Tonolli Corporation

Plain-English summary

Tonolli Corporation sought a second one-year extension of an abatement deadline, moving the requested date to October 25, 1979. The judge granted the request after the Secretary missed an extended response deadline by several days. The Secretary's late opposition presented reasons the Commission considered compelling. The Commission vacated the extension order and remanded for an expedited hearing on whether the petition should be granted.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The order does not identify the standard underlying the abatement requirement.
• Outcome: The second extension was vacated and the petition was remanded for an expedited hearing.
• Key point: A late opposition to an abatement extension may still warrant consideration when its reasons are compelling and the extension has not been properly tested at a hearing.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 78-5411-P

TONOLLI CORP.
�

OSHRC Docket No. 78-5411-P

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

February 5, 1979

COUNSEL:

�
[*1]
�

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Marshall H. Harris, Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor

F. J. Kieres, Health & Pollution Control Supervisor, Tonolli Corporation, for the employer

OPINION:

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER

The Secretary of Labor has petitioned pursuant to Rule 91 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, 29 CFR �
�
2200.91, for review of Administrative Law Judge Charles K. Chaplin's January 4, 1979, order granting Tonolli Corporation's petition for modification of an abatement date established in a prior order.
�
Pursuant to Commission Rule 91a, 29 CFR �
�
2200.91a, the Secretary's petition is granted and Judge Chaplin's order is directed for review.

By stipulation of the parties, the original date for abatement in this case was October 25, 1977.
�
On October 26, 1977, Tonolli Corporation petitioned for extension of that date and, by Order entered January 20, 1978, the abatement date was extended to October 25, 1978.
�
In October, 1978, Tonolli Corporation petitioned for another one-year extension, to October 25, 1979.
�
The Secretary requested additional time to file his response to the petition and was granted until January 2, 1979.
�
On January 4, Judge [*2]
�
Chaplin granted Tonolli Corporation's petition.
�
On January 8, the Secretary filed his response to the petition, in which he opposed extension of the abatement date.

Notwithstanding the late filing of the Secretary, it appears that the Secretary's reasons for opposing the petition are compelling; and the Commission is of the opinion that they should be considered by the administrative law judge.

Accordingly, Judge Chaplin's January 4, 1979 order is vacated and this case is remanded for a hearing on whether the petition for modification of the abatement date should be granted.
�
Rule 34(d)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, 29 CFR �
�
2200.34(d)(2), provides that this matter shall be treated as an expedited proceeding under Commission Rule 101, 29 CFR �
�
2200.101.

So ORDERED.
�