“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\u00a0 \u00a0 AUTO BOLT & NUT CO., \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 78?4409?P SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0March 6, 1979ORDERBefore: CLEARY, Chairman; BARNAKO and COTTINE,Commissioners.COTTINE, Commissioner:??????????? OnAugust 8, 1978, Petitioner, Auto Bolt & Nut Co. (Auto Bolt), filed apetition for modification of abatement date (PMA) requesting a six monthextension until February 8, 1979, for final abatement of a violation of theoccupational noise standard published at 29 C.F.R. ?\u00a01910.95(b)(1).[1] The Secretary of Laborinitially opposed Auto Bolt?s requested extension but subsequently filed awithdrawal of his objections to the petition.??????????? In anorder dated October 30, 1978, Administrative Law Judge John S. Patton approved theSecretary?s withdrawal and granted Auto Bolt?s PMA. On November 29, 1978, theorder of Judge Patton was directed for review under 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i) andCommission Rule 91a(a), 29 C.F.R ? 2200.91a(a).??????????? Therecord in this case does not disclose whether Auto Bolt?s employees werenotified of the petition. Commission Rule 34(c)(1), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.34(c)(1),sets forth specific requirements for notifying employees that a PMA has beenfiled by an employer. A copy of the petition must ?be posted in a conspicuousplace where all affected employees will have notice thereof or near eachlocation where the violation occurred.? The rule also requires that thepetition remain posted for a period of ten days. Absent this notice, affectedemployees may be deprived of their right to oppose an employee?s request for anextension of the abatement date or to otherwise participate in proceedingsinitiated by an employer?s PMA. Brockway Glass Company, 78 OSAHRC 93\/D5,6 BNA OSHC 2089, 1978 CCH OSHD ?23,143 (No. 77?3817?P, 1978); Aspro,Inc., Spun Steel Division, 78 OSAHRC 78\/C8, 6 BNA OSHC 1980, 1978 CCH OSHD?23, 032 (No. 78?1381, 1978).??????????? Inorder to allow affected employees the opportunity to be heard, Auto Bolt?s PMAand this order shall be posted by Auto Bolt in the manner prescribed byCommission Rule 34(c)(1) for the initial posting of petitions. The October 30,1978 order of Judge Patton approving the Secretary?s withdrawal of objectionsand granting Auto Bolt?s petition for modification of abatement date isaffirmed unless, within 10 days from the posting of this order, affectedemployees or their authorized employee representatives indicate an objection tothe PMA and request that their objections be heard by the judge.[2]?IT IS SO ORDERED.?FOR THE COMMISSION:?RAY H. DARLING, JR.EXECUTIVE SECRETARYDATED: MAR 06, 1979\u00a0\u00a0UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\u00a0 \u00a0 AUTO BOLT & NUT CO., \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 78?4409?P SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0October 30, 1978ORDER APPROVING REQUEST OF WITHDRAWAL OFOBJECTIONS AND EXTENDING ABATEMENT DATE??????????? Thiscase is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission on thepetition of Auto Bolt & Nut Company for a six-month extension of the datefor abatement of the violation of standard 29 C.F.R. 1910.95(b)(1) and (3). Thedate for abatement at the time said petition was filed was August 8, 1978.??????????? Therespondent, Secretary of Labor, opposed said extension.??????????? OnOctober 26, 1978, respondent filed a withdrawal of his objections to thepetition of petitioner.??????????? It istherefore ORDERED that:??????????? Thewithdrawal by respondent of objections to the petition of petitioner isapproved.??????????? Thepetition of petitioner is granted, and the date for abatement of the violationof standard 29 C.F.R. 1910.95(b)(1) and (3) is extended to February 8, 1979.?Dated this 30th day of October 1978.?JOHN S. PATTON Judge[1] In its petition,Auto Bolt represents that abatement of the noise violation is essentiallycomplete but requests additional time to evaluate the noise attenuationachieved and to make any modifications that may be needed.[2] See BrockwayGlass Company, Inc., supra.”