“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET? NOS. 13078, 13079, 13579 and 13580 \u00a0 ALATEX, INCORPORATED, \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0January5, 1977DECISION\u00a0Before BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY,Commissioners.??????????? Thiscase is before the Commission pursuant to a suasponte order for review. The parties have filed no objections to theAdministrative Law Judge?s decision, either by way of petitions fordiscretionary review or response to the order for review. Accordingly, therehas been no appeal to the Commission, and no party has otherwise expresseddissatisfaction with the Administrative Law Judge?s decision.??????????? Inthese circumstances, the Commission declines to pass upon, modify or change theJudge?s decision in the absence of compelling public interest. Abbott-Sommer,Inc., 3 BNA OSHC 2032, 1975?76 CCH OSHD para. 20,428 (No. 9507, 1976); CraneCo., 4 BNA OSHC 1015, 1975?76 CCH OSHD para. 20,508 (No. 3336, 1976); seealso Keystone Roofing Co., Inc., v. O.S.H.R.C., 539 F.2d 960, 964 (3dCir. 1976). The order for review in this case describes no compelling publicinterest issue.??????????? TheJudge?s decision is accorded the significance of an unreviewed Judge?sdecision. Leone Constr. Co., 3 BNA OSHC 1979, 1975?76 CCH OSHD para.20,387 (No. 4090, 1976).??????????? It isORDERED that the decision be affirmed.?DATED: January 5, 1977FOR THE COMMISSION:William S. McLaughlinExecutive Secretary(SEAL)?MORAN, Commissioner, Concurring in Part, Dissenting inPart:??????????? Sincerespondent agreed that the decision in Secretary v. Van RaalteCompany, Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 5007, April 19, 1976, would be dispositiveof the instant case, I agree with the Judge?s affirmance of the contestedcitations. However, for the reasons given in my dissenting opinion in Van Raalte, these violations should not be classified as deminimis. Furthermore, for the reasons expressed in my separate opinion in Secretaryv. Schultz Roof Truss, Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 14046, December 20, 1976, Idisagree with the manner in which my colleagues aredisposing of this case and with their views regarding the significance ofdecisions rendered by Review Commission Judges.\u00a0UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET? NOS. 13078, 13079, 13579 and 13580 \u00a0 ALATEX, INCORPORATED, \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0April 23, 1976ORDERChalk, Judge??????????? Onmotion of Respondent, the proceedings in these consolidated cases were stayedby the Commission on August 22, 1975, pending its decision in Secretary v.Van Raalte, Incorporated, Docket Number 5007,April 19, 1976. In said motion, Respondent averred that the sole issue in eachcase was the applicability of 29 CFR 1910.219 to the power transmissionapparatus of industrial sewing machines and agreed that the Commission?sdecision in Van Raalte would be dispositivehere.??????????? InDocket Number 13078, item 2 of Citation number 1 for nonserious violations,modified to allege a de minimus violation, isaffirmed. In Docket Number 13079, item number 7 of Citation number 1 fornonserious violations, modified to allege a de minimusviolation, is affirmed. In Docket Number 13579, item number 1(a) of Citationnumber 1 for nonserious violations, modified to allege a de minimusviolation, is affirmed. In Docket Number 13580, item number 7(a) of Citationnumber 1 for nonserious violations, modified to allege a de minimusviolation, is affirmed.?SoORDERED.?JOSEPH L. CHALKJudge, OSHRCDated: April 23, 1976?Washington, D.C.”