“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\u00a0 \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 78-5016 AMERICAN HOSE CORPORATION, SUBSIDIARY OF ST. CLAIR RUBBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ? \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0May 11, 1979?DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDERBefore CLEARY, Chairman; BARNAKO and COTTINE,Commissioners.BY THE COMMISSION:??????????? TheOrder of Administrative Law Judge Alan M. Wienman, inthis case, dated April 12, 1979, is directed for review pursuant to Rule 91a ofthe Commission?s Rules of Procedure, 29 CFR ? 2200.91a, for the sole purpose ofcorrecting an error in that Order.??????????? Afterentering his Order, Judge Wienman discovered that hehad assessed an incorrect penalty for Citation 2. He has filed an errata to his decision. Because an administrative lawjudge retains no jurisdiction over a case once his decision is filed with theCommission, Judge Wienman had no power to modify hisOrder. Accordingly, the judge?s Order is hereby amended to incorporate theerrata issued on April 25, 1979, assessing a penalty of $2,900 for citationnumber 2.?FOR THE COMMISSION:?RAY H. DARLING, JR.EXECUTIVE SECRETARYDATED: MAY 11, 1979\u00a0\u00a0UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\u00a0 \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 78-5016 AMERICAN HOSE CORPORATION, SUBSIDIARY OF ST. CLAIR RUBBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ? \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 April 12, 1979ORDER??????????? The record refleets that threeCitations alleging violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970were issued to Respondent October 5, 1978, subsequent to an inspection of aworkplace situated at 730 West Washington, Winchester, Indiana. Citation Number1 alleged serious violations grouped under six item headings, for whichpenalties totaling $2,970.00 were proposed. Citation Number 2 alleged willfulviolations, for which penalties totaling $14,400.00 were proposed, and CitationNumber 3 alleged two non-serious violations, for which no monetary penaltieswere proposed. All violations were to be corrected by various dates in the fallof 1978.??????????? Respondent timely contested the Citations, proposedpenalties and abatement deadlines. By letter dated November 14, 1978, theUnited Autombile, Aerospace and AgriculturalImplement Workers of America, UAW and its Local 1955, the authorized employeerepresentatives, elected party status. The cause was assigned to theundersigned Judge, but on March 29, 1978, Complainant, Respondent and theUnited Automobile Workers executed a Settlement Agreement terminating thedispute.??????????? In said Agreement, Complainant proposed to delete Item 1of Citation Number 2 having determined that it lacked the evidence necessary toestablish that violation. Complainant also sought to reduce the penaltiesproposed for the remaining violations. As amended, the penalties would total$950.00 for Citation Number 1 and $3,650.00 for Citation Number 2. Complainantalso agreed, in Paragraph I(c) of the Settlement Agreement, to extend theabatement date for Item 2 of Citation Number 1 to a total of 60 days from thedate of the execution of the Settlement Agreement and the abatement deadlinefor Item 2 of Citation Number 2 to a date 30 days after the execution of theSettlement Agreement.??????????? Respondent in turn sought to withdraw its Notice ofContest and, in Paragraph III set forth the abatement steps which were beingtaken in connection with Items 1, 2 and 5 of Citation Number 1 and Items 1, 2and 3 of Citation Number 2. Respondent also represented that it would pay theamended penalties in the sum of $3,850.00 upon approval of the SettlementAgreement. Respondent further certified that the Agreement had been served onaffected employees in the manner set forth in Section 7 of the Rules of theReview Commission.??????????? Now, a reasonable time having elapsed and no objection tothe relief sought having been filed by any of the employees of the Respondent,it is hereby ORDERED:??????????? 1. The motion of Respondent to withdraw its Notice ofContest is granted.??????????? 2. Citation Number 1 for serious violations issued toRespondent October 5, 1978, as modified by the Settlement Agreement, isaffirmed. A civil penalty of $950.00 is assessed thereon.??????????? 3. Citation Number 2 for willful violation issued toRespondent October 5, 1978, is modified by the deletion of Item 1. TheCitation, as modified by said deletion and the extension of abatement dates asset forth in the Settlement Agreement, is affirmed and a civil penalty in thesum of $3,650.00 is assessed thereon.??????????? 4. Citation Number 3 issued to Respondent October 5,1978, is affirmed without penalty.Alan M. WienmanJudge, OSHRCDATE: April 12, 1979”