Court Opinion

ID: 9409842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 18:00:43.874664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:53.894349
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60399      Document: 00516825855         Page: 1   Date Filed: 07/19/2023

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                                                                           FILED
                                                                       July 19, 2023
                                   No. 22-60399                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                           Clerk

   TNT Crane & Rigging, Incorporated,

                                                                     Petitioner,

                                      versus

   Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission;
   Julie A. Su, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor,

                                                                  Respondents.

                     Petition for Review of Orders of the
              Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
                             Agency No. 16-1587

   Before Barksdale, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge:
          A company providing crane services petitioned this court to overturn
   final orders of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
   Those orders reversed decisions by an administrative law judge that were
   favorable to the company. The principal dispute is whether regulations
   applicable to the disassembly of a crane apply to the tragic accident that
   occurred here.
         We conclude the Commission applied the proper regulations and
   DENY the petition for review.
Case: 22-60399      Document: 00516825855          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60399

              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
          TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc. is a crane-service provider located in
   Houston, Texas. It was cited by the Occupational Safety and Health Review
   Commission (“the Commission”) for the serious injury of an employee that
   occurred on May 15, 2016. On that day, TNT sent a two-man crew, consist-
   ing of Jeff Benson and Mark Ryan, to install antennas on a communications
   tower in Georgetown, Texas, using a 275-ton mobile crane. After Benson
   and Ryan completed the installation, the next task was to disassemble the
   crane and load it onto a semi-truck trailer. TNT dispatched to the worksite
   two additional employees, Joseph Larison and Freddie Ray, to assist with the
   disassembly. Benson acted as the crew’s supervisor.
          To prepare for the crane’s disassembly, Benson created a job safety
   analysis. Benson and the crew discussed a plan for “breaking the crane
   down” and loading it onto the trailer. Ray and Larison expressed concern
   about Benson’s proposal to disassemble the crane near an energized 14,400-
   volt power line but agreed to the plan based on Benson and Ryan’s assurances
   they had assembled the crane in the same location.
          The plan called, first, for Benson to lower the boom to allow Larison
   to remove the “block,” the mechanism that allowed the crane’s rigging to be
   attached to an item for lifting, from the “becket,” a metal connection device
   at the end of the crane’s hoist line. After the block was removed, Larison
   would hold the becket with his hands to keep the hoist line taut while Benson
   reeled in the hoist line and further lowered the boom to lay it on the bed of a
   trailer. Ray would drive the truck and trailer into position to receive the
   boom, with Ryan guiding him. Once the boom was on the bed of the trailer,
   the crew would continue the process by disconnecting the jib from the boom
   by removing metal pins.

                                         2
Case: 22-60399      Document: 00516825855            Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                      No. 22-60399

          Shortly after discussing the plan, the crew began to execute it. Larison
   removed the block from the becket, and Ray and Ryan began moving the
   truck and trailer into position. As Benson started lowering the boom and
   reeling in the hoist line and Larison held the becket, Larison noticed the hoist
   line was getting close to the power line and “gave the signal to swing right,
   [and] then started yelling.” Moments later, the hoist line contacted the en-
   ergized power line, giving Larison a severe electrical shock. Larison was hos-
   pitalized with serious injuries.
          TNT reported the accident and employee hospitalization to the Oc-
   cupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), which prompted
   an investigation. OSHA conducted an inspection and issued TNT a citation,
   alleging two serious violations of the Cranes and Derricks in Construction
   Standard under 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1407, with a proposed penalty of $24,942.
   Item 1 alleges TNT violated Section 1926.1407(b)(3) by exposing employees
   to the hazard of electrical shock by failing to use at least one of the measures
   required to prevent encroachment or contact with the power lines while dis-
   assembling the crane. Item 2 alleges TNT violated Section 1926.1407(d) by
   placing “[p]art of a crane/derrick, load line, or load (including rigging and
   lifting accessories), whether partially or fully assembled, . . . closer than the
   minimum approach distance under Table A (see 1926.1408) to a power line.”
          On September 14, 2018, after a two-day hearing, the administrative
   law judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision in favor of TNT, finding the cited regu-
   lations did not apply to the work performed. The Secretary of Labor (“the
   Secretary”) filed a Petition for Discretionary Review with the Commission.
   On March 27, 2020, the Commission reversed and remanded the ALJ’s de-
   cision. Sec’y of Lab. v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc., No. 16-1587, 2020 WL
   1657789 (OSHRC Mar. 27, 2020). On remand, the ALJ again found in favor
   of TNT, holding the Secretary failed to show the crane operator’s violative
   conduct was foreseeable. On June 2, 2022, after the Secretary filed a Petition

                                           3
Case: 22-60399      Document: 00516825855          Page: 4   Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60399

   for Discretionary Review, the Commission again reversed the ALJ’s deci-
   sion. Sec’y of Lab. v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc., No. 16-1587, 2022 WL
   2102910 (OSHRC June 2, 2022).
          TNT timely petitioned this court for review of the Commission’s de-
   cisions.
                                  DISCUSSION
          This court’s review of the Commission’s decisions under the Admin-
   istrative Procedure Act is “narrow and highly deferential” to the agency.
   Medina Cnty. Env’t Action Ass’n v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 699
   (5th Cir. 2010). Under 29 U.S.C. § 660(a), the court “must accept factual
   findings of the Commission if they are supported by substantial evidence on
   the record considered as a whole,” and “if a reasonable person could have
   found what the [Commission] found, even if the appellate court might have
   reached a different conclusion.” Angel Bros. Enters. v. Walsh, 18 F.4th 827,
   830 (5th Cir. 2021) (quotation marks and citations omitted) (alteration in
   original). The Commission’s legal conclusions must be upheld unless they
   are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accord-
   ance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); see also Angel Bros., 18 F.4th at 830.
          The Secretary establishes a violation of an OSHA standard by demon-
   strating “by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that the cited standard ap-
   plies; (2) noncompliance with the cited standard; (3) access or exposure to
   the violative conditions; and (4) that the employer had actual or constructive
   knowledge of the conditions through the exercise of reasonable due dili-
   gence.” Angel Bros., 18 F.4th at 830 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
   Here, the Secretary alleges violations of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1407(b)(3) and (d),
   two provisions located in a section of the construction crane standard entitled
   “Power line safety (up to 350 kV) — assembly and disassembly.”

                                         4
Case: 22-60399        Document: 00516825855            Page: 5     Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                        No. 22-60399

          TNT challenges the Commission’s determinations that the Secretary
   established the first and fourth elements, i.e., that Section 1926.1407 applied
   and that TNT had knowledge of the violative conduct. Specifically, TNT
   argues the Commission abused its discretion in determining that the plain
   meaning of the term “disassembly” as used in Section 1926.1407 includes
   acts preparatory to disassembling a crane. Alternatively, TNT asserts that if
   the standards did apply to TNT’s work at the time of the accident, the Com-
   mission erred by failing to apply the foreseeability exception to the knowledge
   element and by finding TNT did not prove its employee misconduct affirm-
   ative defense.
          We analyze these arguments in that order.
          I.        Element 1: the standard’s applicability to the cited condition
          In construing a regulation, we “give effect to the natural and plain
   meaning of” the regulation’s words. Diamond Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 528
   F.2d 645, 649 (5th Cir. 1976). When the regulation is silent or genuinely am-
   biguous, we decide whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable and en-
   titled to deference. Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2415–18 (2019). We
   defer to the Secretary’s reasonable interpretations of ambiguous standards.
   Martin v. OSHRC (CF&I), 499 U.S. 144, 152, 158 (1991); accord Delek Refin-
   ing, Ltd. v. OSHRC, 845 F.3d 170, 175 (5th Cir. 2017). Before determining
   whether the standard’s meaning is ambiguous, we must use “all the tradi-
   tional tools of construction,” i.e., carefully consider the standard’s “text,
   structure, history, and purpose.” Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2415 (quotation marks
   and citation omitted); see also Delek, 845 F.3d at 175.
          The question here is whether Section 1926.1407’s definition of “dis-
   assembly” encompasses preliminary activities such as lowering a crane’s
   boom and retracting the hoist line for the purpose of disassembly, or, instead,
   encompasses only the physical disassembly itself.

                                              5
Case: 22-60399      Document: 00516825855            Page: 6     Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                      No. 22-60399

          a.     Plain meaning of “disassembly”
          Section 1926.1407(a) states, “[b]efore assembling or disassembling
   equipment, the employer must determine if any part of the equipment, load
   line, or load (including rigging and lifting accessories) could get, in the direc-
   tion or area of assembly/disassembly, closer than 20 feet to a power line dur-
   ing the assembly/disassembly process.” The definition section of the stand-
   ard defines “Assembly/Disassembly” as
          the assembly and/or disassembly of equipment covered under this
          standard. With regard to tower cranes, “erecting and climb-
          ing” replaces the term “assembly,” and “dismantling” re-
          places the term “disassembly.” Regardless of whether the
          crane is initially erected to its full height or is climbed in stages,
          the process of increasing the height of the crane is an erection
          process.
   § 1926.1401 (emphasis added). The parties agree that tower cranes are not
   involved here.
          TNT maintains the Commission abused its discretion in concluding
   the natural and plain meaning of “disassembly” as used in the standard en-
   compasses activities preliminary to disassembly. TNT contends the ALJ cor-
   rectly determined these provisions do not apply to the specific activity its
   crew was engaged in at the time of the accident — lowering the crane’s boom
   and retracting the hoist line — because, at that point, they had not yet begun
   to physically disassemble equipment.
          We begin our analysis with the above definition of “Assembly/Disas-
   sembly” in Section 1926.1401. TNT argues the Commission ignored the re-
   maining part of the definition: “assembly and/or disassembly of equipment
   covered under this standard.” § 1926.1401 (emphasis added). TNT asserts
   that, by inserting “of equipment” into the definition, “disassembly” plainly
   refers to the physical disassembly of the crane and does not encompass actions

                                            6
Case: 22-60399         Document: 00516825855               Page: 7       Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                           No. 22-60399

   taken during a crane’s normal operations. According to TNT, the Commis-
   sion’s broader reading of disassembly would leave employers to speculate at
   what point normal operation ends and disassembly begins.
           We do not agree that the Commission’s interpretation necessarily
   leaves regulated employers to speculate. We do conclude, though, that the
   definition in the regulation is not particularly helpful here. We examine the
   text and structure of the crane standard for any clarity.
           TNT argues that surrounding provisions, specifically Sections
   1926.1404(h)(4) and 1926.1407(a), support its assertion that “disassembly”
   refers to the physical disassembly of the crane itself, because the regulations
   distinguish the actions needed to be taken before “disassembly.” 1 Thus,
   TNT contends there is a clear dividing line between the actions required “be-
   fore assembly/disassembly begins” and “[b]efore assembling or disassem-
   bling equipment.” See §§ 1926.1404(h)(4), 1926.1407(a). TNT also main-
   tains that the references to the removal of pins in Subsections 1926.1404(f)
   and (h) and Section 1926.1405 establish that disassembly is limited to the ac-
   tual removal of the crane’s components.
           We see these arguments as focusing too much on isolated words and
   phrases. The Commission identified several provisions 2 that “read as a

           1
                29 C.F.R. § 1926.1404(h)(4) states, “[w]hen using an assist crane, the loads that
   will be imposed on the assist crane at each phase of assembly/disassembly must be verified
   . . . before assembly/disassembly begins.” (emphasis added). Section 1926.1407(a) requires
   the employer to determine, “[b]efore assembling or disassembling equipment,” whether
   any part of the crane could come within 20 feet of a power line during the
   assembly/disassembly process. (emphasis added).
           2
             For example, the Commission cited to 29 C.F.R. § Section 1926.1407(d), which
   expressly applies to a fully assembled crane: “[n]o part of a crane/derrick, load line, or load
   . . . whether partially or fully assembled, is allowed closer than the minimum approach
   distance under Table A.” TNT Crane, 2020 WL 1657789, at *4 (emphasis and alterations
   in original). The Commission also determined that various provisions discuss processes

                                                 7
Case: 22-60399         Document: 00516825855              Page: 8       Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                          No. 22-60399

   whole establish that active removal of a crane’s components is not a prereq-
   uisite for the cited provisions to apply.” See TNT Crane, 2020 WL 1657789,
   at *4–5. Most of the assembly/disassembly requirements in other sections,
   see generally §§ 1926.1404–1407, “are phrased broadly and by their nature
   require actions that must be initiated as part of the assembly/disassembly
   process before pin or component removal even begins.” TNT Crane, 2020
   WL 1657789, at *4 (citing five examples). For instance, the Commission ex-
   plained that the three options listed under Section 1926.1407 for addressing
   power line safety in the assembly/disassembly process all involve actions that
   must occur before any actual dismantling takes place.                       Id. (citing §
   1926.1407(a)(1), (b)(1)). Additionally, other provisions in Section 1926.1407
   demonstrate the standard expressly applies to “fully assembled” equipment,
   indicating applicability is not limited to when equipment is physically dis-
   mantled. 3 Furthermore, other provisions in Section 1926.1407 also concern
   actions that occur before equipment is physically dismantled. 4

   that must take place “as part of the assembly/disassembly process before pin or component
   removal even begins.” Id. (citing § 1926.1404(e), (g), (h)(1), (h)(4), (h)(12)).
           3
              For example, where the power line in the work area has not been deenergized and
   grounded, Section 1926.1407(d) prohibits the employer from conducting any disassembly
   work while part of the equipment, load line, or load, “whether partially or fully assembled,”
   is within the minimum clearance distance permitted for the power line’s voltage level under
   Table A. (emphasis added). Similarly, Section 1926.1407(c) prohibits disassembly work
   below an energized power line and expressly applies to “partially or fully assembled”
   equipment.
           4
              For instance, Section 1926.1407(e) requires utility owners or operators to provide
   power line voltage information to employers within a certain timeframe to permit the
   employer to use Option 3 for complying with 1926.1407(a)(1), and Section 1926.1407(g)
   requires the posting of electrocution warnings, both of which occur before equipment is
   dismantled. Section 1926.1407(f)’s requirement that employers “assume that all power
   lines are energized unless the utility owner/operator confirms that the power line has been
   and continues to be deenergized and visibly grounded” contemplates that the employer

                                                8
Case: 22-60399       Document: 00516825855             Page: 9      Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                        No. 22-60399

          We conclude that the standard’s surrounding text and structure does
   not limit disassembly to physically dismantling equipment.
          We also look to the preamble to the crane standard’s final rule for
   guidance. In one part of the preamble, OSHA identifies the activity at issue
   here — lowering a boom to position it for dismantling — as an example of
   when the assembly/disassembly power line assessment requirement in Sec-
   tion 1926.1407(a) applies:
          For example, when disassembling a crane, the disassembly pro-
          cess takes place in an area that includes the area under and
          around the boom’s path as it is lowered to the ground (in most,
          but not all cases, the boom is lowered to the ground for the dis-
          assembly process). Under [Section 1926.1407(a)], the em-
          ployer must assess the proximity that the boom will be in to the
          power line in its path of travel to (and on) the ground.
   Cranes and Derricks in Construction; Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 47,906,
   47,945–46 (Aug. 9. 2010).
          The final rule preamble also explains that the prohibition against as-
   sembly/disassembly below power lines in Section 1926.1407(c) applies to a
   “fully assembled” crane: “in both assembly and disassembly, maneuvering an
   assembled crane out from under the power lines, or maneuvering a crane that
   is about to be disassembled under them, itself poses a high risk of [power line]
   contact.” Id. at 47,949 (emphases added). Additionally, the preamble to the
   proposed rule explains that OSHA added the reference to “disassembly” be-
   cause “[t]he employer needs to evaluate power lines with respect to . . . the
   direction or area of disassembly when preparing to disassemble the crane.”

   will adopt that assumption before any equipment is dismantled and maintain it throughout
   the disassembly process.

                                              9
Case: 22-60399     Document: 00516825855           Page: 10    Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60399

   Cranes and Derricks in Construction; Proposed Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 59,714,
   59,750 (Oct. 9, 2008) (emphasis added).
          The Commission correctly found that these statements support the
   broader interpretation of “disassembly” as a process that can begin before
   physical dismantling. See TNT Crane, 2020 WL 1657789, at *6. These pro-
   visions confirm that, when a boom is lowered to allow it to be dismantled, the
   action of lowering the boom is part of the disassembly process to which Sec-
   tion 1926.1407 applies. See id. Construing Section 1926.1407 as applicable
   to steps of a disassembly process that precede the physical dismantling of
   equipment, such as lowering a boom into position for dismantling, comports
   with OSHA’s intent for Section 1926.1407 to protect employees from power
   lines throughout the entire disassembly phase. See 75 Fed. Reg. at 47,944.
          TNT urges us to rely on a different statement in the final rule pream-
   ble to support its narrow interpretation of “disassembly”:
          Irrespective of whether the crane is initially erected to its full
          height, or is “jumped” in stages, the process of increasing the
          height of the crane is an assembly/erection process. Sections
          1926.1403 through 1924.1406 apply whenever the crane’s
          height is modified. To ensure that this intent is reflected in the
          standard, OSHA has added a sentence to the definition of “as-
          sembly/disassembly” in § 1926.1401 to this effect.
   See id. at 47,936. TNT asserts the ALJ was correct in finding that this “lan-
   guage focuses on the addition or removal of structural components, i.e., pins,
   and provides a strong indication that mere removal of the block and lowering
   of the boom is insufficient for application of the cited standards.” TNT con-
   tends the Commission improperly ignored this statement, which evinces that
   the physical process of changing the crane’s height is part of its assem-
   bly/erection process.

                                         10
Case: 22-60399     Document: 00516825855           Page: 11    Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60399

          We agree with the Commission’s determination that TNT’s prof-
   fered statement in the preamble is inapplicable because it “was in response
   to a commenter’s question specific to tower cranes, which is not the type of
   crane at issue here.” See TNT Crane, 2020 WL 1657789, at *7. In this state-
   ment, OSHA was responding to a comment regarding the applicability of
   Sections 1926.1403–1406 to the process of adding sections to a fully assem-
   bled tower crane to increase its height (referred to as “jumping” or “climb-
   ing”). See 75 Fed. Reg. at 47,936. OSHA therefore included language in the
   definition of “Assembly/Disassembly” to clarify that “jumping” is consid-
   ered assembly work. See id.
          Finally, TNT argues the Commission erroneously dismissed an unre-
   viewed ALJ decision that discusses crane disassembly. See Sec’y of Lab. v.
   Steel Constructors, Inc., 1980 OSHD (CCH) ¶ 24788, 1980 WL 10389 (No.
   78-3839, 1980) (ALJ). In that case, the citation alleged the employer allowed
   an employee to disassemble an unsupported boom section of a truck crane.
   Id. at *4. The ALJ vacated the citation based in part on his finding that the
   disassembly of the boom section had not yet begun because the equipment
   necessary for its dismantling had not yet been brought to the worksite and the
   boom was not yet resting on the ground. Id. at *4–6.
          The Commission correctly determined Steel Constructors is inapplica-
   ble because it was issued three decades before the cranes standard was prom-
   ulgated, “so it did not involve the term ‘disassembly’ within the context of
   that standard or even an analogous standard.” See TNT Crane, 2020 WL
   1657789 at *7. Additionally, as the Commission noted, the facts of Steel Con-
   structors are distinguishable. Unlike here, where TNT’s crew gathered to
   disassemble a crane, set a plan for doing so, and then collectively put the plan
   into motion, the employer in Steel Constructors was still acquiring materials
   necessary to disassemble the equipment when a rogue employee began

                                          11
Case: 22-60399        Document: 00516825855          Page: 12   Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                      No. 22-60399

   removing pins from a boom on his own initiative. See Steel Constructors, 1980
   WL 10389, at *1–2, *7.
          The Commission did not abuse its discretion in concluding that, based
   on the crane standard’s text, structure, and history, Subsections
   1926.1407(b)(3) and (d) unambiguously apply to all steps in a crane disassem-
   bly process, including preliminary steps that occur before any equipment is
   actually taken apart. See TNT Crane, 2020 WL 1657789, at *3–5. It therefore
   follows that the standard applied when TNT’s crew attempted to lay the
   boom on a trailer to allow the boom to be physically dismantled. See id.
          TNT argues, though, that the Commission abused its discretion in
   concluding that, even if the term “disassembly” is ambiguous, the Secre-
   tary’s interpretation must be given deference because it is reasonable in light
   of the standard’s purpose and regulatory history. See id. at *5–8. Because
   we conclude the term “disassembly” is not ambiguous, we need not reach
   this issue.
                 b.       Substantial evidence analysis
          TNT avers the Commission’s determination that the citations applied
   to its work at the time of the incident is not supported by substantial evidence.
   TNT contends the ALJ correctly found that “[t]he facts presented at trial . .
   . clearly established that disassembly of the crane was about to begin, but had
   not actually started.” According to TNT, disassembly would not begin until
   the actual removal of the first section of the jib, which had not yet occurred
   when contact was made with the power line. Rather, the accident occurred
   during preparatory actions — Benson was lowering the boom and retracting
   the hoist line. TNT also relies on the fact that when the accident occurred,
   none of the equipment necessary to disassemble the crane, including the
   helper crane, was in position. Additionally, TNT asserts the OSHA inspec-
   tor lacked credibility and his investigation was conducted improperly, as he

                                           12
Case: 22-60399     Document: 00516825855             Page: 13   Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                      No. 22-60399

   had no personal knowledge of the crane industry and his inspection merely
   consisted of witness interviews.
          The Commission determined that, when TNT’s crew lowered the
   boom in an attempt to lay it on the trailer for dismantling, the action was part
   of the crane disassembly process. Certainly, lowering the boom onto the
   trailer was part of the plan for disassembling the boom, and the boom was
   lowered to position it for dismantling. Additionally, all four crew members
   gave statements to OSHA during the inspection indicating that the disassem-
   bly process had begun when the boom was lowered. Therefore, the Commis-
   sion’s determination that lowering the boom and retracting the hoist for the
   purpose of disassembly qualified as disassembly work under Section
   1926.1407 is supported by substantial evidence.
          Accordingly, the Commission did not abuse its discretion in applying
   the standard’s plain meaning to TNT’s work during the incident — a crew
   gathered to discuss the plan for disassembling the crane and executed the first
   step of the plan, attempting to lay the boom of the crane on a trailer to posi-
   tion the boom for dismantling.
          II.    Element 4: TNT’s knowledge of the violative conditions
          The employer is liable only if it knew, “or ‘with the exercise of rea-
   sonable diligence, [should have known] of the presence of the violation.’”
   W.G. Yates & Sons Constr. Co. v. OSHRC, 459 F.3d 604, 607 (5th Cir. 2006)
   (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 666(k)). Because “[a] corporation can only act through
   its agents,” “a corporation is usually liable for acts of its supervisors in the
   performance of their assigned duties” and is charged with “the supervisor’s
   knowledge . . . of non-complying conduct of a subordinate.” Id. (quotation
   marks and citations omitted). The Yates court created an exception to the
   general imputation rule, however: “[A] supervisor’s knowledge of his own
   malfeasance is not imputable to the employer where the employer’s safety

                                           13
Case: 22-60399     Document: 00516825855            Page: 14   Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                     No. 22-60399

   policy, training, and discipline are sufficient to make the supervisor’s con-
   duct in violation of the policy unforeseeable.” Id. at 608–09 (emphasis in
   original).
          In Yates, a supervisor’s “own conduct,” and not that of his subordi-
   nates, violated an OSHA standard. Id. at 607. We contrasted that situation
   — where the supervisor was “himself the malfeasant [and] personally act[ed]
   contrary to instructions” — to the “ordinary context” where a subordinate
   violates a standard and “the supervisor’s knowledge of [the] employee’s un-
   safe conduct is imputable to his ‘master’, the employer.” Id. at 609 n.7. In
   the former situation, we reasoned it would unfairly relieve the Secretary of
   his burden to prove employer knowledge if a supervisor’s knowledge of his
   own misconduct was automatically imputed to the employer. Id. at 607–09.
          We confirmed this distinction in Angel Bros., 18 F.4th at 830–32. That
   case concerned a situation similar to the one here, where a supervisor had
   actual knowledge of a subordinate employee’s working in an unguarded
   trench, which violated an OSHA standard. Id. at 829. The court found the
   Yates exception was inapplicable because the supervisor’s actions did not
   constitute the cited violation; rather, “the safety violation was the presence
   of [the subordinate] . . . in the unsafe trench.” Id. at 832. The court reasoned
   that any claim “that a supervisor’s knowledge cannot be imputed to the em-
   ployer when the supervisor authorizes, or takes some other active role in, a
   subordinate’s safety violation” has “no support in Yates, in agency princi-
   ples, or in other caselaw.” Id.
          The parties dispute whether the Yates foreseeability exception applies
   here. TNT maintains the ALJ correctly determined on remand that the ex-
   ception applies and that, consequently, the Secretary failed to prove TNT
   had knowledge of the violative conditions. Furthermore, TNT argues Angel

                                          14
Case: 22-60399      Document: 00516825855           Page: 15   Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                     No. 22-60399

   Bros. is distinguishable and Yates is more analogous because, here, Benson
   engaged in the violation. We disagree.
          The Commission correctly determined the Yates exception does not
   apply, because all the TNT crew members were engaged in the violative con-
   duct under each citation item, and, accordingly, Benson’s knowledge of his
   crew’s misconduct was automatically imputed to TNT. See TNT Crane,
   2022 WL 2102910, at *3–4. Contrary to TNT’s assertion that only Benson
   committed the violations, substantial evidence supports the Commission’s
   finding that all four TNT employees collectively worked to disassemble the
   crane without a measure in place to prevent encroachment on the energized
   power line and when the hoist line was closer than 10 feet from the power
   line. See id. at *3.
          In addition, even though the supervisor in Angel Bros. did not engage
   in the violation alongside his subordinate, both in Angel Bros. and here, a sub-
   ordinate employee engaged in conduct that violated the standard(s), a super-
   visor had knowledge of the subordinate’s conduct, and that knowledge is im-
   puted to the employer under “[o]rdinary imputation principles.” See Angel
   Bros., 18 F.4th at 832. Consequently, the Commission did not abuse its dis-
   cretion in finding that the Yates foreseeability exception did not apply here
   and that Benson’s knowledge of his subordinates’ conduct violating Subsec-
   tions 1926.1407(b)(3) and (3) established TNT’s knowledge of the violations.
          III.    Affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct
          TNT can avoid liability if it shows “that the violation resulted from
   unpreventable employee misconduct.” See id. TNT must prove, for each
   violation, that it: “1) ha[d] established work rules designed to prevent the
   violation, 2) ha[d] adequately communicated these rules to its employees, 3)
   ha[d] taken steps to discover violations, and 4) ha[d] effectively enforced the
   rules when violations [were] discovered.” See id. at 832 (quoting Yates, 459

                                          15
Case: 22-60399         Document: 00516825855              Page: 16     Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                          No. 22-60399

   F.3d at 609 n.7). TNT’s burden is high because employers have a “height-
   ened duty to ensure the proper conduct of [supervisory] personnel,” and
   Benson’s participation in the violative conduct “is strong evidence that im-
   plementation of the [safety] policy was lax.” See Floyd S. Pike Elec. Contrac-
   tor, Inc. v. OSHRC, 576 F.2d 72, 77 (5th Cir. 1978) (quotation marks and ci-
   tation omitted).
          First, substantial evidence supports the Commission’s determination
   that TNT did not have a work rule designed to prevent violations of Section
   1926.1407(b)(3). 5 See TNT Crane, 2022 WL 2102910, at *5. “[A] work rule
   is an employer directive that requires or prescribes certain conduct” and, to
   be adequate, must “specifically match the violation at issue.” Southern Hens,
   Inc. v. OSHRC, 930 F.3d 667, 678 (5th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks and cita-
   tion omitted). TNT points to section 13 of its Safety Operating Procedures,
   which contains rules addressing “Electrical Hazards and Warnings
   (1926.1411).” 6 As the Commission stated, section 13 does not address

          5
            The Commission found TNT’s work rules addressed the requirements of Section
   1926.1407(d) and that TNT adequately communicated these rules to its employees. TNT
   Crane, 2022 WL 2102910, at *5–6. The parties do not contest these findings.
          6
              Section 13 of TNT’s safety policy states:
          For lines rated 50kV or below, minimum clearance between the lines and
          any part of the crane or load shall be 10 feet. During the pre-job meeting
          any power lines that are located in the work area will be identified and
          discussed. If it is determined that any part of the equipment, load line or
          load could get closer than 20 feet to a power line then at least one of the
          following measures must be taken: 1) Ensure the power lines have been de-
          energized and visibly grounded, 2) Ensure no part of the equipment, load
          line or load gets closer than 20 feet to the power line, or 3) Determine the
          line’s voltage and minimum approach distance permitted.
          When moving cranes around electrical equipment a spotter must be in
          place to assist Operator or have a back up alarm that is audible above the
          surrounding noise level.

                                                16
Case: 22-60399         Document: 00516825855                Page: 17       Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                            No. 22-60399

   Section 1926.1407(b)(3)’s express mandate that an employer implement at
   least one of the five listed measures to prevent encroachment on an energized
   power line during a disassembly process. TNT Crane, 2022 WL 2102910, at
   *5. The only measure section 13 mentions — designating a spotter — is in-
   sufficient, as it does not clearly establish “when a spotter is ‘necessary’ or
   otherwise required.” See id.
           Second, substantial evidence supports the Commission’s determina-
   tion that TNT did not adequately monitor employee compliance with its
   power line safety rules. See id. at *5–7. The Commission reasoned TNT did
   not provide “sufficient evidence” regarding the frequency of its audits to
   find them sufficient for monitoring employee compliance with safety rules.
   Id. at *7. For instance, while TNT proffered evidence that audits occurred,
   TNT management could not identify how often audits occurred. Moreover,
   TNT did not provide evidence that it used the audit program to monitor
   compliance with its power line safety rules at remote worksites like the
   Georgetown worksite. 7 See id.
           Finally, substantial evidence supports the Commission’s determina-
   tion that TNT did not prove it effectively enforced its power line safety rules
   when it discovered violations. See id. at *8. TNT claims it disciplines em-
   ployees pursuant to its disciplinary policy. Undermining that assertion,
   though, TNT provided no evidence “that it ever previously disciplined an
   employee for violating its power line safety rules.” Id. Considering TNT is

           If necessary a spotter will be designated to monitor the approach distance
           and alert Operator if that distance becomes compromised.
           7
             The Commission has previously found monitoring insufficient where no evidence
   showed that the employer monitored employee compliance with the rules pertaining to the
   specific conduct at issue in the citation during site visits. Sec’y of Lab. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.,
   19 OSHC (BNA) 1097, 2000 WL 1424806, at *3 (No. 98-1748, 2000), aff’d, Sw. Bell Tel.
   Co. v. Chao, 277 F.3d 1374 (5th Cir. 2001).

                                                  17
Case: 22-60399     Document: 00516825855           Page: 18   Date Filed: 07/19/2023

                                    No. 22-60399

   a large employer, the Commission found it unreasonable to assume that no
   violations of power line safety rules ever occurred prior to the cited viola-
   tions. Id. Indeed, in Angel Bros., we determined that effective enforcement
   was not established where a large employer performed many excavations but
   had “only documented two instances of disciplining employees for rules vio-
   lations,” both of which “came after OSHA inspectors uncovered the viola-
   tions.” 18 F.4th at 833. Additionally, as the Commission here identified,
   Benson’s participation in the violative conduct is strong evidence that
   TNT’s enforcement of power line safety rules was lax. See TNT Crane, 2022
   WL 2102910, at *8 (citing cases, e.g., Floyd, 576 F.2d at 77).
          We uphold the Commission’s determination that TNT failed to es-
   tablish the defense. The petition for review is DENIED.

                                         18