Midwest Steel Fabricators, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Midwest Steel Fabricators sought more time to abate two violations. The judge denied the petition after finding that the company remained out of compliance, had not proved a good-faith abatement effort, and had not shown that factors beyond its reasonable control prevented completion. The company challenged how the judge weighed the evidence. After reviewing the record, the Commission accepted the judge's evaluation and affirmed the denial. The release does not state the original deadlines or any penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.94(c)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 1910.107(c)(6)
• Outcome: The petition to extend the abatement dates was denied.
• Key point: More abatement time was unavailable without proof of good-faith efforts and delay beyond the employer's reasonable control.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 8799-P

MIDWEST STEEL FABRICATORS, INC.
�

OSHRC Docket No. 8799-P

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

October 31, 1977

�
[*1]
�

Before: CLEARY, Chairman; and BARNAKO, Commissioner.
�

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

William S. Kloepfer, Associate Regional Solicitor

Emil L. Toriello, Midwest Steel Fabricators, Inc., for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION: A decision of Review Commission Judge Louis G. LaVecchia, dated May 3, 1976, is before this Commission for review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. �
�
661(i).
�
That decision denied the petition for modification of the abatement dates fixed for violations of the standards codified at 29 C.F.R. � �
�
1910.94(c)(2) and 1910.107(c)(6).

On review, the petitioner takes exception to the Judge's conclusions of law that:

(1) It continued to be in violation of the two standards;

(2) It had failed to prove that it had made a good faith effort to abate the violative conditions;

(3) It had failed to prove that the required abatement had not been completed because of factors beyond its reasonable control; and

(4) An extension of the time to abate was not warranted.

These exceptions concern the manner in which the Judge weighed the evidence.
�
The Commission accepts the Judge's evaluation of the evidence and rejects the petitioner's contentions.

Having examined [*2]
�
the record in its entirety, the Commission finds that the Judge properly decided the case and adopts his decision.
�
Accordingly, the Judge's decision is hereby affirmed.
�