FRANKFORD WOOLEN MILLS, INC.

OSHRC Docket No. 961

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

June 13, 1973

Before MORAN, CHAIRMAN; VAN NAMEE, COMMISSIONER.

OPINIONBY: VAN NAMEE

OPINION:

VAN NAMEE, COMMISSIONER: On December 19, 1972, Judge David H. Harris issued his decision whereby he affirmed 19 and vacated 5 alleged non-serious violations of occupational safety and health standards and of section 5(a)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.A. 651 et seq., hereinafter "the Act").

In accordance with the authority of section 12(j) of the Act, I directed review of the Judge's decision. Briefs were requested on the issue of whether reversible error had been committed by finding Respondent (a lessee) in violation of the standard prescribed by 29 C.F.R. 1910.22(d)(1) (item 3 of the citation). A civil penalty of $45 was assessed for the violation.

The standard is as follows:

(d) Floor loading protection. (1) In every building or other structure, or part thereof, used for mercantile, business, industrial, or storage purposes, the loads approved by the building official shall be marked on plates of approved design which shall be supplied and securely affixed by the owner of the building, or his duly authorized agent, in a conspicuous place in each space to which they relate. Such plates shall not be removed or defaced but if lost, removed, or defaced, shall be replaced by the owner or his agent (Emphasis in the body of the standard supplied by the Commission).

As indicated in the direction for review, the evidence of record is that Respondent is the lessee and not the "owner" of the building inspected by Complainant. Furthermore, the record does not indicate that Respondent was the agent of the owner of the building. Since the standard, by its terms, imposes a duty on an owner or his agent, compliance by this Respondent was not required.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Judge's order be and the same is hereby modified to reverse that portion wherein a violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.22(d)(1) is affirmed and a penalty assessed therefor, and the Judge's order, as modified, be and the same is hereby affirmed.

[The Judge's decision referred to herein follows]

HARRIS, JUDGE, OSAHRC: This is an action under Section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651, et seq. (hereinafter the Act), to review a citation issued by the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter Secretary) pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act and a proposed assessment of penalty thereon issued pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Act.

The citation (P-1), issued on May 23, 1972, alleges that Frankford Woolen Mills, Incorporated (hereinafter Frankford), in a workplace under its ownership, operation or control located at Bridge Street, in Clifton Heights, Pennsylvania violated the Act in 24 respects, to wit:

Item Number -- Standard or regulation allegedly violated. -- Description of alleged violation -- Date on which alleged violation must be corrected.

1 -- 29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2) -- The floor around the saw on the first floor was not maintained in a clean condition. A large amount of sawdust was noted on the floor in this area. -- June 22, 1972.

2 -- 29 CFR 1910.22(a)(3) -- The floors of the working place throughout the plant, particularly around the "wet napper" machine, were not kept free from splinters, holes, or loose boards. -- June 22, 1972.

3 -- 29 CFR 1910.22(d)(1) -- The loads approved by the building official and marked on plates, were not supplied and securely affixed by the owner of the building in a conspicuous place on each floor. -- June 22, 1972.

4 -- 29 CFR 1910.23(a)(1) -- Stairway floor opening, leading from the office to the maintenance shop, was not guarded by a standard railing. -- June 22, 1972.

The railing was not provided on all exposed sides (except at the entrance to the stairway).

5 -- 29 CFR 1910.23(d)(1)(i) -- The flight of stairs, leading from the office to the maintenance shop, with both sides enclosed, was not equipped with at least one handrail, preferably on the right side descending. -- June 22, 1972.

6 -- 29 CFR 1910.25(d)(1)(x) -- A 6-foot wooden stepladder, in the boiler room, with a broken step and broken hardware, had not been removed from service for repair or destruction, and tagged or marked as "Dangerous, Do Not Use." -- Immediately.

7 -- 29 CFR 1910.36(d)(1) -- An exit, on the third floor, was not maintained free of all obstructions or impediments to full instant use. This means of egress was noted to be blockrd by cardobard and a cart. -- Immediately.

8 -- 29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1) -- Suitable eye protection was not provided for an employee who was operating a drill, in the maintenance shop, which presented the hazard of flying metal. -- Immediately.

9 -- 29 CFR 1910.157(a)(2) -- Many fire extinguishers in the plant were not conspicuously located where they were readily accessible and immediately available in the event of a fire. Waste containers and boxes of material were noted to be blocking access to these extinguishers. -- Immediately.

10 -- 29 CFR 1910.157(a)(6) -- Most of the fire extinguishers in the plant were installed so that their tops were more than five feet above the floor. -- June 7, 1972.

11 -- 29 CFR 1910.157(d)(2)(i) -- A fire extinguisher in the boiler room was not inspected at least at monthly intervals to detect any obvious physical damage, corrosion, or other impairment. The hose of this extinguisher was noted to be defective, and the protective covering was missing. -- Immediately.

12 -- 29 CFR 1910.157(d)(3)(iv) -- A CO<2> fire extinguisher, in the boiler room, did not have a durable tag securely attached to show the maintenance or recharge date. -- June 7, 1972.

13 -- 29 CFR 1910.157(d)(4)(iii), and (d)(4)(viii) -- There was no evidence to indicate that several fire extinguishers, in the plant, had been hydrostatically tested at the designated intervals. -- June 7, 1972.

14 -- 29 CFR 1910.179(b)(5) -- The rated load of the overhead crane used to lift crates of wet, dyed material, was not plainly marked on each side of the crane. -- June 7, 1972.

15 -- 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(5) -- The blades of a floor fan, with the periphery of the blades less than seven feet above the floor, in the warping department, were not provided with a guard that has openings no larger than one-half inch. -- June 7, 1972.

16 -- 29 CFR 1910.213(c)(1) -- A circular hand-fed table saw, on the first floor, was not guarded by a hood which completely enclosed that portion of the saw above the table and that portion of the saw above the material being cut. -- June 22, 1972.

17 -- 29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4) -- A Walker-Turner grinder, on the third floor, was not provided with work rests to support off-hand grinding work. -- June 22, 1972.

18 -- 29 CFR 1910.219(f)(1) -- The gears of the looms, in the plant were not guarded in accordance with the provisions of this subparagraph. -- June 22, 1972.

19 -- 29 CFR 1910.219(c)(3)(i) -- The mechanical power-transmission apparatus, vertical belt drive, of the lathe in the maintenance shop was not enclosed by a guard. -- June 22, 1972.

20 -- 29 CFR 1910.242(a) -- The employer did not furnish equipment that was safe for employee use in the knitting department. A taped air hose was being used to blow off equipment. -- June 7, 1972.

21 -- 29 CFR 1910.242(b) -- Compressed air, used for cleaning purposes throughout the plant, was operating at a pressure in excess of the allowable 30 P.S.I. -- June 22, 1972.

22 -- 29 CFR 1910.252(b)(4)(vii) -- The electrode holder, not in use, in the maintenance shop was not so placed that it could not make electrical contact with persons or conducting objects. The electrode was not removed from this holder, and the holder was carelessly placed. -- June 22, 1972.

23 -- National Electric Code, NFPA 70-1971, Art. 250.42(a), as adopted by 29 CFR 1910.309(a) -- The exposed noncurrent-carrying metal parts of fixed equipment in the maintenance shop (such as a lathe, drill grinder, etc.) that are likely to become energized, were not grounded. -- June 22, 1972.

24 -- 29 CFR 1910.22(b)(1) -- Aisles next to dyeing kettles in the dyeing area were not kept in good repair. The metal covers over the drains in this area are bent and corroded and present a tripping and falling hazard. -- June 22, 1972.

The citation does not charge that any of the said violations were serious violations within the meaning of Section 17(k) of the Act. A Notification of Proposed Penalty (P-2) (hereinafter NPP), also issued on May 23, 1972, proposes the assessment of penalties for 12 of the alleged violations ranging in amount from $35.00 to $60.00 and aggragating the sum of $545. n1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 The NPP shows a total of $540.00 which is the result of an error in the addition.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Respondent filed a Notice of Contest dated May 30, 1972 (R-1) by which it contested both the citation and the proposed penalty.

The within matter was referred to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission for hearing pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act on June 5, 1972, and on October 25, 1972, the within matter was assigned to me for hearing pursuant to Section 12(e) of the Act.

Pursuant to notice and by agreement of the parties, a prehearing conference and the hearing were held on November 8, 1972, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Frankford acknowledged that it received the Citation (P-1) and Notification of Proposed Penalty (P-2) on May 23, 1972, (Tr. 17) and it was stipulated that the Citation was posted at Frankford's plant (C-1).

The recognized bargaining agent of Frankford's employees, Textile Workers Union, did not appear nor did any other affected employee indicate a desire to participate in these proceedings (Tr. 42).

It was stipulated by the parties that Frankford is a small to medium size textile manufacturer, with 1971 sales of approximately $2.4 million (Tr. 135); that it employs an average of 153 employees of which approximately 123 were affected by conditions at the workplace referred to herein; that the scope of the authority of any witness who is an officer or employee of the Respondent is not a matter of dispute; that the proper name of the Respondent is Frankford Woolen Mills, Inc., and that it is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania and has its principle office at Wister Street and Godfrey Avenue in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; that Frankford concedes that it is engaged in a business affecting commerce and subject to the jurisdiction of the Act; that none of it's employees were injured at the time and place of the violations alleged in the citation herein; that all machinery and equipment located at the workplace referred to herein, with the exception of one napper machine, are the property of Southan Manufacturing Company, a Pennsylvania corporation (hereinafter Souhan); that Frankford was lawfully entitled to and did use all the said machinery and equipment in its manufacturing business; that Frankford was required to secure the permission of Souhan in order to change or verify any of the said machinery and equipment; that Frankford has no history of previous violations of any law or regulation affecting the health or safety of employees; and that Frankford ceased operations at the said workplace on July 31, 1972 (C-1).

It was further stipulated by and between the parties hereto that the facts as alleged in the citation (P-1) with reference to the following items listed therein are true and correct and that the conditions alleged therein have been abated: Item 1 (Compl. para. IV(a)), charging a violation of the stancard at 29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2) and abated on May 10, 1972; Item 4 (Compl. para. IV(d)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.23(a)(1) and abated on or about June 14, 1972; Item 5 (Compl. para. IV(e)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.23(d)(1)(i) and abated on or about June 14, 1972; Item 7 (Compl. para. IV(g)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.36(d)(1) and abated on May 10, 1972; item 8 (Comp. para. IV(h)) charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1) and abated on May 10, 1972; Item 10 (Compl. para. IV(j)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.157(a)(6)) and timely abated; Item 11 (Compl. para. IV(k)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.157(d)(2)(i) and abated on May 10, 1972; Item 12 (Compl. para. IV(l)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.157(d)(3)(iv) and abated on May 10, 1972; Item 14 (Compl. para. IV(n)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.179(b)(5) and abated on or about June 5, 1972; Item 15 (Compl. para. IV(o)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(5) and abated on or about June 1, 1972; Item 16 (Compl. para. IV(p)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.213(c)(1) and abated on or about June 12, 1972; Item 17 (Compl. para. IV(g)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4) and timely abated; Item 18 (Compl. para. IV(r)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.219(f)(1) and abated on or about June 21, 1972 and Item 20 (Compl. para. IV(l)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.242(a) and timely abated (C-1; Tr. 11).

With reference to Item 3 (Compl. para. IV(c)), charging a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.22(d)(1), it was stipulated that the facts as alleged in the citation (P-1) and in the complaint (Compl. para. IV(c)), are admitted to be true and correct and that Frankford takes the position that it is not liable therefore as a matter of law (C-1; Tr. 42).

Frankford, however, contests the reasonableness of each of the penalties proposed by the Complainant in connection with these Items. I take this to mean Items 3, 4, 10, 16, 18, and 21. The remainder do not have penalties proposed (Tr. 11; 15; 42).

There being no objection thereto, the word "employees" was ordered amended to read "employers" in paragraph IV(h) of the complaint; the date in line 5 of paragraph IV(h) of the complaint was ordered amended to read "May 31, 1972;" and Item #19 in the citation (P-1) was ordered amended to charge a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.219(c)(3)(i) as stated in paragraph IV(s) of the complaint (Tr. 12-14; 15-17).

Frankford, as appears from the foregoing, in addition, takes issue with the facts alleged in the citation and in the complaint and with the reasonableness of the penalties proposed in the NPP (P-2) in connection with Items #2 (Compl. para. IV(b)), #3 (Compl. para. IV(c)), #6 (Compl. para. IV(f)), #9 (Compl. para. IV(i)), #13 (Compl. para. IV(m)), #19 (Compl. para. IV(s)), #21 (Compl. para. IV(n)), #22 (Compl. para. IV(v)), n2 #23 (Compl. para. IV(w)) and #24 (Compl. para. IV(x)) (Tr. 9-10; 42; C-1; Frankford foundation of issues, 10/25/72).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n2 No penalty is proposed in the NPP (P-2).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

After hearing the testimony of the witnesses and having considered the same together with the exhibits and the stipulations, representations and admissions of the parties, it is concluded that the substantial evidence, on the record considered as a whole, supports the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The premises used by Frankford at the workplace identified in the citation consisted of one 3 story building devoted to offices and final processing of manufactured materials, one 5 story building devoted to manufacturing the materials and a 1 story structure used as a boiler room. These premises, which are owned by Souhan, were occupied by Frankford under a lease commencing on May 1, 1971 and expiring on April 30, 1972, with an option to renew or to purchase the premises. At the time of the inspection by the compliance officer herein, which took place on May 10, 1972, the lease had expired and Frankford retained possession as a tenant from month to month. The leasehold apparently included the machinery and equipment in these buildings which had been devoted to similar manufacturing processes by Souhan prior to May 1, 1971. Frankford's vice-president, who was in charge of the premises herein, stated that Frankford, as lessee, had no right to make any changes and that it owned only one of the machines used in manufacturing its materials, described as a "napper." It is also not disputed that Frankford vacated the premises in question at the end of July, 1972 (Tr. 113).

The standard at 29 CFR 1910.22(a)(3), alleged to have been violated in Item #2 of the citation, aforesaid, provides, in pertinent part:

(a) Housekeeping.

(3) To facilitate cleaning, every floor, working place, and passageway shall be kept free from protruding nails, splinters, holes, or loose boards.

It is established that the area behind the wet napper machine contained loose boards, some of which exhibited splintered ends and that the flooring in the filter room contained a hole and an open, exposed drain, all in violation of the said standard at 29 CFR 1910.22(a)(3), (Tr. 23-39; P-9; P-10; P-13; P-14; P-15).

The standard at 29 CFR 1910.22(d)(1), alleged to have been violated in item #3 of the citation aforesaid, provides, in pertinent part:

(d) Floor loading protection.

(1) In every building or other structure, or part thereof, used for mercantile, business, industrial, or storage purposes, the loads approved by the building official shall be marked on plates of approved design which shall be supplied and securely affixed by the owner of the building, or his duly authorized agent, in a conspicuous place in each space to which they relate (Emphasis supplied).

Frankford has conceded that the load plates required by the standard were not supplied and affixed by the owner of the building. It is not disputed that Frankford is not the owner of the building and there is no proof in the record before me that it was the owner's agent for the purpose of the standard. 29 CFR 1910.22 "applies to all permanent places of employment, except where domestic, mining, or agricultural work only is performed" and there is no doubt that it applies to the workplace furnished to its employees by Frankford. That workplace is one which must conform to the standards promulgated pursuant to the Act and must therefore be one which must conform to the requirement of sub-section 29 CFR 1910.22, and, by permitting or requiring its employees to work in a workplace wherein the necessary load plates were not displayed, Frankford was in violation of the said standard.

The standard alleged to have been violated in Item #6 of the citation herein, 29 CFR 1910.25(d)(1)(x), provides:

(d) Care and use of ladders. (1) Care. (x) Ladders shall be inspected frequently and those which have developed defects shall be withdrawn from service for repair or destruction and tagged or marked as "Dangerous, Do Not Use" (Emphasis supplied).

It is established that the ladder in question was to all intents and purposes withdrawn from service and intended for destruction. It was placed in the boiler room where there was no authorized access by other than maintenance personnel and personnel assigned thereto. However, the ladder was not tagged as the standard requires and Frankford was in violation thereof. It seems unnecessary to add that until destroyed, the ladder continued to be a hazard while it remained untagged (Tr. 40-42; 65; 118).

The standard at 29 CFR 1910.157(a)(2), alleged to have been violated in Item #9 of the said citation provides:

(a) General requirements.

(2) Location. Extinguishers shall be conspicuously located where they will be readily accessible and immediately available in the event of fire. They shall be located along normal paths of travel.

The "obstructions" described by the compliance officer were such as were normally in use in and around the locations of the fire extinguishers and did not render the fire extinguishers to be not readily accessible and immediately available in the event of fire (Tr. 43-45; 65-69; 118-120; P-7; P-8; P-12). Frankford was not violation of the standard herein.

The standard at 29 CFR 1910.157(d)(4)(iii) and (d)(4)(viii), alleged as having been violated in Items #13 of the citation herein, provides, in pertinent part:

(d) Inspection, maintenance, and hydrostatic tests --

(4) Hydrostatic tests.

(iii) At intervals not exceeding those specified in Table L-3 and subdivision (iv) of this subparagraph, extinguishers shall be hydrostatically tested. The first hydrostatic retest may be conducted between the fifth and sixth years for those with a designated test interval of 5 years.

(viii) The hydrostatic test date shall be recorded on a record tag of metal or equally durable material, or a suitable metallized decal which shall be affixed (by a heatless process) to the shell of an extinguisher which favorably passes the hydrostatic text.

The testimony of the compliance officer fails to indicate whether or not any of the extinguishers shown in Exhibits P-7, P-8 and P-12 had been retested more than once. It is not established that any of these fire extinguishers had not been hydrostatically tested for a period longer than 6 years nor is it clear from the testimony or from the said Exhibits that the required record tags or metallized decals showing a favorable hydrostatic testing were not affixed to them (Tr. 43; 45-47; 70-72; P-7; P-8; P-12). Frankford was, consequently not in violation of the standard as alleged in Item #13 of the within citation.

Item #19 of the citation herein, as amended, alleges that Frankford violated the standard at 29 CFR 1910.219(e)(8)(i), which provides:

(c) Belt, rope, and chain drives --

(3) Vertical and inclined belts.

(i) Vertical and inclined belts shall be enclosed by a guard conforming to standards in paragraphs (m) and (o) of this section.

It is clear, from the testimony of compliance officer and of Frankfords vice-president and as is shown on P-19, that the vertical belt drive in question was not provided with a guard of any kind (Tr. 47-49; 72; 119-120; 126; P-19). Frankford was, therefore in violation of the standard as alleged.

Item #21 of the citation herein alleges that Frankford violated the standard at 29 CFR 1910.242(b) which provides:

(b) Compressed air used for cleaning. Compressed air shall not be used for cleaning purposes except where reduced to less than 30 p.s.i. and then only with effective chip guarding and personal protective equipment.

It is not disputed that compressed air in excess of 30 p.s.i. was used for cleaning by Frankford's employees to its knowledge. Frankford was, therefore, in violation of the standard as alleged (Tr. 49-51; 72-74; 120-121).

Item #22 of the citation herein alleges that Frankford violated the standard at 29 CFR 1910.252(b)(4)(vii) which provides:

(b) Application, installation, and operation of arc welding and cutting equipment --

(4) Operation and maintenance --

(vii) Electrode holders. Electrode holders when not in use shall be so placed that they cannot make electrical contact with persons, conducting objects, fuel or compressed gas tanks.

The testimony of the compliance officer with regard to this alleged violation is vague, inconclusive and based upon an imperfect recollection. Complainant has not sustained his burden of proof thereon and it is not established that Frankford was in violation of the standard as alleged in Item #22, aforesaid (Tr. 53-55; 74-76).

Item #23 allges that Frankford violated the standard at 29 CFR 1910.309(a) in that

exposed noncurrent-carrying metal parts of fixed equipment in the maintenance shop (such as a lathe, drillgrinder, etc.) that are likely to become energized, were not grounded.

The complaint at paragraph IV(a) alleges that

(29 C.F.R. 1910.309(a) adopting National Electric Code NFPA 70-1971), Art. 250-42(a) requiring that exposed noncurrent carrying metal parts of fixed equipment likely to become energized shall be grounded. The said standard was violated in the fixed equipment in the Maintenance Shop, such as a lathe drill and grinder, were not grounded --

The standard provides:

(a) The requirements contained in the following articles and sections of the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70-1971: ANSI C1-1971 (Rev. of 1968) shall apply to all electrical installations and utilization equipment:

Articles:

250-42(a) Fixed Equipment Grounding, General

Article 250-42(a) of the National Electrical Code states:

250.42 Fixed Equipment. General, Exposed noncurrent-carrying metal parts of fixed equipment that are likely to become energized under abnormal conditions shall be grounded under any of the following conditions:

(a) Where within 8 feet vertically or 5 feet horizontally of ground or grounded metal objects and subject to contact by persons.

It is well known and generally accepted that exposed metal surfaces that are not normally energized, such as the frames and enclosures of electrically driven machinery, do become energized through failure of insulation of a live wire or part inside the equipment. The condition could worsen without further warning and possibly produce a fatal shock. An effective remedy for this hazard is the electrical connection of the frames of equipment to the earth, called grounding.

While it is clear that the equipment used by Frankford's employees is required to be grounded, there is a failure of proof that it was not grounded as the Code requires. The mere fact that the wiring system in Frankford's building was not grounded and that the electric plug and the receptacle which was the source of the electrical energy were not provided with ground wires, does not without more, establish that the equipment was not grounded in some other manner (Tr. 56-59; 128 1, 17-23).

Item #24 of the said citation charges a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.22(b)(1) which provides, in pertinent part:

(b) Aisles and passageways.

(1) Where mechanical handling equipment is used, sufficient safe clearances shall be allowed for aisles, -- Aisles and passageways shall be kept clear and in good repairs --

This subsection is effective in those instances and locations where "mechanical handling equipment is used." There is no proof in the record before me that mechanical handling equipment was in use in the dyeing area, or for that matter, any where else on Frankford's premises and I must perforce, find that the subsection alleged is not applicable and that Frankford was not in violation thereof.

As has been indicated hereinabove, Frankford contests the reasonableness of the penalties proposed by the Complainant as listed in the NPP (P-2). No penalties were proposed in connection with Items 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 and for reasons expressed herein it is not necessary to consider the penalties proposed in connection with Items 9, 13, 22, n3, 23 and 24. There remains for consideration the apropriateness of the penalties proposed for assessment in connection with Items 2, $65; 3, $45; 4, $40; 6, $40; 10, $35; 16, $60; 18, $35 and 21, $60. It maintains that in "view of Respondent's good faith, immediate use of air pressure in excess of 30 p.s.i. for cleaning employees' clothing after being advised that to do so was in violation of the pertinent standard (Tr. 81; 120-122) and who testified that "I really didn't see the point, nor did my company, in putting money into a building that, one, we did not own or felt we were responsible for. And two, we realized we were getting out of there; and it would be just throwing money away to fix some things listed here that legally did not belong to us and we could not really do" (Tr. 122).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n3 No penalty was proposed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Under the circumstances herein the penalties proposed by the Secretary, computed pursuant to the formula referred to in General Meat Company, Inc., supra, are detemined to be reasonable and appropriate.

In view of the foregoing and having duly considered the gravity of the violation, the good faith of Frankford, its size, and its history of previous violations and good cause therefore appearing, it is

ORDERED that:

1. Paragraph IV(h) of the complaint herein be and the same is hereby amended as follows: the word "Employers" inserted and the word "employees" therein deleted; and the date in line 5 to read "May 31, 1972."

2. Item #19 in the citation herein (P-1) be and the same is hereby amended to charge a violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.219(c)(3)(i).

3. The citation herein in so far as it alleges that Frankford was in violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Act in that it failed to comply with the standards at 29 CFR 1910.22(a)(2), (Item #1); 29 CFR 1910.22(a)(3), (Item #2); 29 CFR 1910.22(d)(1), (Item #3); 29 CFR 1910.23(a)(1), (Item #4); 29 CFR 1910.23(d)(1)(i), (Item #5); 29 CFR 1910.25(d)(1)(x), (Item #6); 29 CFR 1910.36(d)(1), (ITEM #7); 29 CFR 1910.133(a)(1), (Item #8); 29 CFR 1910.157(a)(6), (Item #10); 29 CFR 1910.157(d)(2)(i), (Item #11); 29 CFR 1910.157(d)(3)(iv), (Item #12); 29 CFR 1910.179(b)(5), (Item #14); 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(5), (Item #15); 29 CFR 1910.213(c)(1), (Item #16), 29 CFR 1910.215(a)(4), (Item #17); 29 CFR 1910.219(f)(1), (Item #18); 29 CFR 1910.219(f)(1), (Item #18); 29 CFR 1910.219(e)(3)(i), (Item #19); 29 CFR 1910.242(a), (Item #20) and 29 cfr 1910.242(b), (Item 21), be and the same is hereby affirmed.

4. So much of the citation herein as alleges that Frankford failed to comply with the standards at 29 CFR 1910.157(a)(2), (Item #9); 29 CFR 1910.157(d)(4)(iii) and (d)(4)(viii), (Item #13); 29 CFR 1910.252(b)(4), (Item 22); 29 CFR 1910.309(a), (Item #23) and 29 CFR 1910.22(b)(1), (Item #24) be the same is hereby vacated.

5. Frankford be and hereby is assessed and required to pay the following civil penalties: $65 for its failure to comply with the standard at 29 CFR 1910.22(a)(3), (Item #2); $45 for its failure to comply with the standard at 29 CFR 1910.22(d)(1), (Item #3); $40 for its failure to comply with the standard at 29 CFR 1910.23(a)(1), (Item #4); $40 for its failure to comply with the standard at 29 CFR 1910.25(d)(1)(x), (Item #6); $35 for its failure to comply with the standard at 29 CFR 1910.157(a)(6), (Items #10); $60 for its failure to comply with the standard at 29 CFR 1910.213(c)(1), (Item #16); $35 for its failure to comply with the standard at 29 CFR 1910.219(f)(1), (Item #18) and $60 for its failure to comply with the standard at 29 CFR 1910.242(b), (Item #21).