FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAR 13, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1171 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Agency No. 04-1406 OS HRC EMCON/ OW T, INC., Pet it io ne r,

ve rs us SECRETARY OF LABOR, THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW

COMM ISSI ON, Re spon de nts .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ P et iti on f

or Re vie wof

an O rd er of the O cc upa tio na l S af

ety and H ea lthRe vie wCo m m iss ion

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 13, 200 7)* Honora ble Timothy

J . Corrig an, United States District Judge f or the Middle District of Florida , sitti ngby

desig nation. 2 Before DU BIN A and W IL SO N, Circuit Judges, and CO RRIG AN , District Judge. * PE R CU RIA M: O n F eb ru ar

y 15, 200 4, one w orke r die d and thr ee oth er s w er e inj ur ed a t the O ke ec hobe e L an df

ill in O ke ec hobe e, F lor ida . T he se w orke rs w er e em plo y ee s of th e Pet it io ne r, EMCON/ OW T, Inc., wh ic h was cit edfora “ se rio us ” OSHA vio la tio n a s ar es ult

of thi s a cc ide nt. A n A dm ini str at ive L awJud ge c ondu ct ed a fu ll he ar ing on the c itatio n and a ff irm ed one of the c itatio n it em s ( It em

3) , 29 C. F. R. § 19 26. 651( k) (1 ), and a sse sse d ape na lty of $6, 300. 00. T he A L J’ s de ci sio n becam e the final decision of the Oc cupational Safety and Hea lth Review Co m m iss ion( O SH RC ). P et iti one r se ek s r ev ie wof that de ci sio n inthi s C ourt. 29 U. S. C. §§ 65 9(c), 660(a) and 661(j) .

“ T o pr ove avio la tio n of

an O SH Astandard , the S ec re tary [ of L ab or ] m ust showby apr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce that ( 1) the c ite d st an dard appl ie s, ( 2) the re w as non co m

pli an ce w ithit s te rm s, ( 3) e m plo y ee s ha d a cc es s to the vio la tiv e co ndi tio ns, and ( 4) the c ite d e m plo y er ha d a ct ua l or c onstru ct ive kno w le dge of tho se c ondi tio ns. ” S outhw es te rnBe ll T el e. Co . , 19 B N AO SH C 1 097, 109 8 (O SH RC N o. 98-1748, 2000 ). T he Co m m iss ion ’ s de ci sio ns are e nti tle d to c onsi de ra ble de fe re nc e on3

ap pe llate r ev ie w . T he O cc upa tio na l S af ety and H ea lthA ct

it se lf pr ovi de s “ [t ] he fi ndi ngs of

the Co m m iss ionw ithr es pe ct

to que sti ons of

f ac t, if sup porte d by subs tanti al e vid en ce on the r ec or d c onsi de re d a s aw hol e, sha ll be c onc lus ive . ” 29 U . S. C. § 66 0( a) . “ Su

bst an tia l e vid en ce is m or e than asc int ill a an d is suc h r el ev an t ev ide nc e as ar ea sona

ble pe rs on w oul d a cc ep t a s a de qua te to supp ort a co nc lus ion . ” F luo r D an ie l v. O cc upa tio na l S af ety and H ea lthRe vie wCo m m ’ n, 295 F.3d 123 2, 1236 (11th Cir. 2002 ) (c itations om itted). “ W e ar e m indful th at we do not reviewthe rec ord to draw our ow n conclusio ns that we then m easure against an adm inistrative agency ; rather, we m ust cons ider all

of the evidence w he n dr aw ing our

c onc lus ion s a

bout the r ea sona

ble ne ss o f ana ge nc y ’ s f

ind ing s of fa ct . ” S ch er ing -P lou gh C or p. v. F . T . C. , 402 F . 3d 1 056, 106 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) (e m pha sis a dde d) . “ Mor eo ve r, the le ga l de te rm inatio ns o f ana ge nc y li ke the O SH RC are to be ove rt

ur ne d on ly if the y are arb itr ar

y , c ap ri ci ous, an a

buse of discretion, or otherw ise not in accordance w ith law. ” Fluor D aniel, 295 F. 3d at 1236 ; 5 U. S. C. § 706 (2)(a ). Af ter considering the briefs and hearing record and conducting o ral argum ent, w e find this to b e a c lose case. H owever , given the defer ence which m ust be a cc or de d th e Co m

m iss ion ’ s de ci sio n, w e w ill not dis tur b it . AF FIRMED