OSHA’s inspection in this matter did not arise from an accident or anonymous call regarding unsafe practices (i.e. unprogrammed inspections). The inspection originated through OSHA’s national emphasis program (NEP) to address the hazards of amputations in specific industries. OSHA’s NEPs are temporary programs focused on specific and particular workplace hazards and high-hazard industries, which sets forth that OSHA’s officers shall initiate randomized inspections under an NEP if a company falls under a specific classification indicating that the company falls under a designated high-risk industry (which includes construction and manufacturing) and has 10 or fewer employees. During these inspections, an OSHA officer may also identify any plain view violations and the scope can be expanded if the company has a history of employee injury or illness as noted on their OSHA 300 or 301 forms.   

Here, during the inspection of Pleasant Mount Welding (PMWI)’s facility in Carbondale, PA, OSHA identified flexible cords powering a milling machine and a rotating bending machine and issued a serious citation under 29 C.F.R. § 1910.305(g)(1)(iv)(A), alleging that extension cords were being used as a substitute for fixed wiring.

At the hearing, the evidence showed that the machines were mobile, frequently repositioned to meet production needs, and powered through cords connected to existing wall outlets. Importantly, fixed wiring existed throughout the facility and was actively in use. The cords did not run through walls, ceilings, or floors, nor were they concealed or attached to building surfaces.

The ALJ focused on the language of the standard, which prohibits flexible cords from being used “as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure.” The ALJ rejected OSHA’s attempt to equate a machine with a “structure” and emphasized that the cords were being used to power equipment, not to replace building wiring. The citation was therefore vacated.

For construction employers, the takeaway is not that extension cords are risk-free, but that citations must be grounded in the actual text of the standard. Cord usage should still be evaluated for trip hazards, damage, overloading and improper routing. However, where equipment is portable and fixed wiring is present and functioning, employers should not assume that any long-term cord use automatically violates OSHA’s rules.  Documentation of equipment mobility and electrical layouts can also be critical in defending these claims.

However, the ALJ maintained the record-keeping citation. PMWI employed more than 20 employees and fell within a covered NAICS classification. As such, it was required to electronically submit its OSHA Form 300A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses by March 2 of the following year.

Although PMWI maintained OSHA logs on-site and had only one recordable injury for the year, the summary was never submitted electronically. PMWI’s management conceded as much, testifying that they were unaware of the electronic submission requirement and believed the obligation ended with maintaining the forms internally. As the maxim goes, “ignorance of the law is no excuse” and so the ALJ affirmed this citation and upheld the monetary penalty. The decision makes clear that OSHA reporting violations are established simply by the failure to comply regardless of intent, injury frequency, or overall safety performance. PMWI presented evidence of safety committees, third-party inspections, and insurer-provided training. While those efforts are commendable, they did not offset the reporting violation or warrant a reduction of penalty especially in the absence of a written, employer-maintained safety program. 

Construction employers should view this as a reminder that administrative compliance is part of safety compliance. Training programs, toolbox talks and hazard assessments do not excuse missed deadlines or incomplete submissions. The policy behind the forms is that OSHA utilizes this data to identify trends, target inspections and evaluate industry risks. When an employer fails to submit required information, all employees are deemed exposed because OSHA is deprived of accurate insight into working conditions.

This decision reinforces several practical and administrative points, which are especially relevant as we have entered the new year.  

• Review OSHA recordkeeping obligations annually, including electronic submission deadlines and post requirements. 
• Confirm whether your NAICS classification triggers electronic reporting requirements.
• Assign clear responsibility for OSHA submissions and require confirmation of completion.
• Maintain written safety programs, even when third parties provide training or audits.

Construction safety is often measured by what happens in the field, but OSHA enforcement extends well beyond visible hazards and field conditions. Although this decision shows that employers can successfully challenge overbroad interpretations of safety standards, they cannot overlook their reporting and administrative requirements. 

About the author: Costas Cyprus, Esq. practices construction law and commercial litigation with Welby, Brady & Greenblatt, LLP, in White Plains, NY. He can be reached at 914-428-2100 and at ccyprus@wbgllp.com. The articles in this series do not constitute legal advice and are intended for general guidance only.

Published: January 20, 2026.