Peregrine Industries, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Peregrine Industries operated radial saw equipment that did not comply with the lower-blade guarding standard. The Commission held that the standard was validly promulgated and that the violation was serious because contact could cause severe physical harm, including finger amputation. It also found that the employer knew of the noncompliant condition. The Commission treated gravity as low because employee injury was unlikely and one saw was used only a few minutes per month. Considering the small employer's average good faith, safety efforts, sincere belief about the guard's effectiveness, and clean history, it assessed $100.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.213(h)(1)
• Outcome: The Commission affirmed the serious radial-saw guarding citation and assessed a $100 penalty.
• Key point: A low likelihood of injury can reduce the penalty without preventing a serious classification when the possible harm is severe.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 6493

PEREGRINE INDUSTRIES, INC.
�

OSHRC Docket No. 6493

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

December 15, 1975

�
[*1]
�

Before: BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.
�

COUNSEL:

Robert A. Friel, Assoc. Regional Solicitor

G. R. Johnson, President, Peregrine Industries, Inc.
�

OPINION:

MEMORANDUM DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION: A decision of Review Commission Judge Garl Watkins, dated September 12, 1974, is before this Commission for review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. �
�
661(i).
�
At issue is whether the occupational safety standard codified at 29 C.F.R. �
�
1910.213(h)(1) was properly promulgated.

For the reasons set forth in Secretary v. Noblecraft Industries, Inc., Docket No. 3367, November 21, 1975, Chairman Barnako and Commissioner Cleary find that 29 C.F.R. �
�
1910.213 was validly promulgated. n1 They also find that the violation is serious in that the evidence establishes that there was a substantial probability that serious physical harm, such as possible amputation of fingers, could result from the violative conditions and that the respondent possessed the requisite knowledge of the presence of such conditions.
�
29 U.S.C. �
�
666(i).

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 Commissioner Cleary continues to hold the view he expressed in his concurring opinion in Secretary v. United States Steel Corp., Docket Nos. 2975 & 4349, November 19, 1974, that the Commission lacks the authority to review the validity of a standard promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.
�
Assuming arguendo that the Commission does have such authority, Commissioner Cleary joins with Chairman Barnako in finding the standard at issue valid and enforceable.

�
[*2]
�

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Commissioner Moran would affirm the Judge's decision for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Noblecraft.

Regarding the assessment of an appropriate penalty, the record shows that the gravity of the violation was low since the noncompliant conditions created little likelihood of injury to respondent's employees.
�
One of the saws was used only for a few minutes each month.
�
The respondent exhibited average good faith in its efforts to make its worksite safe and in its promotion of an effective safety program.
�
Respondent's organization is small, and it sincerely believed that the lower guarding was not effective to insure the safety of its employees.
�
There was no evidence of prior violations of the Act.
�
Under these circumstances, the Commission finds that a $100.00 penalty is appropriate.

Accordingly, the citation for a serious violation is affirmed and a penalty of $100.00 is assessed therefor.