“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 77-2876 BETHELEM STEEL CORPORATION, \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0August 29, 1978Decision and Order on Interlocutory AppealBefore Cleary, Chairman and Cottine, Commissioner[*]:Cleary, Chairman:??????????? As aresult of a series of inspections of its Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, plant,respondent was issued citations and notifications of proposed penalty.? A timely notice of contest was filed.? After the complaint and answer were filed, apre-hearing conference was held at which certain items were settled.? There remain for adjudication approximately36 items.? ??????????? Respondent,joined by the Secretary, requested that Administrative Law Judge Joseph A.Chalk, to whom the case is assigned, set the hearing to be held in Allentown,Pennsylvania.? In support of its requestrespondent made the following assertions:??????????? (1)Respondent, the Secretary and the United Steelworkers of America eachanticipate calling in excess of 20 witnesses;??????????? (2)All of these witnesses are employed and\/or reside in the Bethlehem and\/orAllentown, Pennsylvania area;??????????? (3)Philadelphia is more than 50 miles from respondent?s plant;??????????? (4)The courthouses (one Federal, one county) are approximately six miles fromrespondent?s plant;??????????? (5)All of respondent?s witnesses except three are supervisory employees who areresponsible for the day-to-day operations of certain departments and theyshould be close by in the event that they are needed;??????????? (6)Because of its collective bargaining agreement, respondent is required to paythe different between witness fees and employee?s wages for those employeessubpoenaed by the Secretary.??????????? AlthoughJudge Chalk did not consider the request to set the hearing in Allentown to bea motion and issue a ruling on it, he did issue a notice setting the hearingfor Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.? It isfrom this notice that respondent wishes to appeal.? We grant the request to file an interlocutoryappeal and proceed to address the substantive merits of that appeal.??????????? Wenote initially that hearings under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of1970, 29 U.S.C. ? 651 et seq., are to be held in accordance with section554 of Title 5, U.S.C., the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).? Section 554(b) states in relevant part:In fixing the time and place for hearings,due regard shall be had for the convenience and necessity of the parties ortheir representatives.\u00a0??????????? Ithas been the Commission?s policy that the ?due regard? mandated by section554(b) of the APA requires that the hearing be set as near to the site of thealleged violations as possible.? The siteselected for the hearing in this case is not consistent with that policy.??????????? Accordingly,we vacate the notice of hearing to the extent that it sets the hearing forPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania and order Judge Chalk to hold the hearing in thiscase in Allentown, Pennsylvania.[ALJ order not available].[*] CommissionerBarnako did not participate in this decision. “