Docket No. 1305

SWAN LAKE MOULDING COMPANY

OSHRC Docket No. 1305

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

November 13, 1973

Before MORAN, Chairman; VAN NAMEE and CLEARY, Commissioners

OPINIONBY: VAN NAMEE

OPINION:

VAN NAMEE, COMMISSIONER: This matter is before the Commission upon my order directing review of a decision of Judge Jerry W. Mitchell. Judge Mitchell assessed an aggregate penalty of $265 for seven items of Complainant's citation charging non-serious violations of section 5(a)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., hereinafter "the Act").

We adopt the Judge's decision only to the extent it is consistent with the following decision.

Review was directed on the issue of whether the Judge assessed inappropriately low penalties for three of these seven violations.

One violation consisted of ungrounded electrical equipment, exposed wiring and inaccessible electrical disconnects. Respondent also committed two violations by failing to guard the cutting head of a jointer and the blades of two table saws.

Normally, we regard violations of machine guarding requirements to have a relatively high level of gravity. Generally speaking, unguarded machinery presents a considerable hazard and, on occasion, can cause serious injury. Upon review of the record in this case, however, we note that the evidence is not very revealing concerning the gravity of Respondent's violations of the machine guarding standards. We conclude that the Judge's assessment of $25 for each of these violations is appropriate considering the sparsity of the record before him.

Violations of electrical safety standards, on the other hand, vary considerably in gravity depending upon the facts of each individual case. They may be of very low gravity, warranting the assessment of no penalty, as we held in Secretary of Labor v. J.E. Chilton Millwork and Lumber Company, Inc., In other situations we have found small penalties to be appropriate for such violations. Secretary of Labor v. Lake Butler Apparel Company, Secretary of Labor v. Buhls Laundry and Dry Cleaning, Inc., Secretary of Labor v. Hydroswift Corporation, On occasion we have assessed substantial penalties. Secretary of Labor v. Baltz Bros. Packing Company, Secretary of Labor v. Dreher Pickle Company, Indeed, in the latter case we found a violation of an electrical safety standard to be serious in nature and assessed a penalty of $1,000, the maximum under the Act.

In this case the Judge assessed a penalty of $55. We find the evidence of record to be as meager as that relating to the machine guarding violations. Therefore, for the reason stated above we affirm the Judge's assessment.

We note that Judge Mitchell properly found Respondent in violation of the seven items of the citation for which Complainant proposed penalties. On the other hand the decision of the Judge denies his authority to determine whether Respondent violated these same items of the citation. This inconsistency is a result of the Judge's conclusion of law that since the Respondent did not contest any of the 16 items of the citation, the citation itself has become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act.

We expressly disavow the Judge's application of section 10(a) insofar as he interprets it as divesting him of jurisdiction over the aforementioned seven items of Complainant's citation. At the same time we specifically adopt the Judge's correct conclusion that Respondent violated these items of the citation.

Accordingly, the Judge's order is amended to affirm items 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14 and 16 of Complainant's citation and as amended is affirmed. It is so ORDERED.

CONCURBY: MORAN

CONCUR:

MORAN, CHAIRMAN, concurring: I concur in affirming the Judge's decision in this case for the reasons given therein.

[The Judge's decision referred to herein follows]

MITCHELL, JUDGE, OSAHRC: This is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 651, et seq. ) (the Act hereinafter) contesting a Citation issued by the Secretary of Labor (Complainant) against Swan Lake Moulding Company (Respondent) under the authority vested in Complainant by Section 9(a) of the Act.

A workplace described as a "cabinet shop and retail building materials yard" located at Klamath Falls, Oregon was inspected on June 26, 1972 by a Compliance Safety and Health Officer (CSHO). The workplace was allegedly under Respondent's ownership, operation or control. During the inspection certain violations were noted. A non-serious Citation was issued on July 13, 1972 alleging Respondent's failure to comply with sixteen (16) specific occupational safety and health standards on June 26, 1972. The standards allegedly violated were promulgated by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Section 6 of the Act and are now codified at Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910. Respondent contests the penalties proposed for assessment in connection with seven (7) of the 16 items listed on the Citation.

These 7 violations are described in the Citation in the following language: (The penalties proposed in connection with each item are listed following the abatement date.)

Items 1 (29 CFR 1910.215(a)(2)):

"The sides of grinder wheels are unguarded: On a bench upstairs over a salesroom. On a B Line grinder in the cabinet shop."

Abate by -- "July 24, 1972." Proposed penalty -- "$25."

Item 4 (29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1)):

"There is poor housekeeping with tripping hazards:

1. In the Engineer building, floor has a hammer, round carton, boxes with blocked access to the shelves.

2. At the corner storage room, cartons, sheet metal, and debris.

3. In the tool room, chain, hose and rope on the floor.

4. In the bolt room boxes, cartons and sacked materials in the walking area.

5. At the shingle storage area, brick and steel bands, lumber underfoot."

Abate by -- "5 days." Proposed penalty -- "$50."

Item 6 (29 CFR 1910.22(b)(1)):

"There are broken floor surfaces with split plank and tripping hazards:

In the oil room.

On the deck of the paneling room, outside.

In the wire room."

Abate by -- "Aug. 14, 1972" Proposed penalty -- "$25."

Item 9 (29 CFR 1910.309(a)):

"There are no ground wires on:

(1) The grinder over the sales room.

(2) One Black & Decker panel saw, in the mill.

(3) On one drill press in the cabinet shop in violation of Article 250-42, National Electrical Code, NFPA 70-1971; ANSI C1-1971.

The electrical wiring of the disconnect for the pipe working power head is exposed to contact, the cover is open, in violation of Article 110-17, National Electrical Code, NFPA 70-1971, ANSI C1-1971.

There are five electrical disconnects near the pile room without identity in violation of Article 110-22, National Electrical Code, NFPA 70-1971; ANSI C1-1971.

(1) In the cabinet shop passage to the electrical disconnects is blocked by lumber leaning on the disconnects.

(2) Also in the Metler building. In violation of Article 240-16, National Electrical Code, NFPA 70-1971; ANSI C1-1971."

Abate by -- "July 24, 1972." Proposed penalty -- "$55."

Item 10 (29 CFR 1910.213(a)(9)):

"Power transmission belts are open and unguarded on:

(1) One planer in the cabinet shop.

(2) On the shaper, same shop.

(3) On the two belt drive of the bandsaw, same shop.

(4) Belt drive on the Dana James table saw.

(5) On the tennoner machine."

Abate by -- "Aug. 14, 1972. Proposed penalty -- "$110."

Item 14 (29 CFR 1910.213(j)(4)):

"There is no guard on the cutting head of the Yates-American joiner"

Abate by -- "Immediately." Proposed penalty -- "$25."

Item 16 (29 CFR 1910.213(d)(1)):

"There is no guard over the blade of the Dana James table saw located in the cabinet shop. There is no guard over the blade of the Yates-American table saw in the same shop."

Abate by -- "Aug. 2, 1972" Proposed penalty -- "$25."

Pursuant to the enforcement procedure provided in Section 10(a) of the Act, Respondent was duly advised by a "Notification of Proposed Penalty" dated July 13, 1972 of the proposal to assess penalties in connection with 7 of the 16 items in the above recital of the violations. The Citation and Notification of Proposed Penalty were amended by Complainant and transmitted to Respondent under date of July 28, 1972. This amendment extended the abatement dates on Items 5 and 11 to September 18, 1972 and on Item 16 to September 20, 1972. No other change was made in the Citation or Notification of Proposed Penalty.

In a timely manner Respondent contested the seven (7) proposed penalties but did not contest any of the alleged violations. Since the nine (9) items of the Citation for which no penalties are assessed are not contested they become a final order of the Commission pursuant to Section 10 of the Act.

A complaint was duly filed by Complainant and answered by Respondent. In the Answer Respondent states that the proposed penalties are being contested with regard to the amounts. Respondent requests copies of penalties assessed for similar deficiencies in other retail lumber yards. Respondent also requests the names of retail lumber yards in Klamath Falls which have been inspected together with copies of citations and penalties involved. These requests are repeated in Respondent's response to the Commission's Instructions to Participants. As an alternative to Complainant's providing the desired information, Respondent requested dismissal of Complainant's action. The case was subsequently assigned to OSAHRC Judge Jerry W. Mitchell for hearing, Formal hearing was held at Klamath Falls, Oregon on November 9, 1972.

PROCEEDING AND EVIDENCE

When the hearing convened Complainant was represented by legal counsel and Respondent was represented by its President and also by its safety representative, neither of whom are attorneys. Respondent's president stated that all affected employees had received notice of all proceedings and had signed a document acknowledging receipt of the notice. No person representing the affected employees was present. Although Respondent's safety representative was an affected employee, he spoke for himself only -- not for any other employees.

As a result of preliminary statements by the parties and following discussion on the record it was agreed that there was no contest with regard to the nine (9) items of the Citation for which no penalties were proposed. Respondent's representative conceded that the occurrence of the violations is not contested. The contest deals with the "justice of the amounts of the penalties and whether they should be assessed at all" (Record pg 9). He stated further:

. . . That is, I am not disputing what Mr. Beals (the CSHO) found. I am disputing the appropriatness of the amount of these penalties. . . .

The appropriateness of the penalties and we want to bring out whether there has been discrimination against us in this matter. We want to bring that out. We will not forego that (Record pg. 16).

The hearing thus proceeding with the only issue being the appropriateness of the penalties proposed.

During the preliminary discussion Respondent renewed the request made in its answer and in its response to the Commission's Instructions to Participants. In the discussion Respondent disclosed that only one other retail lumber yard had been inspected in the state of Oregon and none, except Respondent's in Klamath Falls. The thrust of Respondent's argument is that it has been unfairly discriminated against in being singled out for inspection. The discussion was concluded with the ruling that Complainant would not be directed to produce records of any other inspections since any such inspections are immaterial to this proceeding. Respondent was reserved the right to argue the matter in its brief.

Complainant's first witness was the CSHO who inspected Respondent's workplace on June 26, 1972. He testified with regard to the violations he observed during the inspection and described each of the violations for which penalties are proposed. He also described the hazard involved in each instance. He explained the system he used in arriving at the proposed penalties and testified that Respondent was given twenty precent credit for good faith and twenty percent credit for history as well as five percent credit for size (21 employees). Respondent was also given an additional fifty percent credit for prompt abatement. This witness stated that Respondent's representatives were most co-operative during the inspection and that the company had a very positive attitude towards safety for its employees. In mutual admiration Respondent's president stated that the CSHO was extremely reasonable, courteous, co-operative and helpful.

During cross-examination of this witness Respondent's representative read a newspaper article into the record. The article described certain OSHA inspections and the resulting proposed penalties.

Complainant called Respondent's president as the second witness. He testified that Respondent's gross annual business is more than $500,000. He stated that 6/10 of one percent of the Company's sales were made to residents of California. He admitted that the company sold many items of hardware and building materials which were produced beyond the borders of Oregon.

Respondent's representative did not call any witnesses nor offer any evidence, other than the newspaper clipping read into evidence during cross-examination of the CSHO. He presented his views in the form of an argument in which he insisted that the Act was unfair. He also argued that the CSHO was over-zealous in application of the standards as compared to other CSHO's making inspections. He insisted that his company was discriminated against by being singled out for inspection while no other inspections were made in Klamath Falls.

Subsequent to the close of the hearing Claimant and Respondent each filed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Briefs. Respondent also filed exceptions to Complainant's proposals.

DISCUSSION

1. RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO DISMISS THE ACTION.

Respondent's representative has presented his side of the contest in a concise and admirable manner and has made the most of the materials available to him. His repeated requests for dismissal of this action must be disposed of as a preliminary to discussion of the crucial issue here. The thrust of his repeated requests for dismissal of this action is that Complainant has failed to provide the requested copies of any other citations issued after inspections of workplaces similar to Respondent's. As a buttressing argument Respondent insists that it has been unfairly discriminated against because no other similar workplace in Klamath Fallsand only one in the state of Oregon-has been inspected.

All of these arguments are to no avail. The provisions of the Act are explicit. Congressional purpose and policy are declared to be "to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions" (Section 2(b) of the Act). Section 8 authorizes the inspection of any workplace where work is being performed by an employee of an employer. That is exactly what occurred here. Respondent's workplace was inspected in full accordance with the requirements of Section 8 of the Act. Respondent cannot complain and successfully negate that inspection because no other workplace in the vicinity was inspected.

The conditions and circumstances existing at Respondent's workplace are the key -- Complainant must establish the existence of the violations on that basis. Complainant cannot show that Respondent's workplace is not as safe and orderly as another workplace -- whether it be across the street or elsewhere in the state or nation -- and thereby establish Respondent's violation of the standards. If Complainant attempted to prove the violations in this manner Respondent would have justification for objection. Complainant did not. Since the conditions at another workplace have no bearing on a violation found at Respondent's workplace, the lack of inspections of other workplaces in the vicinity can likewise have no bearing on the validity of the citation issued to Respondent.

In a similar vein, the amount of the penalty depends on the specific conditions found during the inspection. These are evaluated in the case of each violation so as to arrive at the gravity of the violation and then the basic penalty is reduced in accordance with three other criteria. Because these various considerations are made with respect to each individual violation, there is no way in which the amount of penalties assessed at one workplace can be compared with those assessed at any other workplace. This is particularly so in the instant matter where Respondent is comparing the penalties assessed against it with those reported in a newspaper article. There is no way to determine the gravity of the items reported in the article. This alone precludes any comparison of the penalties. Since there is no way to compare penalties assessed at different workplaces there is no reason for Complainant to furnish copies of other citations and penalties as requested by Respondent. They would be entirely immaterial with relation to these proceedings. Respondent's request is denied.

Respondent has not sustained its request for dismissal of this action. There has been no showing of discrimination or unfairness and indeed it would be impossible for Respondent to make such a showing under the circumstances involved here. Respondent's request for dismissal is denied.

2. RESPONDENT IS INVOLVED IN "COMMERCE" AND IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE ACT.

Respondent argues that since most of its retail business (99.4%) is with residents of the state of Oregon the Act does not apply to or cover its workplace. This argument fails.

Congress has found that "personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations impose a substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce . . . ." Congress then went on to define "commerce" for the purpose of the Act as

. . . trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between a State and any place outside thereof . . . Section 3(3) of the Act.

Respondent admits that it does 6/10 of one percent of its retail business with residents of California. This amounts to more than $30,000 annually, certainly enough to constitute interstate commerce. In addition to this business with out-of-state customers Respondent also admits that many of the items of hardware and building materials which it sells originate or are manufactured beyond the borders of Oregon. These items all reach Respondent through the medium of interstate commerce. These admissions by Respondent allow only one conclusion -- Respondent's business does affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. Respondent's argument is rejected. Its workplace is subject to the Act.

3. ALL ITEMS OF VIOLATION ON THE CITATION ARE AFFIRMED.

Respondent has not contested any of the items of alleged violation -- only the reasonableness of the penalties proposed. Since Respondent has not contested the violations within the time limit established in Section 10(b) of the Act, the Citation is now a final order of the Commission as to the violations by operation of that Section.

4. REASONABLENESS OF THE PENALTIES.

The Commission has stated that the principal purpose of the Act is to obtain compliance with its requirements in order to ensure a safe and healthful workplace for the affected employees. It has found that relatively minor penalties do little to effectuate this objective of the Act (See J.E. Chilton Millwork and Lumber Company, Inc., With this principle in mind, and following the mandate of Section 17(j) of the Act, each of the seven (7) penalties proposed by Complainant and contested by Respondent in the instant case will be analyzed in order to determine their appropriateness.

Three of the four criteria listed in Section 17(j) for consideration in arriving at an appropriate penalty apply uniformly to each of the seven penalties under review. These three criteria were considered by the CSHO during his computation of the penalties proposed herein. He allowed reductions of twenty percent for good faith, twenty percent for the lack of history of previous violations and five percent for the small size of Respondent's business. These are the maximum allowances under the procedures and guide lines established by Complainant. In addition the CSHO gave Respondent an additional fifty percent credit for prompt abatement of the violations. Again this is the maximum permitted under Complainant's established procedures.

The procedures established by Complainant for the guidance of its CSHO's in computing penalties proposed in a given case are somewhat mechanical but appear to give adequate consideration to Section 17(j) criteria. In this particular case it is appropriate to note the following general discussion of Section 17(j) criteria in relation to all of the proposed penalties.

(a) Size of business -- Respondent has twenty-one employees and is thus a relatively small company. As a result fewer employees are exposed to the cited hazards than would be the case in a larger company. Exposure to the cited hazards is further reduced by the fact that ordinarily only one employee operates the machines involved in the bulk of the violations. Another consideration under this criterion is the economic impact of the amount of the penalty upon the employer's business. A small company will be penalized relatively more severely by a given dollar amount than will a larger company if assessed the same amount. This aspect of the size of Respondent's business does not help Respondent here. The record does not establish Respondent's size in relation to other similar local businesses but it does show that Respondent's annual gross business exceeds $500,000. The range of penalties under consideration here is thus relatively insignificant in comparison. These two considerations under this criterion thus somewhat balance each other.

(b) Respondent's history of previous violations -- These proceedings resulted from the first inspection of Respondent's workplace under the Act, thus there is no history of previous violations. In addition it is to be noted that Respondent's president stated that the Company has had a good safety record over the past fifty-two years. There is no evidence to the contrary. Respondent is entitled to full consideration and credit in regard to past history.

(c) Good faith -- The evidence clearly establishes the excellent safety attitude of Respondent and its employees. Prior to the inspection Respondent's Safety Director had researched the requirements of the Act and attended meetings where he learned the manner in which the Act applied. There was full and courteous co-operation with the CSHO throughout the inspection. In many instances a corrective action was taken as soon as the violation was identified. The CSHO was so impressed with the positive safety attitude and co-operation of everyone involved that he stated they were "some of the finest people" he met during his service as a CSHO (Record pgs. 30 and 31). There is no evidence of a negative attitude. Obviously Respondent has demonstrated "good faith."

I conclude that Respondent is entitled to full consideration and credit under each of these three Section 17(j) criteria. I also conclude that the allowance accorded in the instant proceeding under these criteria is reasonable and appropriate. In addition to consideration of these Section 17(j) criteria the proposed penalties also include an allowance for prompt abatement. I find that reduction of the base penalty by this allowance is also appropriate. All of these considerations apply to each item discussed below-

Item 1 -- two grinder wheels with sides unguarded.

The hazard is described as involving damage to the wheel if it is struck by an object being carried past its location (Record pg. 32.) Such a striking may so damage the wheel as to cause pieces to fly from it during some future use. Potential injury is thus somewhat remote. The gravity of this violation is considered to be low in range. Taking all things into consideration and realizing that relatively minor penalties do little to effectuate the objective of the Act and in view of Respondent's good faith it is concluded that no penalty should be assessed in connection with this item. The penalty is vacated.

Item 4 -- poor housekeeping with tripping hazards in five areas. The hazard from these violations is identified as the denial of safe access and egress and also as causing men to fall from tripping (Record pgs. 32 and 33). The danger from such cluttered areas seems obvious. In particular, the blocking of safe egress greatly increases the danger to employees in case of the occurrence of a fire. The gravity of this violation is thus considered to be of a higher order than is Item 1. Under this circumstance the proposed penalty of $50 is found to be appropriate. It is affirmed.

Item 6 -- broken floor surfaces with tripping hazards in three rooms. The tripping hazards as described are rather obvious to an employee passing through these rooms. They are regarded as being of a low order of gravity. For this reason, as well as those listed under Item 1, I conclude that no penalty should be assessed in connection with this Item. The penalty is vacated.

Item 9 -- electric tools ungrounded, electrical disconnect with door open and wiring exposed, five electrical disconnects unlabled and two electrical disconnects blocked with lumber leaning against one and pallets of material in front of the other (Record pgs. 34-37.) The hazards here are of a very high order. Any electrical shock from sources such as the tools can very easily be fatal. The ground is absolutely necessary since the user can not tell whether the tool he is using is shorted until it is too late. The exposed wiring in the disconnect also poses a hazard of a high order. Touching of the wiring by one of the pipes being worked with nearby can also easily lead to death. It should be noted here that this violation was immediately remedied. The unlabeled as well as the blocked disconnects are also violations of a high order of gravity. They must be easily accessible as well as clearly marked or they will be worse than if they were not provided. In times of emergency the workers will rely on the existence of the disconnects but be denied their instant use if they are in the condition described in the evidence. Under the conditions involved here and particularly because of the number of separate items, I find that the gravity of these violations is of a high order. This group of violations falls very close to the dividing line between the non-serious and serious categories. In any event I rate these violations as being of a high order of gravity under the non-serious category. The proposed penalty of $55.00 is considered reasonable and appropriate under these circumstances. It is affirmed.

Item 10 -- power transmission belts open and unguarded on five machines. The serious hazards involved in connection with each machine is rather obvious -- if an employee is caught by the machine he will receive bruised flesh and broken bones at best and instantaneous amputation if he is a little more unfortunate. There is no question. The proposed penalty of $110 is appropriate. It is affirmed.

Item 14 -- no guard on the cutting head of a joiner. Again the hazard is obvious -- instant dismemberment of any part of the body coming into contact with it (Record pgs. 39 and 40). This machine is one of the most dangerous in a woodworking shop. Even with good guards in place, use of the machine requires great caution. The gravity could thus warrant a greater penalty than that proposed. The proposed penalty of $25 is affirmed.

Item 16 -- blades of two table saws unguarded. The hazard -- instant amputation -- is again obvious. Exposure is increased because two saws are involved. In addition Respondent's service to its customers requires the use of saws more frequently than the other tools and machines. For these reasons I find that this violation is moderate in range of gravity. The proposed penalty of $25 is affirmed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Swan Lake Moulding Company, Respondent herein, is a corporation maintaining a place of business at Klamath Falls, Oregon (Complaint, Paragraph I and Answer, Paragraph I).

2. On June 26, 1972 and at all other times pertinent hereto Respondent was engaged in the retail lumber business. In addition to lumber, Respondent sold items of hardware and building materials. Many of these latter items originate beyond the borders of Oregon and came to Respondent in interstate commerce (Record pgs. 69-76). Respondent advertises in a telephone book serving communities in Oregon and California (Record pg. 77) and actually transacts at least 6/10 of one percent of its annual half-million dollar business (at least $30,000 annually) with California residents.

3. At all times pertinent hereto Respondent employed twenty-one employees at its workplace (Record pg. 44).

4. As the result of an inspection of Respondent's workplace on June 26, 1972, Respondent was issued a Citation dated July 13, 1972 alleging violation of sixteen specific safety and health standards. On the same date a Notification of Proposed Penalty was also sent Respondent proposing the assessment of penalties in connection with items 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 14 and 16. A penalty of $0 was proposed for the other 9 items. The Citation was amended and re-issued under date of July 28, 1972. The amendment postponed the abatement dates under three items. No other change was made in the Citation and there was no change in the Notification of Penalty.

5. On August 14, 1972 Respondent contested the reasonableness of the amount of the penalties in a timely manner but did not contest any of the violations.

6. The evidence establishes that the following unsafe conditions existed at Respondent's workplace on June 26, 1972. Respondent has not contested their existence.

Item 1 -- sides of two grinder wheels unguarded.

Item 4 -- poor housekeeping with tripping hazards in five areas.

Item 6 -- broken floor surfaces with split plank and tripping hazards in three rooms.

Item 9 -- no ground wire on three electrical tools; cover open on electrical disconnect box with wires exposed; five electrical disconnects without identifying marks; passage to an electrical disconnect blocked by lumber leaning against it; and another electrical disconnect blocked by material on pallets.

Item 10 -- power transmission belts on five machines open and unguarded.

Item 14 -- no guard on the cutting head of one joiner.

Item 16 -- no guards over the blades of two separate table saws.

7. Respondent has an excellent safety record with only very minor accidents over a period of fifty-two years. There have been no fatalities during this time (Record pgs. 10, 80 and 83).

8. Respondent and its employees have an excellent safety attitude and were very co-operative with the CSHO throughout the inspection (Record pgs. 30, 31, 35 and 41).

9. Some of the violations observed were corrected during the inspection (Record pg. 41) and most of the others were corrected in a few days.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. At all times material hereto, Respondent, Swan Lake Moulding Company, was an employer engaged in a business affecting interstate commerce within the meaning of Section 3 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. On August 14, 1972 Respondent filed a letter contesting the penalties proposed in connection with violations of certain safety and health standards and thereby brought itself and the subject matter of this action within the jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.

2. Since Respondent has not contested any of the sixteen alleged items of violations listed on the Citation herein they are a final order of the Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(a) of the Act.

3. Respondent violated the following specific safety and health standards promulgated at 29 CFR Part 1910 in the ways set forth under the corresponding Item numbers in Finding of Fact 6:

Item 1 -- 1910.215(a)(2);

Item 4 -- 1910.22(a)(1);

Item 6 -- 1910.22(b)(1);

Item 9 -- 1910.309(a);

Item 10 -- 1910.213(a)(9);

Item 14 -- 1910.213(j)(4);

Item 16 -- 1910.213(d)(1);

None of these violations are of a serious nature as that term is defined in Section 17(k) of the Act.

4. The following respective penalties totaling $265 are assessed against Respondent. They are appropriate and reasonable under the circumstances and will serve to effectuate the purpose of the Act:

Item 1	$0;
Item 4	$50;
Item 6	$0;
Item 9	$55;
Item 10	$110;
Item 14	$25;
Item 16	$25.

The penalties recommended for Items 4, 9, 10, 14 and 16 are thus affirmed and are assessed against Respondent.

ORDER

Based upon the entire record herein and the foregoing Findings and Conclusions and for good cause shown, it is hereby

ORDERED that Respondent's request for dismissal of this action be, and the same is hereby DENIED, and it is further

ORDERED that a total penalty of $265 be, and the same is hereby, assessed against Respondent.