Instead, AJP argued that it lacked the level of knowledge required for a violation. It also challenged the willful classification. Rejecting AJP’s arguments, the ALJ affirmed the willful violation as well as a majority of the other citations. AJP filed a petition for review with the Commission. When the Commission declined to review the case, the ALJ’s decision became the Commission’s final order. See 29 U.S.C. § 6610). In its petition for review in this court, AJP challenges all of the Commission’s adverse determinations, arguing that they are unsupported by substantial evidence. The company also argues that the scaffolding regulations fail to provide the fair notice required by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (D.C.Cir.1995). (<HOLDING>). II. We will affirm the Commission’s decision
recognizing that agency regulations must provide fair notice before penalties are imposed holding that before a duty can be imposed there must be a relationship between the parties and the harm must have been foreseeable recognizing that prison regulations designed to provide security are not only legitimate but are central to all other correctional goals holding that agency is bound by its regulations holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it