OSHRC Docket No. 09-1123


and its Successors,






Charles F. James, Counsel for Appellate Litigation; Heather R. Phillips, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC; Dolores G. Wolfe, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Labor, Dallas, TX

                          For the Complainant

             Susan Fahey Desmond, Esq.; Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis, P.A., Gulfport, MS

                          For the Respondent



Before: ROGERS, Chairman; THOMPSON and ATTWOOD, Commissioners.


            On October 29, 2010, Administrative Law Judge G. Marvin Bober issued a decision resolving a serious citation issued to Trinity Yachts, LLC (“Trinity Yachts”) under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678. In the citation, the Secretary alleged three violations of the shipyard employment standards and proposed a total penalty of $13,500. In his decision, the judge affirmed two citation items, vacated one citation item, and assessed a total penalty of $9,000. On November 18, 2010, Trinity Yachts filed a petition seeking review of the judge’s decision, and the case was directed for review on November 19, 2010.

            We have carefully reviewed the judge’s decision and find, as a preliminary matter, that there appear to be possible clerical errors or errors arising from oversight or omission beginning at the missing period on page 36. Specifically, these possible errors or omissions begin on page 36 of the decision, at line 23, following the partial sentence that reads: “Indeed, as noted, supra at note 9, it is possible that [the employee in question] did not turn on his blower because he had not yet started welding[.]” This text is followed by what appears to be an extra blank line. Then the next sentence, which begins a new paragraph, reads: “The violation was properly characterized as serious.”

            At this early stage in the proceedings and in the interest of judicial economy, we find it appropriate to provide the judge with leave to “correct clerical errors and errors arising through oversight or inadvertence” in his decision. Commission Rule of Procedure 90(b)(3), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90(b)(3). We therefore remand this case to the judge with instructions to review this portion of his decision and grant him leave to make any necessary corrections to his analysis and/or order(s) consistent with
Commission Rule of Procedure 90(b)(3).
Footnote Upon making any such corrections, the judge is directed to file a complete copy of his corrected decision pursuant to Commission Rule of Procedure 90, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90. The parties are directed to treat the corrected decision as a new decision and raise any objections to that decision pursuant to Commission Rule of Procedure 91, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.91.






Thomasina V. Rogers





Horace A. Thompson III





Cynthia L. Attwood

Dated: December 21, 2010                                       Commissioner