“\ufeff\t\tDocument\t\t\t\t p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } p { margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-family:Times New Roman; color:WindowText; font-size:10pt; font-size:10pt; } p { font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; } p.style_Normal { } span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } table.style_TableNormal { } span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } span.BulletSymbol { font-family:’Symbol’; } body { margin-left:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-right:0px;} div.basic { width:21.59cm;height:27.94cm;} p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar useragent = navigator.userAgent;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar navigatorname;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘MSIE’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”MSIE\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Gecko’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘Chrome’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Google Chrome\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Mozilla’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”old Netscape or Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Opera’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Opera\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfunction symbol(code1,code2)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (navigatorname == ‘MSIE’)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code1);\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code2);\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tComplainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tv.\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO. 6195\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCRAIN ELECTRIC, INC.,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBEFORE BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBY THE COMMISSION: A decision of Review Commission Judge Alan M. Wienman,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdated August 6, 1974, is before this Commission for review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 661(i).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHaving examined the record in its entirety, the Commission finds that the Judge properly\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdecided the case and adopts his decision which is attached hereto as Appendix A. Accordingly,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthe Judge\u2019s decision is hereby affirmed.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFOR THE COMMISSION:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWilliam S. McLaughlin\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tExecutive Secretary\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDATED: OCT 20, 1976\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1\t\t\t\t\t\tChairman Barnako does not agree to this attachment.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBARNAKO, Chairman, concurring:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tI concur in the disposition only insofar as the Judge\u2019s order is affirmed. The party aggrieved by\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthe Judge\u2019s decision, the Secretary of Labor, does not seek review of that decision. I therefore do\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnot reach the merits of the case, for there is neither party interest nor compelling public interest,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAbbott-Sommer, Inc., Docket No. 9507, BNA 3 OSHC 2032, CCH OSHD para. 20,428 (Feb. 17,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1976); Singer Furniture Co., Docket No. 7134, BNA 3 OSHC 2079, CCH OSHD para. 20,481\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Mar. 5, 1976).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCLEARY, Commissioner, DISSENTING:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tI dissent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAdministrative Law Judge Wienman vacated eight nonserious violations and proposed\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tpenalties totaling $145 because the Secretary of Labor had not proved that any of the employees\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tof respondent were actually exposed to the cited hazards. My colleagues affirm his action.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCommissioner Moran concludes that the Judge\u2019s decision is correct. This is in the face of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission precedent soundly rejecting the theory of actual exposure. Gilles & Cotting, Inc.,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCCH OSHD para. 20,448, 3 BNA OSHC 2002 (No. 504, 1976).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tChairman Barnako concurs in Commissioner Moran\u2019s disposition finding neither party\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tinterest nor compelling interest in the issue involved. I respectfully submit that the Chairman\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\talso errs. The employer that prevailed before the Judge filled no brief. The Secretary in a letter to\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthe Commission dated November 4, 1974, noted that he did not petition for review by the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission and that the case is before us upon an order for review issued upon my own motion.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNevertheless the Secretary did enclose an eleven-page brief filed in another case on the exposure\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tissue. In his view the facts did not warrant briefing. Although the Secretary\u2019s presentation lacks\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvigor, it is fair to say that he objects to the application of an actual exposure test.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAccordingly, I would remand the case for further proceedings consistent with Gilles &\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCotting, supra. See also Brennan v. O.S.H.R.C. and Underhill Constr. Corp., 513 F.2d 1032 (2d\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCir. 1975) as adopted by the Commission in Beatty Equipment Leasing, Inc., 1975\u201376 CCH\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHD para. 20,694, 4 BNA OSHC 1211 (No. 3901, 1976), petition for review docketed, No.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t76\u20132497, 9th Cir., July 7, 1976.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tComplainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tv.\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO. 6195\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCRAIN ELECTRIC, INC.,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAPPEARANCES:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJACK F. OSTRANDER, Esquire,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOffice of the Solicitor,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tU. S. Department of Labor,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDallas, Texas, for the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSecretary of Labor\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMR. JACK CRAIN, President,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCrain Electric, Inc.,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t7667 East 46th Place,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTulsa, Oklahoma, for the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHearing held June 11, 1974, at Tulsa, Oklahoma,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJudge Alan M. Wienman presiding.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSTATEMENT OF THE CASE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAlan M. Wienman, Judge, OSAHRC:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThis is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1970 (29 USC 651 et seq., hereafter called the Act) contesting a citation issued by the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcomplainant against respondent under the authority vested in complainant by section 9(a) of that\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAct. The citation alleges on the basis of an inspection, November 14, 1973, of a workplace\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tlocated at Public Service Company Riverside Power Station, Jenks, Oklahoma, that the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\trespondent violated the Act by failing to comply with certain occupational safety and health\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tstandards promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe citation issued December 13, 1973, alleged multiple nonserious violations of the Act\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tgrouped under eight item headings, and the respondent elected to contest all parts of the citation.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe citation set forth the alleged violations in the following form:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem number\t\t\t\t\t\tStandard, regulation or section of the Act\t\t\t\t\t\tDescription of alleged violation\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tallegedly violated\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1\t\t\t\t\t\t29 CFR 1926.400(a) as adopted by 29\t\t\t\t\t\tLive parts of electrical equipment\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCFR 1910.12\t\t\t\t\t\twere not guarded by approved\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcabinets\t\t\t\t\t\tor\t\t\t\t\t\tother\t\t\t\t\t\tforms\t\t\t\t\t\tof\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tenclosures to prevent accidental\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcontact as required by National\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tElectrical Code, Article 110\u201317(a);\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ti.e., (a) light bulbs missing at the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfollowing locations: west side of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tboiler at 4th floor, southeast corner\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tof boiler on 3rd floor, 2nd floor\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tturbine area and 3 bulbs missing\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ton the 2nd floor turbine mezzanine\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tarea (b) receptacle without cover\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tin the water treating area on the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2nd\t\t\t\t\t\tfloor\t\t\t\t\t\tand\t\t\t\t\t\t(c)\t\t\t\t\t\tnonmetallic\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem number\t\t\t\t\t\tStandard, regulation or section of the Act\t\t\t\t\t\tDescription of alleged violation\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tallegedly violated\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsheathed cable cut exposing wiring\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ton the southeast corner of the third\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfloor.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2\t\t\t\t\t\t29 CFR 1926.400(a) as adopted by 29\t\t\t\t\t\tWhere subject to physical damage,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCFR 1910.12\t\t\t\t\t\tconductors were not protected by\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tconduit, pipe, guard strips, or other\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tmeans as required by National\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tElectrical\t\t\t\t\t\tCode,\t\t\t\t\t\tArticle\t\t\t\t\t\t336\u20136;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ti.e., nonmetallic sheathed cable to\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfield office.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3\t\t\t\t\t\t29 CFR 1926.400(a) as adopted by 29\t\t\t\t\t\tCables of one or more conductors\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCFR 1910.12\t\t\t\t\t\tfor direct burial in the earth were\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnot of a type approved for the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tpurpose and use as required by\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNational Electrical Code, Article\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t310\u20136; i.e., cable at supply trailer.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4\t\t\t\t\t\t29 CFR 1926.401(a)(1) as adopted by 29\t\t\t\t\t\tThe\t\t\t\t\t\tnoncurrent-carrying\t\t\t\t\t\tmetal\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCFR 1910.12\t\t\t\t\t\tparts\t\t\t\t\t\tof\t\t\t\t\t\tportable\t\t\t\t\t\tand\/or\t\t\t\t\t\tplug\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tconnected\t\t\t\t\t\tequipment\t\t\t\t\t\twere\t\t\t\t\t\tnot\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tgrounded; i.e., (a) 3 light guards on\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsouth side of 2nd floor turbine area\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(b) light guard in the 2nd floor\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\twater treating area and (c) light\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tguard in 1st floor rest room.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t5\t\t\t\t\t\t29 CFR 1926.402(a)(8) as adopted by 29\t\t\t\t\t\tCables passing through work areas\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCFR 1910.12\t\t\t\t\t\twere not covered or elevated to\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tprotect them from damage which\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\twould\t\t\t\t\t\tcreate\t\t\t\t\t\ta\t\t\t\t\t\thazard\t\t\t\t\t\tto\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\temployees; i.e., (a) cable lying on\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem number\t\t\t\t\t\tStandard, regulation or section of the Act\t\t\t\t\t\tDescription of alleged violation\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tallegedly violated\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tground in traffic area on the north\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tside of the boiler (b) nonmetallic\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsheathed cable run through mud\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tand water on south side of boiler\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(c)\t\t\t\t\t\tnonmetallic\t\t\t\t\t\tsheathed\t\t\t\t\t\tcable\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tlying on ground across road near\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcooling tower area.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t6\t\t\t\t\t\t29 CFR 1926.500(b)(1) as adopted by 29\t\t\t\t\t\tFloor openings were not guarded\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCFR 1910.12\t\t\t\t\t\tby a standard railing and toeboards\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tor cover; i.e., (a) north side of 10th\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfloor boiler building (b) east side\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tof 10th floor (c) northwest corner\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tof 3rd floor.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t7\t\t\t\t\t\t29 CFR 1926.500(b)(8) as adopted by 29\t\t\t\t\t\tFloor holes into which persons can\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCFR 1910.12\t\t\t\t\t\taccidentally\t\t\t\t\t\twalk\t\t\t\t\t\twere\t\t\t\t\t\tnot\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tguarded by a standard railing and\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ttoeboards or cover; i.e., (a) north\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tside of 10th floor (b) south side of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t10th floor and (c) southwest corner\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tof 4th floor (d) west side of the 1st\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfloor.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t8\t\t\t\t\t\t29 CFR 1926.500(d)(1) as adopted by 29\t\t\t\t\t\tOpen-sided floor or platform 6 feet\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCFR 1910.12\t\t\t\t\t\tor more above the adjacent floor or\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tground level was not guarded by a\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tstandard railing or the equivalent;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ti.e., 2nd floor turbine mezzanine\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tarea.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent was also notified by letter dated December 13, 1973, that the complainant\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tproposed to assess penalties for the alleged violations in the following amounts:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No.\t\t\t\t\t\tProposed\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPenalty\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1\t\t\t\t\t\t$35\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2\t\t\t\t\t\tNone\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3\t\t\t\t\t\tNone\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4\t\t\t\t\t\t$35\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t5\t\t\t\t\t\t$25\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t6\t\t\t\t\t\t$25\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t7\t\t\t\t\t\t$25\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t8\t\t\t\t\t\tNone\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe total proposed penalty for all alleged violations was $145.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAfter respondent contested the enforcement action, and Complaint and Answer were filed\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tby the purties, the case came on for hearing at Tulsa, Oklahoma, on June 11, 1974.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTHE ISSUES\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo jurisdictional questions are in issue, the parties having pleaded facts sufficient to\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\testablish that the respondent is subject to the Act, and that the Commission has jurisdiction of the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tparties and the subject matter. The chief issues for decision are whether the respondent violated\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthe safety regulations as alleged in the citation and complaint and, if so, what penalties, if any,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tare appropriate.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AND DISCUSSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHA Compliance Officer, John B. Miles, testified he inspected the Jenks Power Station\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tconstruction project November 14, 1973, subsequent to an employee complaint relating to\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tanother subcontractor on the project (T. 7). The work site was a multi-story boiler and power\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tstation south of Jenks, Oklahoma, where some fifteen contractors were conducting various\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\toperations on the inspection date (T. 8). According to respondent\u2019s president, Jack Crain, the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tmammoth project was a $100,000,000 job with as many as 800 men working on it at the peak of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tconstruction (T. 117).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMr. Miles first conducted an opening conference with representatives of all contractors\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tpresent. A walk-around inspection of the entire site occupied three days (T. 44).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMr. Miles observed and photographed various conditions he believed to be violations of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsafety regulations as described in the citation issued to respondent. The first five citation items\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\trelated to the installation of temporary electrical equipment. The Compliance Officer believed\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthat respondent was the only contractor responsible for temporary wiring at the site (T. 14).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCitation Items 6, 7 and 8 related to hazardous floor openings and holes or unguarded floors in\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tareas where Miles believed respondent\u2019s employees might be working. With respect to all\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\thazardous conditions, however, the Compliance Officer candidly testified that he observed none\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tof respondent\u2019s employees in the immediate area of the hazard at the time of the inspection (T.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t14, 19, 21, 25, 29, 39, 46, 56, 63, 99). Miles also testified that respondent had eight employees\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\ton the site (T. 81), but he did not know the exact assignment of these employees (T. 97) or the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tareas in which they were working (T. 99\u2013100).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe Compliance Officer explained that it was extremely difficult to determine the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\texposure of employees to hazardous conditions because the employees would vacate each floor\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tas the inspection party made its rounds (T. 101\u2013102).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMiles testified that he assumed respondent\u2019s employees necessarily visited certain areas\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tof the job site in order to service the temporary wiring, but the record contains no evidence that\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tany employee of respondent was in fact exposed to a designated noncompliant condition at any\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tgiven time.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIn view of the absence of proof with respect to employee exposure it is unnecessary to\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\texamine the evidence relative to the alleged violations in greater detail. The Review Commission\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\thas clearly enunciated the rule that a respondent cannot be held liable for a violation of a safety\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tstandard where none of its own employees are subject to the noncompliant condition. Secretary\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tof Labor vs. Hawkins Construction Co., OSAHRC Docket No. 949. In that decision the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission took pains to state that \u2018. . . the intent of the Act is to place responsibility for\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tmaintaining safe working conditions upon those employers who have endangered employees, not\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tupon those who may merely own or to some extent control the location of the place of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\temployment of others.\u2019\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMore recently the Commission upheld vacation of a citation alleging violation by a\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsubcontractor because none of the subcontractor\u2019s employees were exposed to the dangerous\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tconditions even though the subcontractor had created the hazard. Secretary of Labor v. Martin\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIron Works, Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 606.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe cited decisions control, and the citation herein must also be vacated.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFINDINGS OF FACT\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHaving held a hearing and considered the entire record herein, it is concluded that the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsubstantial evidence is the record considered as a whole supports the following Findings of Fact:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. Respondent, Crain Electric, Inc., at all times involved in this case had a workplace at\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthe Public Service Company Riverside Power Station, Jenks, Oklahoma, where it was engaged in\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsupplying certain electrical work in the construction of a power plant.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. Respondent at all times mentioned herein was an employer in a business which affects\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tinterstate commerce.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3. During a three day period commencing November 14, 1973, duly authorized\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\trepresentatives of the Secretary of Labor conducted an occupational safety inspection of the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\taforementioned workplace where they observed certain conditions which appeared to violate\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tsafety regulations promulgated by the Secretary. However, in no instance was an employee of\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tthe respondent exposed to the hazardous conditions created by the apparent violations.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCONCLUSIONS OF LAW\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. At all times material hereto, respondent was an employer engaged in a business\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\taffecting commerce within the meaning of section 3 (5) of the Act. The Occupational Safety and\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHealth Review Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter herein.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. On November 14, 1973, respondent was not in violation of the Act or any safety\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tregulation enumerated in the citation issued to respondent on December 13, 1973.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tORDER\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBased on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of how is is ORDERED that the\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcitation issued to respondent December 13, 1973, and the penalties thereon are hereby vacated.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAlan M. Wienman\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJudge, OSAHRC\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDate: AUG 6, 1974\t\t\t”