Opinion ID: 186188
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Finding of Violation

Text: 10 First, Lill challenges the ALJ's finding of a violation on four grounds: (1) it is contrary to the evidence because the wire rope stretched along the platform perimeter qualifies as a guardrail system within the meaning of section 1926.501(b)(1); (2) the interpretation of the statutory term guardrail system adopted by the Secretary is unreasonable; (3) the ALJ erred in finding that anyone other than Gross and Savoy was exposed to fall hazard and (4) the ALJ erred in finding Lill had constructive and actual notice of the violative conditions. 11 We conclude that the last three challenges have not been preserved for review because they were not raised in the petition for discretionary review (PDR) before the Commission. The Occupational Safety and Health Act expressly states: No objection that has not been urged before the Commission shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances. 29 U.S.C. § 660(a). Because of this statutory prohibition, [i]n cases where the Commission declines to review the ALJ decision, we and our sister circuits have uniformly held that courts of appeals lack jurisdiction over objections not raised in the PDR. A.J. McNulty & Co., Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 283 F.3d 328, 332 (D.C.Cir. 2002) (citing Durez Div. of Occidental Chem. Corp. v. OSHA, 906 F.2d 1, 5 (D.C.Cir.1990); P. Gioioso & Sons v. OSHRC, 115 F.3d 100, 107 (1st Cir.1997)). In its PDR Lill raised the following objection to the finding of violation: 12 The Judge's finding that the Secretary had met her burden of proof with respect to a violation of the fall protection standard was contrary to the evidence and Commission precedent. Contrary to the Judge's finding, there is no proof that an unprotected edge existed, in that the total perimeter of the HRSG was guarded by 5/8 wire rope. 13 JA 426. This language put the Commission on notice of only the first of Lill's challenges here-that the wire rope constitutes a guardrail system in compliance with the OSHA standard. The PDR makes no reference to the other three objections Lill now asserts. Because the Commission had no opportunity to consider these objections, we are without jurisdiction to do so. Cf. Durez, 906 F.2d at 5 (where PDR simply stated the Standard exceed[s] the statutory authority granted, with no discussion, citation to authority or basis for challenge, petitioner's abbreviated mention of its challenge to the validity of the Standard is `wholly inadequate to satisfy the requirement of § 660(a) that an objection be urged before the Commission') (quoting Power Plant Div., Brown & Root, Inc. v. OSHRC, 659 F.2d 1291, 1293 (5th Cir.1981) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 660(a))); see also P. Gioioso, 115 F.3d at 107 ([A]n aggrieved party desiring to preserve an issue for judicial review must raise it before the ALJ, articulate it clearly in its PDR, and offer a modicum of developed argumentation in support of it.) (citing Durez, 906 F.2d at 5). We now address the one challenge properly before the court. 14 Lill contends the ALJ ignored the presence of the perimeter wire rope which, Lill insists, qualifies as a guardrail system under section 1926.501(b)(1). Although the ALJ did not specifically mention the wire rope in his decision, he expressly supported his finding of violation by citing a portion of the hearing transcript in which Rook testified that he evaluated the wire cable according to [the] OSHA guardrail standards and [that] that was inadequate because [a]n adequate guardrail system has a top rail at 42 inches [and] a midrail at 21 inches. Tr. 23. Rook based his determination on 29 C.F.R. § 1926.502(b)(2), which sets out specific requirements for a guard rail system: 15 Guardrail systems. Guardrail systems and their use shall comply with the following provisions: 16 (1) Top edge height of top rails, or equivalent guardrail system members, shall be 42 inches (1.1 m) plus or minus 3 inches (8 cm) above the walking/working level. When conditions warrant, the height of the top edge may exceed the 45-inch height, provided the guardrail system meets all other criteria of this paragraph. 17 . . . 18 (2) Midrails, screens, mesh, intermediate vertical members, or equivalent intermediate structural members shall be installed between the top edge of the guardrail system and the walking/working surface when there is no wall or parapet wall at least 21 inches (53 cm) high. 19 Because the wire rope on which Lill relies does not meet the requirements of section 1926.502(b)(2), 1 we uphold the ALJ's finding that Lill violated section 1926.501(b)(1) as `supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole,' S.A. Storer & Sons Co. v. Sec'y of Labor, 360 F.3d 1363, 1367-68 (D.C.Cir.2004) (quoting A.J. McNulty & Co., 283 F.3d at 331 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 660(a))).