Keystone Seneca Wire Cloth Co.

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited Keystone Seneca Wire Cloth for excessive workplace noise and set a January 14, 1975 deadline for eliminating the exposure. The company did not contest the citation, then later requested a six-month extension of the abatement deadline. Commission rules required notice to affected employees so they could oppose the extension, but the record did not show that Keystone notified them of the petition, hearing, or the Secretary's eventual agreement. The judge granted the extension after no employees appeared at the hearing and the Secretary withdrew his opposition. The Commission found the notice deficient and warned that employees could have been deprived of their participation rights. Because the extended deadline had already passed, it considered further proceedings impractical and affirmed the July 14, 1975 abatement date.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.95
• Outcome: The petition to extend the noise-abatement deadline to July 14, 1975 was affirmed.
• Key point: Employees must receive notice of an abatement-extension request, even though the Commission accepted the extension here after the deadline had already passed.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 10996

KEYSTONE SENECA WIRE CLOTH CO.
�

OSHRC Docket No. 10996

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

September 18, 1975

�
[*1]
�

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners

OPINION:

�
BY THE COMMISSION: On January 31, 1974, the Brookhaven, Mississippi, plant of the Keystone Seneca Wire Cloth Company (Keystone) was inspected by a compliance officer of the Secretary of Labor.
�
On February 5, 1974, a citation was issued containing 10 items alleging that Keystone had violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. �
�
651
et seq.,
hereinafter "the Act").
�
Item 3 of the citation alleged that Keystone failed to provide administrative or engineering controls over excessive noise levels, an alleged violation which had a direct and immediate effect on the safety of the workers.
�
The citation required that the violation be abated no later than February 26, 1974.

On February 13, 1974, the Secretary amended the abatement date to require immediately audiometric testing of employees and the provision of ear protection; the submission of a plan to reduce the excessive noise by March 14, 1974; and the total elimination of the excessive noise by January 14, 1975.

Keystone did not contest the citation, and it therefore became a final order of this Commission by operation of law.

Subsequently,
�
[*2]
�
in November 1974, Keystone requested a six-month extension of the January 14, 1975, deadline.
�
The Commission noted its receipt of the case, and explicitly ordered Keystone to comply with the posting and notice requirements set forth in Rule 7 (29 CFR �
�
2200.7) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. These requirements are intended for the benefit of employees so that they may exercise their rights under section 10(c) of the Act to contest extensions of abatement periods.
�
Keystone did not inform the Commission that it had complied with the posting and notice requirements.

At first, the Secretary of Labor opposed Keystone's request.
�
The case was assigned to Judge Paul L. Brady, who on January 10, 1975, ordered Keystone to post a notice of a hearing to be held on
�
Keystone's request.
�
There is no indication in the record that Keystone complied with the Judge's order.

At the hearing on January 22, 1975, no employees stepped forward to oppose the petition.
�
Thereupon, counsel for the Secretary of Labor stated that he would not oppose Keystone's petition.
�
On February 3, 1975, Judge Brady granted Keystone's petition, noting the lack of opposition.

Review was directed of
�
[*3]
�
Judge Brady's action.
�
We conclude that Keystone has not complied with the Commission's Rules of Procedure with respect to providing notice to affected employees.

Rule 7 (29 CFR �
�
2200.7) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure sets forth the requirements for notifying affected employees of their employer's petition.
�
Without such notice, affected employees may be effectively deprived of their right to oppose Keystone's request for an extension of the abatement date.
�
Keystone subsequently certified that a copy of Judge Brady's order of February 3, 1975, had been posted.
�
But this is insufficient.
�
There is no evidence that affected employees were notified of the petition, or of the hearing, or of the Secretary's ultimate agreement to Keystone's request.

It is evident, however, that the period for abatement is past, and it is no longer practical to do anything but accept the Judge's disposition.
�
See e.g. Standard Transformer Co.,
No. 8618-P (March 18, 1975);
Carling Electric, Inc.,
No. 6762 (May 14, 1975).

The Judge's order is AFFIRMED.

[The Judge's decision referred to herein follows]

BRADY, JUDGE: On February 13, 1974, the Secretary of Labor issued Respondent herein
�
[*4]
�
a citation setting forth ten violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

On November 13, 1974, Respondent filed a request for a six-month extension of the abatement date, January 14, 1975, as set forth in item 3 of the amended citation.
�
In response, the Secretary denied that such request should be granted.

Prior to commencement of the hearing in this cause, it was indicated by Complainant that upon further review an extension of the abatement date would not be opposed.

�
Therefore, it is ORDERED:

The petition for modification of abatement is hereby granted and the abatement date for the alleged violation of the standard at 29 CFR 1910.95 is extended until July 14, 1975.
�