testified that when a strap was cut there was a possibility
that <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>it would go somewhere
you don<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>t want it to go.<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> (Tr. 403). Mr. Castillo
testified that a cut strap <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>would
release with an incredible amount of force.<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>
(Tr. 97-98). Mr. Wilhelm agreed that the straps, when being cut, were a falling
object hazard to anyone working below the water tank. (Tr. 442).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Fifth, OSHA<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s Inspection Narrative prepared
by the CO, dated July 31, 2008, states at the Accident Investigation Summary
& Findings that:</p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify'>Accident: LJC demolition
(Burner) employee was struck on the back of the neck by a falling object while
a team of co workers was working approx 20 feet higher nearby on the top of the
water tower structure. He was knocked from his position to the ground and
received contusions, 911 was called, he was taken to the hopsital treated and
released. He is an experienced burner employee, was wearing a hardhat, was
struck on the upper back and back of his neck, apparently (he didn<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>t see what hit him) by one of
the steel rods that were being cut off the water tank above him. The other crew
was cutting the rods at the time of the accident. (Photos 431, 432) show the
rods hanging from the water tank that were cut.</p>

<p style='line-height:16.35pt'> </p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>

<p style='line-height:16.35pt'> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>(Tr. 208-11, 227-28, 231-37;
Exhibits 15, H, p. H-2). I find the Inspection Narrative to be factually
correct and an accurate description of Mr. Roberts<span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span> accident. </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The parties
have stipulated that LJC employees removed straps of metal from the water tank
and allowed them to fall to the ground below. The parties further stipulated
that Mr. Roberts worked at the site without overhead protection from objects
falling from above. <i>See</i> Exh. J-I, pp. 5-6, <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>&&</span> 16, 19. In light of these stipulations
and the evidence set out above, the Court finds the cited standard applied,
that its terms were not met, and that Mr. Roberts was exposed to the cited
hazard.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>In regard to
knowledge, LJC plainly knew the cited condition was a hazard. The day before
the accident, Mr. Wilhelm told employees to clear the area below the water
tower before the strap removal work began. Yellow caution tape was also put up
around that part of the roof to prevent any unauthorized persons from entering
that area. (Tr. 27, 32-38, 41, 403-04). No such precautions were taken the day
of the accident. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote43',%20WPFootnote43%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1142" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote43" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote43 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>Mr. Wilhelm<span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>=</span>s testimony
that he told employees to not cut any straps on May 7, 2008 has been rejected.
(Tr. 39-41, 443-44). The discussion relating to Item 5, <i>supra</i>,
establishes that LJC knew or should have known where Mr. Roberts was working on
the day of the accident. Mr. Castillo, furthermore, testified that he had told
Foreman Tudek before the accident that how LJC was doing the strap removal work
was dangerous. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote44',%20WPFootnote44%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1141" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote44" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote44 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>Mr. Castillo also testified that several days before the accident he
warned LJC employees not to work underneath the water tower because <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>one of the pieces of metal is
going to come flying off.<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote45',%20WPFootnote45%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1140" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote45" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote45 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>(Tr. 99). He advised LJC employees working at the water tower to talk
to the foreman and tell him <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>this
is too dangerous.<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> The
workers told Mr. Castillo that, if they said something to the foreman, the
foreman would send them home. (Tr. 100). <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote46',%20WPFootnote46%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1139" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote46" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote46 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>Mr. Castillo testified that he told Messrs. Tudek and Richey at the
work site before Mr. Robert<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
accident that he had seen an accident before on a tank with a K-Span where long
metal pieces were burnt during demolition. (Tr. 95-97). Mr. Tudek told Mr.
Castillo to <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>get out of
here<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> and <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>mind [his] own business<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> after Mr. Castillo asked him
why he had cut the straps into small pieces. (Tr. 94-98). Mr. Castillo also
testified that he spoke many times with the union area agent, John, and told
him how the workers were cutting the water tank was unsafe. (Tr. 114, 133). I
find Mr. Castillo<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
testimony to be entirely credible. Mr. Tudek<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
testimony that Mr. Castillo never complained to him about safety issues relating
to the cutting of steel bands is rejected as not credible. (Tr.351-52). </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Respondent
had knowledge that its employee was not protected from falling object hazards
on May 7, 2008 on the job site. Both Messrs. Wilhelm and Tudek had knowledge
that Mr. Roberts was not protected from the falling object hazards related to
the water tank demolition. Respondent either knew, or should have known, of the
condition through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Respondent did not
exercise reasonable diligence with respect to this issue.Respondent<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s supervisors had actual
knowledge of the work plans and instructions that they conveyed to the
employees and the work that was to be performed by the employees on May 7,
2008. The supervisors knew that the water tank crew could be demolishing the
tank at the same time that Mr. Roberts would be working on a scaffold right
next to the tank tower. Respondent had a duty to protect Mr. Roberts from
falling object hazards resulting from that scenario. Mr. Roberts testified that
the day before the accident, when water tank demolition had already begun, Mr.
Wilhelm directed him to cut (by burning) the steel on the mechanical room
located (at Point C in Exhibit 14) adjacent to the water tank tower. (Tr. 29,
33-34). Mr. Wilhelm saw Mr. Roberts performing that work the day before the
accident. (Tr. 35). Mr. Roberts did not finish that work the day before the
accident, and so he continued it on the day of the accident. (Tr. 39). Because
the mechanical room<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s steel
beams that Mr. Roberts were directed to cut included overhead beams (Tr. 25,
38-39; Exh. 16 (Point A)), Mr. Wilhelm knew or should have known that Mr.
Roberts would need to use a scaffold to reach the upper beams. Respondent<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s supervisors also knew that a
steel strap could be removed from the water tank in the process of the tank
demolition on the day of the accident. As Mr. Wilhelm testified, on the day
before the accident, two steel straps were left in place on the water tank.
(Tr. 404). He also stated that he intended to have the remaining steel straps
cut before all of the wood was removed from the tank. <i>Id</i>. Mr. Tudek
testified that on the day of the accident he did not tell any employees not to
cut the straps. <a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote47',%20WPFootnote47%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1138" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote47" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote47 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>Based on their knowledge of the work plans and activities, Respondent<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s supervisors had actual
knowledge of the violative condition. Alternatively, the supervisors clearly
had at least constructive knowledge of the condition through LJC<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s failure to exercise reasonable
diligence in that the condition was in plain view and Mr. Roberts was on his
scaffold next to the water tank tower, without any overhead protection, while
other employees were demolishing the water tank.<sup>36</sup> <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote48',%20WPFootnote48%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1137" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote48" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote48 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script><i>See Kokosing, supra,</i> at 1871. Respondent failed to adequately
supervise its employees and enforce safety rules on May 7, 2008 at the work
site. At the time of the accident, LJC<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
supervisors were not present on the roof to exercise oversight when Mr. Roberts
was working below the water tank while the tank was being demolished. (Tr. 349,
367, 394). Respondent<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
supervisors did not take steps or give instructions on the day of the accident
to prevent employees from working in the area below the water tank while the
tank was being demolished. Mr. Wilhelm testified that there was no barricade,
caution tape, or anything else to keep employees from working in that area on
the day of the accident (Tr. 443).<sup>37</sup> <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote49',%20WPFootnote49%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1136" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote49" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote49 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>Both Messrs. Tudek and Mr. Wilhelm testified that on that day they did
not tell Mr. Roberts or any other employees<i> </i>not to work in that area.
(Tr. 367, 444). Respondent<span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>=</span>s
supervisors not only failed to provide adequate instructions and preventive
measures. They also allowed employees to work below the water tank, and
disregarded relevant employee safety concerns before the accident. Respondent<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s lack of reasonable diligence
is demonstrated by the general laxity of its safety program, including lack of
discipline, instruction, and compliance. (Tr. 368-369, 452). <i>See also </i>discussion
set forth in Item 5, <i>supra</i>. The circumstances of the case show a lack of
reasonable diligence, and thus constructive knowledge, on the part of Respondent.
</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>I find that the Secretary has
demonstrated the knowledge element. </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>          The
CO testified that this item was classified as serious because the condition
could have caused serious injury. He also testified that this item had high
severity and greater probability, due to the number of straps and the
possibility of being struck by one, which in fact happened. (Tr. 191). I agree
with the serious classification, and I find the proposed penalty of $3,000.00
to be appropriate. (Tr. 192). Item 7 is therefore affirmed as serious and the
proposed penalty is assessed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                                                               <b><i><u>Citation
1, Item 8</u></i></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Item 8
alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span>
1926.454(c). That standard provides as follows:</p>

<p style='margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:.75pt;margin-left:
.5in;text-align:justify'>When the employer has reason to believe that an
employee lacks the skill or understanding needed for safe work involving the
erection, use or dismantling of scaffolds, the employer shall retrain each such
employee so that the requisite proficiency is regained.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>This item
was issued because LJC did not retrain its employees in safe scaffold use in
regard to falling object hazards. CO Steinke testified that part of the problem
at the site was the lack of training. He said the employees dismantling the
tank should not have cut any straps when they were aware that Mr. Roberts was
working below. Mr. Roberts, similarly, should have known not to work below the
dismantling work. The CO knew that employees were trained through their union,
but he believed they needed more training on the hazard of the straps on the
tank and how to control that hazard. He also believed LJC should have known
that employees needed retraining because the hazard was obvious and because of
Mr. Castillo<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s complaints
to the foreman. (Tr. 190-95, 314-18).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Mr. Wilhelm
testified that he had seen nothing before the accident to make him think that
employees needed retraining. He noted that the employees who were dismantling
the water tank were <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>some
of the best guys [h]e had<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>
and that Gershan Williams had been doing dismantling work for 25 years. (Tr.
431-32). The accident, however, should have alerted Mr. Wilhelm to the need for
retraining. Mr. Roberts testified that he received neither retraining nor any
disciplinary action after the accident. (Tr. 43-44). He was also unaware of any
workers at the work site being disciplined by LJC for any safety issues. Mr.
Castillo, in addition, testified that he had spoken to Mr. Tudek before the
accident occurred. He told Mr. Tudek that the manner in which LJC was performing
the strap removal was dangerous. Mr. Tudek told him to <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>mind [his] own business.<span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> (Tr. 94-98). I also agree with the CO<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s testimony that the hazard was
obvious. The employees doing the dismantling should have known to not cut a
strap when Mr. Roberts was working below, and Mr. Roberts should have known not
to work beneath the dismantling work. LJC thus had reason to know both before
and after the accident that employees required retraining.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Based on the
foregoing and my conclusions in Item 7 above, I find retraining was required
and that LJC violated the cited standard. I have considered Mr. Roberts<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span> testimony that he had been
trained through his union, including in scaffold safety, had yearly renewal
training, and believed his training was adequate. I have also considered his
testimony that he believed he was a safe worker and that if he had seen someone
cutting up above he would have gotten out of the way. (Tr. 49-50, 61-64, 71).
This testimony does not refute the evidence that LJC had reason to know that
retraining was required. It is clear from the record that failing to train the
employees as required could have caused serious injury. This item is affirmed
as a serious violation. CO Steinke testified that this item had high gravity
but lesser probability and that the proposed penalty was $1,500.00. (Tr.
194-95). The proposed penalty is appropriate. It is therefore assessed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                                                             <b><u>Citation
1, Item 9a</u></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Item 9a
alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span>
1926.856(b), which states that <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>Floor
openings shall have curbs or stop-logs to prevent equipment from running over
the edge.<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> This item was
issued because a Takeuchi jackhammer machine was being used to open the roof of
the auditorium building at the site without a curb or stop-log being utilized.
CO Steinke testified he was on the roof of the main building when he observed
the Takeuchi machine on the nearby roof of the auditorium. He identified
Exhibit 21 as his photograph of the machine and an opening along one edge of
that roof. The opening was about 10 feet wide and almost the full length of the
edge, which was about 60 feet. The CO noted there was no curb or stop-log to
prevent the operator, who sits in the machine, from inadvertently running the
machine into the opening. He also noted a curb could be something like a
12-inch timber that would block the machine. CO Steinke said no one was
operating the machine that day and that he was not able to see how it moved.
(Tr. 195-97, 324-25, 340-41).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Mr. Wilhelm
testified he was familiar with the Takeuchi machine and had seen it operate. He
also testified that the arm on the cab, shown in Exhibit 21, was about 8 feet
long when fully extended. The machine was hydraulic, and its hammering action
caused it to rock back and forth. To prevent that, and to keep the machine from
moving, the operator normally put down the stabilizer blade. Mr. Wilhelm noted
the process started with two to three men ripping back the roofing material.
That crew then left the roof and the machine operator would begin his work. The
operator would open up one bay, stop, and then move down the line to the next
bay. Mr. Wilhelm said the operator always stayed 8 to 10 feet from the opening
with the blade down. He also said that the machine could not move at all when
the stabilizer blade was down in place. He stated that when the machine moved,
the blade was up. (Tr. 429-31, 451).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The parties
have stipulated that LJC operated a jackhammer at the edge of the roof at the
work site. <i>See</i> J-1, p. 6, <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>&</span>
21. Mr. Castillo testified that there was no parapet wall or protection atop
the building roof. (Tr. 127). LJC asserts the stabilizer blade was the
equivalent of a curb or stop-log. R. Brief, p. 35.<sup>38</sup> <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote50',%20WPFootnote50%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1135" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote50" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote50 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>he Secretary asserts the stabilizer blade did not provide the same protection
because the operator had to engage it, unlike a curb or stop-log. She also
asserts that the blade did not provide complete protection since it had to be
up for the machine to move. S. Brief, pp. 26-28. The Court agrees with the
Secretary. Mr. Wilhelm<span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>=</span>s
testimony shows that the operator had to engage the stabilizer blade. It also
shows the machine could not move unless the blade was in the <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>up<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span>
position. (Tr. 429-30, 451). The blade on the Takeuchi machine is used to <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>stabilize the machine<span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> to prevent it from <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>rocking<span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span> while the machine<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>=</span>s
hammer is operating. (Tr. 429-430). The blade serves as a stabilizer, not a
barrier like a curb or stop-log.<sup>39</sup> <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote51',%20WPFootnote51%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1134" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote51" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote51 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>he blade provided <i>no</i> protection while the machine was in
motion, when the risk of running over the edge may be highest. Again, even
assuming <i>arguendo</i> that the blade provided partial protection against the
hazard of running over the edge, <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>A</span>[p]artial
protection is not adequate when the required method of abatement can be
accomplished.<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>@</span><i> Boonville
Division of Ethan Allen, Inc</i>., 6 BNA OSHC 2169, 2171 (No. 76-2419, 1978). Respondent
offered no evidence that the required method of abatement <span
style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>B</span> curbs or stop-logs at the floor
openings <span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>B</span> could not be
accomplished at the work site.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>As the CO
testified, an operator who did not realize how close he was to an opening or
was not paying attention could run the machine into the opening. (Tr. 195-96).
The Secretary has met her burden of proving the alleged violation. This item is
affirmed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>CO Steinke
testified that this item was serious, as the operator was exposed to falling
through the 40-foot-high auditorium roof.<sup>40</sup> <a
href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote52',%20WPFootnote52%20)"><span
style='mso-no-proof:yes;text-decoration:none;text-underline:none'><img
border=0 width=16 height=14 id="_x0000_i1133" src=footnoteicon.gif
alt=Footnote></span></a><script language="JavaScript"  type="text/javascript">
  if( bInlineFloats )
  {
    document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote52" class="WPFloatStyle">' );
    document.write( WPFootnote52 );
    document.write( '<br>Close' );
    document.write( '</span>' );
  }
</script>e rated the severity as high and the probability as greater because
there were four buildings, each with a large roof. (Tr. 198). I agree with the
CO<span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>=</span>s testimony that the
violation was serious. I also agree that the proposed penalty of $3,000.00 is
appropriate. (Tr. 199). Item 9a is affirmed as a serious violation, and a
penalty of $3,000.00 is assessed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                               <b><i><u>FINDINGS
OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW</u></i></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>The
foregoing decision constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;line-height:29.95pt'>                                                                       <b><i><u>ORDER</u></i></b></p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>Based upon
the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ordered that:</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>1. Serious
Citation 1, Item 1a, alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span> 1926.150(a)(2), is affirmed, and a penalty of
$1,500.00 is assessed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>2. Serious
Citation 1, Item 3, alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span> 1926.405(a)(2)(ii)(E), is affirmed, and a penalty
of $900.00 is assessed.</p>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>

<p style='line-height:29.95pt'> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>3. Serious
Citation 1, Item 4a, alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span> 1926.416(e)(1), is affirmed, and a penalty of
$1,500.00 is assessed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>4. Serious
Citation 1, Item 4b, alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span> 1926.416(e)(1), is vacated.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>5. Serious
Citation 1, Item 5, alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span> 1926.451(b)(1), is affirmed, and a penalty of
$3,000.00 is assessed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>6. Serious
Citation 1, Item 6, alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span> 1926.451(g)(1), is affirmed, and a penalty of
$1,500.00 is assessed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>7. Serious
Citation 1, Item 7, alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span> 1926.451(h)(1), is affirmed, and a penalty of
$3,000.00 is assessed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>8. Serious
Citation 1, Item 8, alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span> 1926.454(c), is affirmed, and a penalty of
$1,500.00 is assessed.</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:29.95pt'>9. Serious
Citation 1, Item 9a, alleging a violation of 29 CF.R. <span style='font-family:
"Arial",sans-serif'>'</span> 1926.856(b), is affirmed, and a penalty of
$3,000.00 is assessed.</p>

<p style='line-height:29.95pt'> </p>

<p style='text-indent:2.5in;line-height:29.95pt'> </p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:3.5in'>__/s/_________________________</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:3.5in'>The Honorable Dennis L.
Phillips</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:3.5in'>         U.S.OSHRC
JUDGE</p>

<p> </p>

<p style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in'>Date:   3/25/2010</p>

<p style='text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in'>Washington, D.C.</p>

</div>

</body>

</html>