Document 2RoxORw95nZ2KL9EB2gpRrd66

JS. iv'J rc-crii Ke^ste;. siiOi.ta r,c* oe ixn-oie a, Regional or Area OSHA offices. Tins revision con tains amendments through September 22. 1972 and covers.the many changes and corrections of typogra phical errors since Part 1910 was published on May 29. 1972. The revised Part 1910 contains an index for 29 CFR 1910 Occupational Safety and Health Stand ards. Free single copies should be available now at OSHA's 72 field officeT abated the violations. c i,,i of such a minor nature that no penalty was e-l. Review Commission Judge Allen M Wiemw, to whom the case was assigned, sustained the pcr.il;>' proposals because, he ruled, nsk of injury by falling, fire, or electrical shock was a very real possioil.ry (OSAHRC Docket No. 591). Those interested in an OSHA Subscription Ser vice in five volumes (volumes also available individual ly) providing all the standards, interpretations, regula tions, and procedures starting in 1973 can get applica tions at OSHA field offices. OSIl \ i> developing a lOlMiour lioinc sliivly comsc unne.l al "leeoguilion. avoui.mee. .nui prewnuon ol i iMiie atnl niiluMllliy working conditions" to be mailable in the spring of 1973 ... for details, write Office of Training and Education, dccupational Safety and Health Administration, 400 First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. OSAHRC ... it wisely considers potential harm to both employees and employers The gravity of a job safety violation in terms of its potential harm to employees must be considered in assessing monetary penalties even in non-serious cases. The three-man Review Commission, in unani mously affirming the decision of one of its judges, stated that " . . .the assessment of small monetary penalties fir non-serious violations having the level of gravity cf the violations found in this case effec tuates the purpose of the Act. Penalties of this caliber thw in remind alt employers that their primary responsibility under the Act is adherence to its prttteetive mechanisms. Failure to Impose /tenuities re lating t,> violations with higher levels of gravity serve oulv to restrain the Act's effective operation and and hinder its Junction to reduce hazards of the work place for all employees. " OSllA had cited the Ilydroswift Corporation of Salt Lake City for alleged violations found during a job safety inspection. These were failure to provide railing* for stairways and open mezzanines for storage of acetone in open containers, for failure to keep fire sprinkler he.iU free from deposits, and for nine in ti III. Ill liiihin- In iMHMllil IimiU `Hi*- I**' 111)11,111 klltl III l| |I||I|IM> liny | .unlock IlM lllC hi other non-serious violations. The company ed that, while it was in violation of al) the standsted on the Labor Department citation, it had In the case of one employer, the Review Com mission ruled that the size of the business and its poo: financial condition were of overriding importance Review Commission Judge Joseph L. Chalk had already dismissed a proposed penalty of SI 65 against Colonial Craft Reproductions Inc. on the basis of previous Review Commission decisions regarding the value of relatively minor penalties in obtaining com pliance with the Act. Speaking for the majority, Commissioner Alar. I:. Burch staled that the Commission disagreed with Judge Chalk's conclusions that the case fed entirely within previous Review Commission decisions con cerning the ineffectiveness of minimum pen.diu.-s in stead, Commissioner Burch noted thav the Res.ew Commission is charged with using four enter.a ir. assessing penalties under the Act: the siff- of tnc business, the gravity of the violation, the good f.i.. of the company, and its previous history of safety violations. "We believe that in assessing civil penalties . . . occasion will arise when, despite the high gruvny of the violation, overriding consideration must he given to these modifying factors in order to best effectuate the purpose of the Act. The Commission views this case as an appropriate one in which to gn e the modifying factors such consideration. " Tne Com mission considered the size of the business anu us poor financial condition to be of overriding impor tance. (OSAHRC Docket No. 881). OSHA Recommends ASTM Consensus Standards Standards developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) are now rceogm/ec as national consensus standards by the Occupation.,. Safety and Health Administration. To provide the basis of new Federal job safety and health regulations. OSHA initially adopted na tional consensus standards of two other nationally recognized organizations, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the National l ire Protection Association (NFPA). Assistant Secretary of Labor firim-- < " ||||'I, li'.IIA's lii-Mil, knliI It*- liM*l 11* I mini- i i * Miiiui.inl.1 "me n.ithuud i<a\rnur. M.iuJ./iJ. n ///<< the mcuiung of the Williams-Steiger (jccupunouul Safety and Health Act of 1970 . . . Therefore they may be promulgated as national safety standards. ."