“\ufeff\t\tKAY-TOWNES, INC., OSHRC DOCKET NO. 1448\t\t\t\t p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } p { margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; color:WindowText; } p { font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; } p.style_Normal { } span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } table.style_TableNormal { } table.style_TableGrid { } p.style_FootnoteText { line-height:1; font-size:10pt; } .style_FootnoteText span { } span.style_FootnoteTextChar { font-size:10pt; } .style_FootnoteTextChar span { } span.style_FootnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} .style_FootnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} p.style_Header { line-height:1; } span.style_HeaderChar { } p.style_Footer { line-height:1; } span.style_FooterChar { } span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } span.BulletSymbol { font-family:’Symbol’; } body { margin-left:96px;margin-top:96px;margin-bottom:96px;margin-right:96px;} div.basic { width:16.51cm;height:22.86cm;} p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar useragent = navigator.userAgent;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tvar navigatorname;\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘MSIE’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”MSIE\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Gecko’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (useragent.indexOf(‘Chrome’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Google Chrome\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Mozilla’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”old Netscape or Mozilla\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse if (useragent.indexOf(‘Opera’)!= -1)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tnavigatorname=\”Opera\”;\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfunction symbol(code1,code2)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t{\t\t\t\t\t\t\tif (navigatorname == ‘MSIE’)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code1);\t\t\t\t\t\t\telse\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdocument.write(code2);\t\t\t\t\t\t\t}\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Complainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t v.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1448\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tKAY-TOWNES, INC.,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Respondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJuly 11, 1974\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBefore MORAN, Chairman; VAN NAMEE and CLEARY, Commissioners\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBY THE COMMISSION:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThis matter is before this Commission for review of a March 30, 1973, decision of Judge Paul L. Brady pursuant to 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 661(i). At issue is whether the citation was issued with reasonable promptness as required by 29 U.S.C. \u00a7 658(a). We hold that the respondent waived consideration thereof at this level because that defense was not raised in the proceedings below.\t\t\t\t\t\tChicago Bridge and Iron Company, OSAHRC Docket No. 744 (January 24, 1974). We therefore affirm the Judge\u2019s decision.1\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tChairman Moran would reverse for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in\t\t\t\t\t\tSecretary v. Plastering, Incorporated,\t\t\t\t\t\tOSAHRC Docket No. 1037 (May 3, 1974), and\t\t\t\t\t\tSecretary v. Advanced Air Conditioning, Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 1036 (April 4, 1974).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUNITED STATES\t\t\t\t\t\tOF\t\t\t\t\t\tAMERICA\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSECRETARY OF LABOR,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Complainant,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t v.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC DOCKET NO.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1448\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tKAY-TOWNES, INC.,\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Respondent.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMarch 30, 1973\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBRADY, JUDGE, OSAHRC:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThis is a proceeding pursuant to Section 10 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 USC 651 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) contesting a citation issued by the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act. The citation which was issued August 22, 1972, alleges that as the result of an inspection of the respondent\u2019s workplace located at Turner Chapel Road, Rome, Georgia, respondent violated Section 5(a)(2) of the Act by failing to comply with certain Occupational Safety and Health Standards promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to Section 6 thereof. A notice of proposed penalty in the amount of $665.00 was issued with the said citation.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\u00a0The hearing was held January 9, 1973, at Rome, Georgia. Mr. H. David Moore, who is not an attorney, represented the respondent. No parties sought to intervene in the proceedings.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent is a corporation doing business at Turner Chapel Road, Rome, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacturing of television antennas and masts and is a business affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. (Ans.).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIt is alleged in the citation that respondent had violated the Act on August 22, 1972, in the following respects:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 1: 29 CFR 1910.219(d)(4); Plant\u2014Electronics Dept.\u2014There was a drill press without motor and V-belt guard.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 2: 29 CFR 1910.217(c); The metal shear was without point of operation guard.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 3: 29 CFR 1910.37(9); Exit egress from the department was not marked.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 4: \u2018National Electrical Code\u2019 Article 250\u201345 (as adopted by CFR Sec. 1910.309(a); There was a fan in use setting [sic] on a bench that was not grounded.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 5: 29 CFR 1910.215(a); Plant\u2014Machine Shop\u2014There were two (2) grinders (bench), one (1) without side wheel guards and the other tool rest out of adjustment.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 6: 29 CFR 1910.219(d), (e); The Die File machine had two (2) exposed V-belts and an exposed motor drive.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 7: 29 CFR 1910.219(d), (e); The metal lathe had exposed motor drive & belts.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 8: 29 CFR 1910.219(d), (e); The power hack saw was without motor and belt guard.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 9: 29 CFR 1910.219(d)(e); Large drill press had exposed motor drive pulleys and belts.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 10: 29 CFR 1910.217(c); Plant\u2014Manufacturing Area. There were three (3) cut-off machines without point of operation guards.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 11: 29 CFR 1910.217(c); There was one (1) punch press with cutter die that should be equipped with point of operation guard.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 12: 29 CFR 1910.217(c); There were five (5) punch presses used for a sleeving operation that were without point of operations guards.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 13: 29 CFR 1910.219(b); There were twelve (12) punch presses without the approved flywheel guards.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\u00a0Item No. 14: 29 CFR 1910.219(b); The\t\t\t\t\t\tCross Arm\t\t\t\t\t\tmachine was without flywheel guard.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 15: 29 CFR 1910.219(b); There was one riveting machine without flywheel guard.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 16: 29 CFR 1910.219(d), (e); The drill press was without V-belt & motor pulley guard.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 17: 29 CFR 1910.215(a); There was one (1) bench grinder without side wheel guards & tool rests.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 18: 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(5); There were three (3) large fans below the seven (7) feet height without the approved\t\t\t\t\t\t1\/2 inch\t\t\t\t\t\tmesh guard.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 19: 29 CFR 1910.219(b); Plant\u2014Final Assembly Dept. There were three (3) riveting presses without flywheel guards.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 20: 29 CFR 1910.217(c); There were three (3) riveting presses without the point of operation guards.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 21: 29 CFR 1910.219(d), (e); Plant\u2014Wire Sub-Assembly Dept. There were two (2) wire cut-off machines without motor drive & belt guards.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 22: 29 CFR 1910.217(c); There were two (2) wire cut-off machines without point of operation guards.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 23: 29 CFR 1910.217(c); There were two rivet machines without the point of operation guard.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 24: 29 CFR 1910.219(b); There were two (2) rivet machines without the flywheel guards.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tItem No. 25: 29 CFR 1910.22(a), (b); Plant\u2014General\u2014Improve the housekeeping in all production areas including the warehouse.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe allegations contained in the citation are not specifically denied by respondent in the Notice of Contest or Answer filed herein. However, it is indicated in the pleadings that the proposed penalty was being protested, in view of the considerable time and expense in purchasing and installing the safety equipment necessary to meet the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAt the hearing a motion was granted allowing the Secretary to withdraw the alleged violations contained in Items 2, 10, 11, 20, 22 and 23, of the citation (Tr. 3).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe issue to be decided in this proceeding is whether the proposed penalties are appropriate. The authority to assess such penalties under the Act resides exclusively with the Commission. The Commission, in Section 10(c) of the Act, is charged with affirming, modifying or vacating citations issued by the Secretary under Section 9(a), and notifications\t\t\t\t\t\tissued\t\t\t\t\t\tand penalties proposed by the Secretary under Sections 10(a) and 10(b).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIn determining the appropriate penalty, the Commission under Section 17(j) of the Act is expressly required to give \u2018due consideration\u2019 to the size of the employer\u2019s business, the gravity of the violation, good faith of the employer, and history of previous violations, in determining the assessment of an appropriate penalty.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMr. Robert S. Krueger, Compliance Officer for the Department of Labor testified as to the factors considered, and the manner of determining the amount of the proposed penalties for the alleged violations (Tr. 14, 15) (Exh. 1). He stated that the most severe violation was listed\t\t\t\t\t\tunder Item 13, which consisted of 12 punch presses being operated without approved fly wheel guards. Mr. Krueger stated that possible dismemberment of a finger or arm could result from contact with the exposed fly wheel.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThe record does not indicate what specific consideration if any was given to the gravity of the violations by the Secretary.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIn Nacirema Operating Company, Inc., OSHRC Docket No. 4, the Commission pointed out that the four criteria provided under Section 7(j) cannot always be given equal weight, however it was indicated that the principal factor to be considered is the gravity of the offense. The Commission stated in\t\t\t\t\t\tNational Realty and Construction Co., Inc.,\t\t\t\t\t\tOSHRC Docket No. 85, that the elements to be considered in determining the gravity of a violation to be: (1) the number of employees exposed to the risk of injury; (2) the duration of the exposure; (3) the precautions taken against injury, if any; and (4) the degree of probability of occurrence of an injury.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent employed over 100 employees, which indicated a sizeable number of persons were exposed to the risk of injury due to the unguarded machines listed in the citation (Tr. 15).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIt was pointed out by respondent at the time of the inspection that safety guards were either on\t\t\t\t\t\torder, or\t\t\t\t\t\twere going to be made by respondent for the machines listed in the citation. This factor was also duly considered by complainant in determining the proposed penalties (Tr. 20, 23).\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUpon considering the factors set forth in Section 17(j) of the Act\t\t\t\t\t\tin light of\t\t\t\t\t\tthe circumstances of this case, it is determined that the proposed penalties in the amount of $315.00 are reasonable and appropriate.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFINDINGS OF FACT\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. Kay-Townes Inc. is a corporation doing business at Turner Chapel Road, Rome, Georgia where it is engaged in manufacture of television antennas and masts, and is a business affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. On August 2, 1972, an authorized representative of the Secretary conducted an inspection of respondent\u2019s workplace at Turner Chapel Road, Rome, Georgia, resulting in the issuance of a citation on August 22, 1972, for other than serious violations, and a notice of proposed penalties.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3. The inspection on August 2, 1972, revealed that respondent was in violation of 18 (eighteen), occupational safety and health standards.\t\t\t\t\t\tThe violations,\t\t\t\t\t\tincluded the operation of 12\t\t\t\t\t\tpunch presses without fly wheel guards, as well as other unguarded fly wheels, and exposed motor drives and belts.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4. The respondent employs over 100 (one-hundred), persons.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t5. The proposed penalty was determined, in accordance with the administrative guidelines of the Secretary, and is found to be reasonable and appropriate.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCONCLUSIONS OF LAW\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. Kay-Townes Inc. at all times pertinent hereto was an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter herein, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2. Respondent is, and\t\t\t\t\t\tat all times\t\t\t\t\t\tpertinent hereto, required to comply with safety and health regulations promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\u00a03. On August 22, 1972, the respondent was in violation of the following standards at 29 CFR:\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 1\u201429 CFR 1910.219(d)(e)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 3\u201429 CFR 1910.37(9)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 4\u2014\u2018National Electrical Code\u2019 Article 250\u201345 (as adopted by 29 CFR Sec. 1910.309(a)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 5\u201429 CFR 1910.215(a)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 6\u201429 CFR 1910.219(d), (e)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 7\u201429 CFR 1910.219(d), (e)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 8\u201429 CFR 1910.219(d), (e)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 9\u201429 CFR 1910.219(d), (e)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 13\u201429 CFR 1910.219(b)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 14\u201429 CFR 1910.219(b)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 15\u201429 CFR 1910.219(b)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 16\u201429 CFR 1910.219(d), (e)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 17\u201429 CFR 1910.215(a)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 18\u201429 CFR 1910.212(a)(5)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 19\u201429 CFR 1910.219(b)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 21\u201429 CFR 1910.219(d), (e)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 24\u201429 CFR 1910.219(b)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNo. 25\u201429 CFR 1910.22(a), (b)\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t4. A penalty of $315.00 is assessed for the violations contained in the citation.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t5. Respondent failed to comply with the regulations set forth above, thereby violating Section 5(a)(2) of the Act.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tUpon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record, it is\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tORDERED\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1. That the citation and proposed penalty is affirmed and a penalty of $315.00 is hereby assessed.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\” \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u00a0\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t1 \t\t\t\t\t\tHowever, it is noted that the Judge\u2019s decision erroneously omitted item 12 of the citation in enumerating violations that were withdrawn by complainant and incorrectly refers to 29 C.F.R. \u00a7\u00a01910.37(9) rather than 29 C.F.R. \u00a7 1910.37(q) in discussing the violation charged in item 3.\t\t\t”