“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.STRIPE-A-ZONE, INC.,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 79-2380_DECISION_Before: BUCKLEY, Chairman; CLEARY, Commissioner.BY THE COMMISSION:This case is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commissionunder 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i), section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety andHealth Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651-678 (\”the Act\”). The Commission isan adjudicatory agency, independent of the Department of Labor and theOccupational Safety and Health Administration. It was established toresolve disputes arising out of enforcement actions brought by theSecretary of Labor (\”Secretary\”) under the Act and has no regulatoryfunctions. See section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 659(c).This case arises from an inspection of Respondent, Stripe-A-Zone, Inc.(\”Stripe-A-Zone\”), by the Secretary of Labor when Respondent was engagedin installing ceramic buttons and stripes in a traffic zone on a highwaypursuant to a contract between Stripe-A-Zone and the Texas StateDepartment of Highways and Public Transportation. Federal funds from theU.S. Department of Transportation (\”DOT\”) were used to finance theproject. The Secretary citedStripe-A-Zone for four violations of the Act, all related to trafficsafety control procedures, practices and training.In its answer and its Motion to Dismiss filed with Administrative LawJudge Louis G. LaVecchia, Stripe-A-Zone asserted that DOT exercisesstatutory authority to prescribe or enforce safety standards concerningthe working conditions involved in the citations. Stripe-A-Zonecontended that, under section 4(b)(1) of the Act,[[1]] the Secretary waswithout authority to issue the citations. The Secretary opposed theMotion to Dismiss, arguing that section 4(b)(1) does not apply sinceStripe-A-Zone has no Federal obligation to comply with DOT trafficsafety standards or regulations. Judge LaVecchia granted Stripe-A-Zone’sMotion to Dismiss, concluding that \”the argument made by the respondentcomports with the position taken by the Review Commission in pertinentdecisions.\”The judge’s dismissal order was not accompanied by any findings of factor conclusions of law. Aside from a general reference to Commissionprecedent which did not mention any specific cases, the judge’s orderdid not give any reason supporting the conclusion that the citationsshould be dismissed. In granting the Motion to Dismiss, the judge shouldhave provided findings of fact and a sufficient statement of reasons ora basis for his decision. Section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 659(c);section 8(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ? 557(c);Commission Rules 66(i) and 90(a), 29 C.F.R. ?? 2200.66(i) and2200.90(a); P & Z Co., 77 OSAHRC 211\/F5, 6 BNA OSHC 1189, 1977-78 CCHOSHD, ? 22,413 (No. 76-431, 1977). See also Syntron, Inc., 82 OSAHRC39\/E9, 10 BNA OSHC 1848, 1982 CCH OSHD ? 26,145 (No. 81-1491, 1982). Wetherefore vacate the decision and remand this case to the judge forappropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.On remand, the judge should also hold a hearing on the merits of theSecretary’s citations. The inspection in this case occurred on November6 through November 13, 1978. This is the third time that the case hasbeen before the Commission and no hearing on the merits has yet beenheld.[[2]] Because of the amount of time that has passed since theinspection, and to prevent further delay, on remand the parties shouldproceed to a hearing on the merits.Accordingly, the judge’s order is vacated and the case is remanded forfurther proceedings consistent with this opinion.SO ORDERED.FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDATED: FEB 8 1985———————————————————————— FOOTNOTES:[[1]] Section 4(b)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 653(b)(1), provides inpertinent part:Nothing in this chapter shall apply to working conditions of employeeswith respect to which other Federal agencies. . . . exercise statutoryauthority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affectingoccupational safety or health.[[2]] In addition to the order now on review, Judge LaVecchia previouslygranted two other motions to dismiss filed by Stripe-A-Zone. In eachcase the Commission reversed these rulings and remanded the case to thejudge for further proceedings. Stripe-A-Zone, Inc., 80 OSAHRC 111\/D12, 9BNA OSHC 1040, 1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,912 (No. 79-2380, 1980), petition forreview dismissed on other grounds, 643 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1981) (denialof motion to dismiss which alleged that the citations were barred by resjudicata); 82 OSAHRC 31\/E13, 10 BNA OSHC 1694, 1982 CCH OSHC ? 26,069(1982) (denial of motion to dismiss which alleged that the citationswere not issued with reasonable promptness).”