NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0361n.06 Filed: May

25, 2007 No. 06-4229
UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT KOK OSING CONSTRUCTION COMP ANY, INC., P etitioner , v. OCCUP ATIONAL SAFETY AND HAZ ARD RE VI EW C OM M ISSI ON ; E L A I NE L. C HA O, Secre tary of Labor, Re spo nde nt s. / ON AP P EA L F RO M A D EC IS IO N B Y TH E O C C U P A TI ON A L S A F ET Y A ND HEA LTH REV IEWCO M M ISSI ON

BEF OR E: SUH RH EIN RI CH , C LA Y, and SU TTON , C ir c uitJudg e s. CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge. Petitioner Kokosing Construction Company , I nc. (“K okosing” or “Petitioner”) petitions thi s Court to vacate t he order of the Occupational S afe ty and He alth Review C o m mission (“OSHRC”) on the g rounds that there was not substantial evidenc e on the r ecor d supporting OS HR C ’s findi ng that Petitioner committed a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.405(a) (2)( ii)(I ) and le vying a $1,875.00 fine. F or the rea sons set forth below, w e ENF ORCE the orde r of OSHRC. BACK GR OUNDNo. 06-4229

2 This appea l stems f

ro m an acc ident that occur red at Kokosing Construction Company ’s Cincinnati site when a c onstruction cre w attempted to install an underg round sewe r line. The pr oject
re qu ir e d th e c re w t o e xcavate de e p tr e nc he s in sand y so il. I n or de r to do thi s, the wo rk e rs us e d w e ll de-w ater ing pumps a

nd hoses to extract the water fr om the trenc hes. This requir ed the use of portable g ener ators to power the pumps, which wer e connec ted to the pumps via construction g rade elec trical c ords. The c rewused wire choker s to pull heavy equipment alongthe site. On September 7, 2004, For eman B rad Rice observe d two extension cords and two water discha rg e hoses lay

ing on top of a wire choker
. Rice asked Hurd to a ssist him in r emoving the choker
. Wearingno protec tive equipment, Rice a

nd Hurd e ach lifte d one end of the ch o k er an d o n e of the discharg e hoses a nd pulled the choke r fr om underne ath the pile. Howe ver, be cause there was a wire pr ong sticking out of the mid-sec tion of the choker , it pier ced one of the extension cor ds and resulted in both Rice and Hurd suff eringelec trical shocks. On September

8, 2004, the Occ upational Safe ty and He alth Admi n i s t ration conducted an inspection and investig ation in response to the acc ident and issued a c itation for a se rious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1 9 2 6
. 4 05(i)(2) (ii), which Kokosingcontested. The case was a ssigne d to an administrative law j u d ge (“AL J ”) a nd a hea ring was set f

or January

21, 2005. Subsequently , the Secre tary submitt ed a motion to amend the ci t ati on to alleg e, in the alter native, a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.405(a) (2)( ii)(I ), which w as g rante d. T h e ALJ co n cl u d edt h at t h e c i t at i o nwa s p ro p er l y i s s u edb ec au s e R i ce h adac tu al kn o wl ed ge of the risk of a

n elec trical shock oc curr ing, which could, in t urn, be imput ed to Kokosing . Kokosing petitioned to the OSHRC to review this decision. The OSHRC conc luded that, while Rice did notNo. 06-4229

3 have actua l know ledg e of the risk, he had construc tive knowledg e, which w as suffic ient to support the citation issued. Kokosing appea ls this decision. DI SCU SSIO N I. There is substan tial evidence sup porting t he decision of the OSHRC and the decision was not arbitrary orcapricious. A. Stand ard of Review We reviewthe fa ctual findings of the O SHRC for substantial evidence
. Bu sh & Bu rc he tt, Inc. v . Reich , 117 F.3d 932, 935 ( 6th Cir. 1997). Substantial evidence re fers to “such re levant evidenc e as a

rea sonable mind might a cce pt as ade quate to suppor t a conc lusion.” DuPont Dow Elastomers, L.L.C . v. NLRB , 296 F.3d 495, 500 (6th Cir. 2002)
. Additionally , we will uphold the leg al conc lusions of the OSHRC unless they are “ar bitrary , capr icious, an abuse of discre tion, or otherwise not in acc ordanc e with la w.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (1994) ( “the APA” ); see also National E n g i neering &Contracting Co. v. Oc cupational Safety and Health Administration , 9 2 8 F
. 2d 762 (6th Cir. 1991). B. Ana lys is Acc ording

to 29 C
. F. R
. § 1 9 2 6
. 4 0 5 (a )( 2 )( i i )( I ), “[ f] l ex i b l e c o rd s an d cab l es s h al l b e p ro tected fr om d a ma g e . Sha

rp c or ne rs and pr oje c tio ns sh a ll be a vo ide d. F le xible c or ds and c a ble s ma y pa ss throug h doorwa

y s or other pinc h points, if pr otection is pr ovided to a void da mag e.” Fur

ther, “ [t ]he OSH Ac t r e qu ir e s th a t ‘ e a c h e mpl oy e r . . . sh a ll c omp ly wi th .
. . sta nd ard s p ro mul g a te d und e r t his chapte r.’” Nat’l Eng’g & Contracting Co. v. OSHA, U.S. Dep’ t of Labor , 92 8 F .2 d 76 2, 76 7 ( 6th Cir. 1991) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2) ) (a lterations in orig inal).No. 06-4229

4 National Engineering and Contracting Company descr ibes when a

violation of industry safe ty standards a

re e stablished:
The Sec reta

ry establishes a violation of t he Act’s safe ty standards by proving that the standard applies to the cited conditions, the employ er is not in compliance , and the employ ees w ere expose d to the hazard. To e stablish a ‘ser ious’ violation, the Se c re tary mus t a lso sh owa

su bs tanti a l like lih oo d that an e mpl oy e e c ou ld s uf fe r d e a th or ser ious injury

if an a ccide n t o cc u rr ed beca use of the violation and that the employ er kne w, or with re asonable diligenc e could have known, of the violation. Id . at 767. Petitioner argues that the OSHRC er red in imputing constructive know ledg e to Petitioner. We h a ve c on sis te ntl y

he ld t hat a s lo nga s th e Se c re tary c an p rove that kn ow le dg e of a ri sk c ou ld have be en obtained “with the exercise of rea sonable diligenc e,” a supervisor is considere d to have constructive know ledg e. Carlis le Equi p. Co. v. United States Sec’ y of Labor , 2 4 F .3 d 7 90 , 7 93 (6 th Cir. 1994). We have a dditionally held that knowledg e of

a super visor may

be imputed to the company . Donovan v . Capital City Excav ating Co. , 7 12 F .2 d 1 00 8, 10 10 (6 th C ir . 1 98 3) ; se e als o Pride Oil W

ell Servic e , 1 5 OS HC (B NA ) 1 8 0 9 , 1 8 1 9 (1 9 9 2 ) ( “T h e a ct u al o r c o n s t ru ct i v e k n o wl ed ge of the e mploy er’ s fore man or super visor can be imputed to the e mploy er.” ). Thus, Petitioner may only succe ed by

showingthat there was n ot substantial evidence proving that Rice could have discovere d the hazard thoug h the exercise of rea sonable dilig ence . “Rea sonable dilig ence involve s s e v e r a l f a c to r s , in c lu d in g

a n e mp lo ye r ’ s ‘ o b li g a

ti o n to inspe ct the wo rk are a , to anti c ipate ha zar ds to wh ic h e mpl oy e e s ma y be e xpos e d, and

to t a ke me a sure s to preve nt the occur

renc e.’” Pr ideW

e ll , 1 5 OS HC (B NA ) a t1 8 2 0 (q u o t i n g Frank Swidzinski Co. , 9 OSH C ( B NA ) 1 23 0, 12 33 (1 98 1) ). I n th e ins tant c a se , Ri c e te sti fi e d th a t he kn e w o f t he po ssi bil ity of a ha zardous situation arising f rom the positioni ng of the equipment. Additionally , Rice admittedNo. 06-4229

5 that even thoug h the choke r wa s old and he was unawa re of how much stress ha d been put on it, he did not chec k it f

or abra sions be fore he instructed Hurd to a ssist him in moving it. When asked how he has be en taug ht to protect ele ctrica l cords fr om being cut, he a dmitted that they should be kept
awa y from shar p metal. The O SHRC drew the log ical infe renc e fr om this testim ony that Rice knew there was a

possibili ty

that an old and wor

n choker like this one had abra sions that could pierce an elec trical c ord, and that such an oc curr ence wou l d p re s en t a hazar d. By failing to chec k for suc h abra sions or even instruct Hurd to wea r g loves befor e handlingthe choke r, Rice f ailed to take incre dibly simple actions to preve nt the hazard. Additionally , safe ty

office r John C ollier testified t h at he could tell fr om merely looking at
a picture of the choker Rice and Hurd wer e injured trying to retrieve that it was damag ed, and that the damag e should ha

ve been obvious to any one who examined the choke r. Thus, there is substantial evidenc e on the r ecor d to show that rea sonable dilig ence woul d h ave r evea led the hazar d and,
ac co rd i n gl y , R i ce h adco n s t ru ct i v e k n o wl ed ge o f i t , wh i ch ca nb e i mp u t edt o Ko k o s i n g. Ko ko sin g a lte rn a tiv e ly argue s that the OSH RC’ s de c isi on wa s a rb itr ary and c a pr ic iou s. In deter mining whe ther a

n ag ency decision is arbitra

ry or ca pricious in violation o f t h e APA, we presume that the ag ency

complied with the law, a

nd the burde n falls to Petitioner to show otherwise. Citi zens to Preserv e Ove rton P a rk v

. V olpe , 401 U.S. 402, 415-17 (1971). I n the instant case , Petitioner’s sole and e x tremely cursor y argument that the dec ision is arbitrary and capricious is an incorpora tion of its previous ar gu m en t that there is no recor d evidenc e supporting the OSHRC’s finding s. We wer e not persua ded by Petitioner’s initial arg ument, and we are equally unpersua ded by thi s o ne . A c c or din g ly , w e fi nd tha t the OSH RC’ s fi nd ing wa s n e ith e r a rb itr ary no r c a pr ic iou s.No. 06-4229

6 CO NC LU SION For the forg oing r easons, we ENF ORCE the or de r o f t he OSH RC in

fu ll.