<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
		<title>BIRDSBORO KOSHER FARMS CORP., OSHRC DOCKET NOS. 16-1575, 16-1731</title>
		<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8"/>
		<style type="text/css">
 p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } 
 p { line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; color:WindowText; } 
 p { font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; line-height:2; text-align:justify;  }  p.style_Normal { line-height:2; text-align:justify; } 
 p.style_Heading1 { outline-width:1; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:32px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:center; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;} 
.style_Heading1 span { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;} 
 p.style_Heading2 { outline-width:2; margin-top:32px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:center; margin-top:13.333px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; color:#000000; } 
.style_Heading2 span { color:#000000; } 
 p.style_Heading3 { outline-width:3; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:13.333px; margin-bottom:0px; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; } 
.style_Heading3 span { font-weight:bold; color:#000000; } 
 p.style_Heading4 { outline-width:4; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:13.333px; margin-bottom:0px; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; } 
.style_Heading4 span { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; } 
 p.style_Heading5 { outline-width:5; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:13.333px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:192px; text-indent:0cm; font-family:Cambria; color:#6E6E6E; } 
.style_Heading5 span { font-family:Cambria; color:#6E6E6E; } 
 p.style_Heading6 { outline-width:6; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:13.333px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:240px; text-indent:0cm; font-family:Cambria; font-style:italic; color:#6E6E6E; } 
.style_Heading6 span { font-family:Cambria; font-style:italic; color:#6E6E6E; } 
 p.style_Heading7 { outline-width:7; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:13.333px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:288px; text-indent:0cm; font-family:Cambria; font-style:italic; color:#404040; } 
.style_Heading7 span { font-family:Cambria; font-style:italic; color:#404040; } 
 p.style_Heading8 { outline-width:8; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:13.333px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:336px; text-indent:0cm; font-size:10pt; font-family:Cambria; color:#404040; } 
.style_Heading8 span { font-family:Cambria; color:#404040; } 
 p.style_Heading9 { outline-width:9; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:13.333px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:384px; text-indent:0cm; font-size:10pt; font-family:Cambria; font-style:italic; color:#404040; } 
.style_Heading9 span { font-family:Cambria; font-style:italic; color:#404040; } 
 span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } 
 table.style_TableNormal { } 
 span.style_Heading1Char { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;} 
.style_Heading1Char span { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;} 
 span.style_Heading2Char { font-weight:bold; color:#000000; } 
.style_Heading2Char span { font-weight:bold; color:#000000; } 
 span.style_Heading3Char { font-weight:bold; color:#000000; } 
.style_Heading3Char span { font-weight:bold; color:#000000; } 
 span.style_Heading4Char { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; } 
.style_Heading4Char span { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; } 
 span.style_Heading5Char { font-family:Cambria; color:#6E6E6E; } 
.style_Heading5Char span { font-family:Cambria; color:#6E6E6E; } 
 span.style_Heading6Char { font-family:Cambria; font-style:italic; color:#6E6E6E; } 
.style_Heading6Char span { font-family:Cambria; font-style:italic; color:#6E6E6E; } 
 span.style_Heading7Char { font-family:Cambria; font-style:italic; color:#404040; } 
.style_Heading7Char span { font-family:Cambria; font-style:italic; color:#404040; } 
 span.style_Heading8Char { font-size:10pt; font-family:Cambria; color:#404040; } 
.style_Heading8Char span { font-family:Cambria; color:#404040; } 
 span.style_Heading9Char { font-size:10pt; font-family:Cambria; font-style:italic; color:#404040; } 
.style_Heading9Char span { font-family:Cambria; font-style:italic; color:#404040; } 
 p.style_ListParagraph { line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; } 
 p.style_Quote { line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; line-height:1; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; color:#000000; } 
.style_Quote span { color:#000000; } 
 span.style_QuoteChar { color:#000000; } 
.style_QuoteChar span { color:#000000; } 
 p.style_FootnoteText { text-align:justify; font-size:10pt; } 
.style_FootnoteText span { } 
 span.style_FootnoteTextChar { font-size:10pt; } 
.style_FootnoteTextChar span { } 
 span.style_FootnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
.style_FootnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
 span.style_normaltextrun { } 
 p.style_BodyText { line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; } 
 span.style_BodyTextChar { } 
 span.style_CommentReference { font-size:8pt; } 
.style_CommentReference span { } 
 p.style_CommentText { line-height:2; text-align:justify; line-height:1; font-size:10pt; } 
.style_CommentText span { } 
 span.style_CommentTextChar { font-size:10pt; } 
.style_CommentTextChar span { } 
 p.style_CommentSubject { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubject span { font-weight:bold; } 
 span.style_CommentSubjectChar { font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubjectChar span { font-weight:bold; } 
 p.style_BalloonText { line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; font-size:9pt; font-family:Segoe UI; } 
.style_BalloonText span { font-family:Segoe UI; } 
 span.style_BalloonTextChar { font-size:9pt; font-family:Segoe UI; } 
.style_BalloonTextChar span { font-family:Segoe UI; } 
 p.style_NoSpacing { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; } 
 span.style_Strong { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_Strong span { font-weight:bold; } 
 p.style_Header { line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; } 
 span.style_HeaderChar { } 
 p.style_Footer { line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; } 
 span.style_FooterChar { } 
 span.style_Emphasis { font-style:italic; } 
.style_Emphasis span { font-style:italic; } 
 p.style_NormalWeb { line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:6.667px; margin-bottom:6.667px; line-height:1; text-align:left; } 
.style_NormalWeb span { } 
 span.style_Hyperlink { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
.style_Hyperlink span { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
 p.style_stylenormal { line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-top:6.667px; margin-bottom:6.667px; line-height:1; text-align:left; } 
.style_stylenormal span { } 
 span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } 
 p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } 
 span.BulletSymbol { font-family:'Symbol'; } 
 body { margin-left:96px;margin-top:96px;margin-bottom:96px;margin-right:96px;} 
div.basic { width:16.51cm;height:22.86cm;} 
 p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } 
</style>
		<script type="text/javascript">
							var useragent = navigator.userAgent;
							var navigatorname;
							if (useragent.indexOf('MSIE')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="MSIE";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Gecko')!= -1)
							{
							if (useragent.indexOf('Chrome')!= -1)
							navigatorname="Google Chrome";
							else
							navigatorname="Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Mozilla')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="old Netscape or Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Opera')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="Opera";
							}
							
							function symbol(code1,code2)
							{
							if (navigatorname == 'MSIE')
								document.write(code1);
							else
								document.write(code2);
							}
							</script>
	</head>
	<body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="basic"><div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:center; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:11pt; ">United States of America</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:center; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:center; ">1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:center; ">Washington, DC 20036-3457</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; margin-left:-48px; "><span style="font-size:8pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:8pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:8pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:8pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:8pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:8pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:8pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:8pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:8pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:8pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:8pt; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:center; "> </p>
			</div>
			<table style="border-collapse:collapse; width:auto; align:left; margin-left:0cm; margin-bottom:0cm">
				<tr style="margin:0;border:0;padding:0;visibility:hidden;">
					<th style="width:312px;"/>
					<th style="width:312px;"/>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:dashed .026cm #000000; border-top:solid .026cm #000000; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.255cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "> </p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">SECRETARY OF LABOR,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:none, 0, inherit; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.255cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:dashed .026cm #000000; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.255cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:center; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:none, 0, inherit; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.255cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:dashed .026cm #000000; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.255cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:center; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">v.</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:none, 0, inherit; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.255cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">
								</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">OSHRC DOCKET NO</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">S</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
									</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">16-1575, 16-1731</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:dashed .026cm #000000; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.255cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">BIRDSBORO KOSHER FARMS CORP.,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:none, 0, inherit; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.255cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:dashed .026cm #000000; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:solid .026cm #000000; width:8.255cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Respondent.</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-left:.194cm; padding-right:.194cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:none, 0, inherit; border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:none, 0, inherit; width:8.255cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:7.667px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:left; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Appearances:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Kate S. O’Scannlain</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Solicitor of Labor</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; margin-left:48px; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Oscar L. Hampton, III</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Regional Solicitor</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; margin-left:48px; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Michael P. Doyle</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Regional<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Counsel</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>for OSHA</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; margin-left:48px; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Judson H. Dean</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Senior Trial Attorney</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">       U.S. Department of Labor,<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Philadelphia, PA</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; margin-left:48px; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">For the Complainant</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:left; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:left; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Joseph A. O’Keefe, Esq.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:left; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">O’Keefe, Miller & Thielen, PC, Fleetwood, PA</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:left; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">                            For<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:left; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:32px; line-height:1; text-align:left; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Before:  </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Carol A. Baumerich, Administrative Law Judge</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">DECISION AND ORDER</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Birdsboro Kosher Farms, Inc. (Birdsboro or Respondent)<span>
					</span>operates a poultry processing<span>
					</span>facility<span>
					</span>located at 1100 Lincoln Road, Birdsboro, PA. (Stip. 1.) Both it and<span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>predecessor operating at the same location have<span>
					</span>a history of violating provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>659(c) (the<span><span></span>
					</span>OSH<span>
					</span>Act). This matter concerns<span>
					</span>an inspection of the facility<span><span></span>
					</span>by the<span><span></span>
					</span>Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)<span><span></span>
					</span>that began<span><span></span>
					</span>on March 2, 2016. This investigation<span>
					</span>led to<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>Secretary of Labor (Secretary) issuing three Citations to<span>
					</span>Birdsboro on<span>
					</span>September 2, 2016.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref2" href="#ftn2">1</a></span> These<span><span></span>
					</span>Citations, as amended,<span>
					</span>include<span>
					</span>alleged<span><span></span>
					</span>violations<span>
					</span>of the<span>
					</span>lockout/tagout (LOTO)<span>
					</span>standard. The Secretary alleges, in the alternative, that the<span>
					</span>LOTO<span>
					</span>violations<span><span></span>
					</span>should be characterized as<span><span></span>
					</span>willful, repeat or serious. The Citations also allege<span><span></span>
					</span>serious<span>
					</span>violations of<span>
					</span>standards<span>
					</span>related to floor holes, exits, noise exposure, and personal protective equipment (PPE).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Citation 1 includes<span><span></span>
					</span>three separate items and<span>
					</span>was issued<span>
					</span>on September 2, 2016, at the close<span>
					</span>of inspection number 1132233. On the same day,<span>
					</span>Citations 2 and 3, each with multiple separate items,<span><span></span>
					</span>were issued when<span><span></span>
					</span>inspection<span>
					</span>number<span>
					</span>1131470<span><span></span>
					</span>concluded.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref3" href="#ftn3">2</a></span> Birdsboro filed timely notices of contest bringing the matters before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission).<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref4" href="#ftn4">3</a></span> The<span>
					</span>contest<span>
					</span>related to inspection number 1132233 was assigned<span>
					</span>Docket No. 16-1775 and the<span>
					</span>contest<span><span></span>
					</span>related to inspection number 1131470 was assigned Docket No. 16-1731. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">These two dockets were consolidated before the hearing, which was held in Reading, Pennsylvania on April 16, 17, 18, 2018 and August 10, 2018. Both parties filed post-hearing briefs. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">For the reasons discussed, these alleged violations are affirmed: from Docket No. 16-1775, Citation 1, Items 1a, 1b and 1c; and, from Docket No. 16-1731, Citation 2, Item 1; Instances (a)<span>
					</span>and (e) of Citation 2, Item 3b; Citation 2, Item 4; Citation 2, Items<span><span></span>
					</span>5a, 5b and 5c; Citation 2, Item 7; and Citation 3, Item 2. Instance (d) of Citation 2, Item 3b from Docket No. 16-1731, is vacated. </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 " style="outline-width:1; " xmlns:text="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0" text:is-list-header="true">Jurisdiction</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent has a principle place of business in Birdsboro, PA, where it employs over two hundred employees. (Tr. 477; Stip. 1.) It engages in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of<span>
					</span>sections 3(3) and 3(5) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span>§ 652(3), (5). (Stip. 4.) As such, it is an employer within the meaning of the OSH Act. (Stip. 3.) The Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this case. (Stip. 2.) </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 " style="outline-width:1; " xmlns:text="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0" text:is-list-header="true">Factual Background</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 style_Heading2 style_Heading2 " style="margin-left:24px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">I.</span>Current<span>
				</span>Management Employees</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Birdsboro<span>
					</span>operates a<span><span></span>
					</span>large poultry processing<span>
					</span>facility<span><span></span>
					</span>at 1100 Lincoln Road in Birdsboro, Pennsylvania. It has<span><span></span>
					</span>over two-hundred<span><span></span>
					</span>and fifty<span><span></span>
					</span>employees<span><span></span>
					</span>working in several different<span>
					</span>areas. (Tr. 42-44, 477; Resp’t Br. at 10.) It has approximately fifty different machines, some with multiple energy sources. (Tr. 44; Resp’t Br. at 10.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Solomon<span>
					</span>Wieder<span>
					</span>is<span><span></span>
					</span>the Director of Operations (Operations Director)<span><span></span>
					</span>and has always been involved in safety at the facility. (Tr.<span>
					</span>167,<span>
					</span>437; Resp’t Br. at 11.) Before accepting his current position<span><span></span>
					</span>in January 2013, he served in a few other leadership roles<span><span></span>
					</span>at the facility, including part-owner and CEO,<span>
					</span>from 2009 until mid-2012. (Tr. 478-81, 494.) At the time of the Citation, his<span>
					</span>direct reports<span><span></span>
					</span>included<span>
					</span>Luisa<span><span></span>
					</span>Murray-Garcia, the Human Resources Manager (HR Manager). (Tr. 186.) Ms. Murray-Garcia<span>
					</span>worked for the company since 2013. (Tr. 187.) She<span>
					</span>is responsible for employee safety and health along with payroll, recruiting, hiring, and workers’ compensation<span>
					</span>claims. (Tr. 189-90, 239-40, 307.) The company had a high turnover and had difficulty keeping some positions filled. (Tr. 309-10.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Carlos Urieta is Birdsboro’s<span>
					</span>Superintendent. (Tr. 35.) He has been Superintendent for six years. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">
					</span>He<span>
					</span>worked in a few different capacities before becoming<span>
					</span>Superintendent. (Tr. 35-38.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Pernell Reid is<span>
					</span>the facility’s Maintenance<span>
					</span>Manager. (Tr. 747-48.) He started working for Birdsboro in 2015 in the maintenance department. (Tr. 748-49.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>At the start of the OSHA investigation<span><span></span>
					</span>in 2016, Brandon Criswell led the maintenance department. (Tr. 50; Resp’t Br. at 10.) After he left,<span>
					</span>Mr. Reid assumed his<span>
					</span>responsibilities and was eventually promoted to Maintenance Manager. (Tr.<span>
					</span>50,<span>
					</span>749-52; Resp’t Br. at 14.) He reports to both Mr. Wieder and Mr. Urieta. (Tr. 194-95.) The maintenance department has between four and six employees. (Tr. 49.) </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 style_Heading2 style_Heading2 " style="margin-left:24px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">I.</span>
				<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Corporate<span>
				</span>History</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Birdsboro’s facility<span><span></span>
					</span>has been operated as a poultry processing plant for several years, albeit with different ownership structures. (Tr. 478-84; Stip. 1.) In 2009, Mr. Wieder, his father, and another business partner purchased the business and named it “Mehadrin Kosher Poultry” (Mehadrin). (Tr. 479.) In 2010, a new company called MVP Kosher Foods, LLC (MVP) was formed and it purchased the business from Mehadrin. (Tr. 480.) Mr. Wieder continued to work at<span><span></span>
					</span>the facility<span><span></span>
					</span>as<span>
					</span>MVP’s<span>
					</span>CEO<span>
					</span>and was on the Board of Directors. (Tr. 481.) He was essentially the top person at the<span>
					</span>facility. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span> He remained in this role<span>
					</span>from<span>
					</span>when the business was<span>
					</span>purchased by<span><span></span>
					</span>MVP until mid-2012. (Tr. 480-81.) For a few months after Mr. Weider’s departure<span>
					</span>MVP<span>
					</span>continued to operate<span>
					</span>the plant<span><span></span>
					</span>without him. (Tr. 482.) Then, in late 2012, MVP ceased operations<span><span></span>
					</span>and the facility temporarily closed. (Tr. 482, 498.)<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Another company, Birdsboro, purchased the business and resumed operations at the facility shortly thereafter in January 2013. (Tr. 482-84.) When the facility re-opened, Mr. Wieder returned to work<span><span></span>
					</span>at the facility, this time<span><span></span>
					</span>for Birdsboro as the Operations Director. (Tr. 437, 482-83.) Several other key employees of MVP, such as Mr. Urieta, also returned to work<span>
					</span>at the facility after Birdsboro resumed operations. (Tr. 39-41, 43, 483-85.) </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 style_Heading2 style_Heading2 " style="margin-left:24px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">I.</span>
				<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>History of Citations</p>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Both Birdsboro and<span><span></span>
					</span>its predecessor,<span><span></span>
					</span>MVP,<span><span></span>
					</span>were cited<span>
					</span>for violations of the OSH Act. In<span>
					</span>February<span>
					</span>2012, while Mr. Wieder was still CEO of the facility, OSHA commenced an investigation. (Tr.<span>
					</span>481, 486, 494.) This investigation led to the issuance of citations<span>
					</span>to MVP<span>
					</span>in August 2012<span><span></span>
					</span>(2012 Citations). These<span><span></span>
					</span>2012 Citations<span><span></span>
					</span>included, among other things,<span>
					</span>three<span>
					</span>serious<span>
					</span>violations of the LOTO standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147, and<span>
					</span>one<span>
					</span>serious<span>
					</span>violation of<span>
					</span>the<span><span></span>
					</span>standard concerned with<span><span></span>
					</span>occupational<span><span></span>
					</span>noise exposure, 29 C.F.R § 1910.95(c). (Tr.<span>
					</span>487-92; Ex. C-54<span><span></span>
					</span>at 6-8, 31.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>After Birdsboro took over the<span>
					</span>facility,<span>
					</span>Mr. Wieder, the Operations Director, reviewed the 2012 Citations to assess whether<span>
					</span>the violations had occurred and<span>
					</span>whether<span>
					</span>Birdsboro would be able to abate the violations. (Tr. 498.) After concluding<span>
					</span>it<span>
					</span>could<span><span></span>
					</span>comply,<span>
					</span>the company<span>
					</span>entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA on August 7, 2013 (the 2013 Settlement Agreement). (Tr.<span><span></span>
					</span>498,<span>
					</span>501;<span>
					</span>Ex. C-57.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Mr. Wieder<span><span></span>
					</span>also<span>
					</span>reviewed this<span><span></span>
					</span>2013 Settlement Agreement,<span>
					</span>by<span>
					</span>which Birdsboro: (1)<span><span></span>
					</span>accepted the violations<span><span></span>
					</span>that had been issued to MVP,<span><span></span>
					</span>(2)<span><span></span>
					</span>agreed to pay $10,000, and<span>
					</span>(3) agreed<span>
					</span>to take various abatement actions<span>
					</span>to<span>
					</span>address the violations. (Tr. 499;<span>
					</span>Ex. C-57.) Mr. Wieder was responsible for ensuring Birdsboro complied with the agreement. (Tr. 501.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Superintendent<span>
					</span>acknowledged that the management in place before 2013 was not concerned about safety. (Tr. 168-69; Resp’t Br. at 11.) However, by<span>
					</span>the time of 2013 Settlement Agreement, Birdsboro had a dedicated health and safety manager, Steve Shifflet. (Tr. 188-89, 502.) He reported directly to Mr. Wieder and was hired to ensure compliance with OSHA and regulations issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (Tr. 502-3.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>A<span><span></span>
					</span>few months<span>
					</span>after Birdsboro signed the 2013 Settlement Agreement, OSHA<span>
					</span>inspected the facility again. This inspection resulted in the issuance of several citations<span>
					</span>on June<span>
					</span>10,<span>
					</span>2014<span><span></span>
					</span>(2014 Citations).<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref5" href="#ftn5">4</a></span> (Ex. C-39.) The 2014 Citations<span><span></span>
					</span>included<span>
					</span>violations related to the same LOTO and hearing protection standards that were resolved by the 2013 Settlement Agreement. Specifically, the<span>
					</span>2014 Citations<span>
					</span>included: (1)<span>
					</span>a repeat violation<span>
					</span>of<span>
					</span>29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span>§ 1910.147(c)(4)(i),<span><span></span>
					</span>for insufficient LOTO procedures; (2) a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(c)(6)(i),<span><span></span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>failing<span><span></span>
					</span>to conduct periodic inspections<span><span></span>
					</span>of the<span><span></span>
					</span>company’s<span><span></span>
					</span>energy control procedure; (3) a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A),<span><span></span>
					</span>for failing<span><span></span>
					</span>to appropriately<span><span></span>
					</span>train<span>
					</span>employees<span>
					</span>about energy isolation and control; and (4) a repeat violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.95(c)(1), for failing to have an effective hearing conservation program.<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>In all, the 2014 Citations included fourteen violations, six of which were characterized as repeat. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Mr. Wieder reviewed the<span><span></span>
					</span>2014<span><span></span>
					</span>Citations when they were issued. (Tr. 509.) He then, on<span>
					</span>Birdsboro’s behalf,<span><span></span>
					</span>executed<span>
					</span>two<span>
					</span>settlement agreements<span><span></span>
					</span>(2014 Settlement Agreements) to resolve the<span>
					</span>2014 Citations (one relating to the safety violations, including the LOTO standard, and one<span><span></span>
					</span>relating to the violation<span>
					</span>for lacking an effective hearing conservation program). (Tr. 512-13;<span>
					</span>Exs.<span>
					</span>C-44, 45.) In<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>2014 Settlement<span>
					</span>Agreements, Respondent accepted the violations as issued, including the characterization of six of the violations as repeat, and agreed to pay $40,360 in penalties.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref6" href="#ftn6">5</a></span>
					<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span> Respondent also<span><span></span>
					</span>agreed to retain a consultant to develop and implement a written health and safety program and<span>
					</span>to<span>
					</span>establish a program of at least monthly inspections. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Around the same time as<span>
					</span>when<span>
					</span>the 2014<span><span></span>
					</span>Settlement Agreements<span><span></span>
					</span>were<span><span></span>
					</span>reached,<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>health and safety manager (Shifflet) left the Birdsboro<span><span></span>
					</span>facility.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr.<span>
					</span>188-89, 515.) Mr. Wieder then assigned key aspects of Respondent’s health and safety program to<span>
					</span>Ms.<span>
					</span>Murray-Garcia,<span><span></span>
					</span>the HR Manager. (Tr. 196.) He had to delegate safety responsibility. (Tr.<span>
					</span>504.) It was not possible for him to do it himself along with his other responsibilities. (Tr.<span>
					</span>503-4.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Ms. Murray-Garcia’s<span>
					</span>new safety and health responsibilities were in addition to continuing her<span>
					</span>human resources responsibilities, such as payroll and hiring. (Tr. 189-90, 239-40, 307.) When Mr. Wieder assigned the new duties<span><span></span>
					</span>to her,<span>
					</span>Ms. Murray-Garcia<span><span></span>
					</span>had been working for Birdsboro for about a year. (Tr. 187.) She had no professional health and safety experience and,<span><span></span>
					</span>when she began working for Birdsboro,<span><span></span>
					</span>she did not know she would end up with responsibilities related to this area. (Tr. 187-88, 517.) Before making this change, Mr. Wieder did not ask Ms. Murray-Garcia anything specific about safety and health, such as her understanding of LOTO requirements or hearing conservation. (Tr. 198-99.) Still, she was<span>
					</span>given<span>
					</span>responsibility for all safety orientations and a large part of what had been<span>
					</span>Mr.<span>
					</span>Shifflet’s other responsibilities. (Tr. 189-90.)<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Initially,<span>
					</span>Mr. Wieder<span>
					</span>planned to hire a full-time<span>
					</span>health and safety manager to replace<span>
					</span>Mr.<span>
					</span>Shifflet. (Tr.<span>
					</span>192,<span>
					</span>195, 516.) He recognized that Ms. Murray Garcia did not have professional or educational experience with health and safety. (Tr. 517.) And he acknowledged that he himself<span>
					</span>was not an expert in safety. (Tr. 443.) However,<span>
					</span>Birdsboro<span><span></span>
					</span>had difficulty recruiting someone at the salary<span>
					</span>and benefit package<span>
					</span>it wanted to offer. (Tr.<span>
					</span>196-97.) So,<span>
					</span>although<span>
					</span>having<span>
					</span>Ms. Murray-Garcia handle<span><span></span>
					</span>employee<span>
					</span>health and safety<span>
					</span>was initially planned as temporary, she was still<span>
					</span>responsible for this<span>
					</span>area,<span><span></span>
					</span>along<span>
					</span>with<span>
					</span>continuing<span>
					</span>to fulfill<span>
					</span>numerous other responsibilities, when<span>
					</span>OSHA commenced another<span>
					</span>inspection<span>
					</span>over<span>
					</span>a year later. (Tr. 192-93, 239-40, 516.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Ms. Murray-Garcia<span>
					</span>received some assistance with employee safety and health compliance after<span>
					</span>Mr. Wieder<span><span></span>
					</span>complied with the 2014 Settlement Agreements by retaining an outside consultant, Lancaster Safety Consulting, Inc. (LSCI), to assist with health and safety at the facility<span><span></span>
					</span>for one year. (Tr. 190-3, 340-41, 515-16.) Jason Lancaster, LSCI’s Vice President for Operations, and Sarah Rothrock, a Project Coordinator, tried to assist Birdsboro in abating the 2014 Citations and to develop a health and safety program for the company. (Tr. 215, 337.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Ms. Murray-Garcia<span>
					</span>was responsible for making sure LSCI complied with the agreement for services and<span>
					</span>she<span>
					</span>served as LSCI’s point of contact at Birdsboro. (Tr. 201, 516; Resp’t Br. at 12.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">LSCI’s primary goal<span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>the one-year<span><span></span>
					</span>contract<span>
					</span>was to ensure that<span>
					</span>Birdsboro properly abated the<span>
					</span>2014 Citations. (Tr.<span>
					</span>340,<span><span></span>
					</span>404-5, 516.) It was not tasked<span>
					</span>with<span>
					</span>ensuring day to day compliance. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>LSCI<span>
					</span>visited the site<span><span></span>
					</span>four times, discussed what actions Respondent needed to take to<span><span></span>
					</span>abate the violations,<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>provided<span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>draft<span>
					</span>document titled<span>
					</span>Control of Hazardous Energy (the LOTO Plan)<span><span></span>
					</span>to Respondent in October 2015. (Tr.<span>
					</span>206, 340,<span>
					</span>342, 344; Ex.<span>
					</span>C-21.) The HR Manager<span>
					</span>reviewed the LOTO Plan<span>
					</span>and Mr. Wider<span>
					</span>provided input on its development. (Tr.<span><span></span>
					</span>268-69,<span>
					</span>445-46.) The<span><span></span>
					</span>LOTO Plan<span>
					</span>included steps to de-energize machines powered by a single plug. (Ex. C-21.) However, it<span>
					</span>needed to be supplemented<span>
					</span>with LOTO procedures for<span>
					</span>the specific<span>
					</span>machines<span><span></span>
					</span>at Birdsboro<span><span></span>
					</span>with more than one source of energy and would also need to be updated as the facility acquired additional electronic equipment. (Tr. 348; Ex. C-21.)  </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">A few months after LSCI provided the LOTO Plan, on March 2, 2016, OSHA commenced two<span>
					</span>more<span>
					</span>inspections of the facility. (Tr. 439, 555.) Inspection number 1132233 resulted in one Citation alleging willful violations of the LOTO standard being issued on September 2, 2016. Inspection number 1131470 led to one serious Citation, with eight separate items, and one other-than-serious Citation with four separate items<span><span></span>
					</span>being<span>
					</span>issued on September 2, 2106. </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 style_Heading2 style_Heading2 " style="margin-left:24px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">I.</span>2016 Citations</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>
				<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Withdrawn Items</p>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent timely contested the Citations. Several<span>
					</span>violations<span><span></span>
					</span>alleged<span>
					</span>are no longer in dispute. At the hearing, the Secretary withdrew Citation 1, Item 2, from the Citation issued after inspection number 1132233. He also withdrew these items from the Citations issued<span>
					</span>after<span><span></span>
					</span>inspection number 1131470: Citation 2, Item 3a; Instances<span>
					</span>(b)<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>(c)<span><span></span>
					</span>of Citation 2, Item 3b; Citation 2, Item 5d; and Citation 3, Items 1 and 4. (Tr. 725-26; Sec’y Br. at nn. 2, 8.) After the hearing, the Secretary withdrew these additional items,<span>
					</span>which were<span>
					</span>also<span>
					</span>from<span><span></span>
					</span>the Citations issued after inspection number 1131470: Citation 2, Items 2, 6,<span><span></span>
					</span>and 8, and Citation 3, Item 3. (Sec’y Br. at n. 8.) </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>
				<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Accepted Items</p>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">In its post-hearing brief, Respondent accepted Citation 2, Items 5a and 5b, which were<span><span></span>
					</span>part of the Citations issued as a result of inspection 1131470. (Resp’t Br. at 20-21.)<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>
				<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Amended Items</p>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Before the hearing, the Secretary moved to amend Citation 1, Items 1a, 1b,<span><span></span>
					</span>and 1c, to allege, in the alternative, that the violations<span>
					</span>should be characterized as<span>
					</span>repeat. The amendment was granted without objection. (Tr. 12-13.) At the hearing, the Secretary moved to amend Instance<span>
					</span>(d) of Citation 2, Item 3(b), which initially alleged a violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.137(b)(5), to allege, in the alternative, a violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.137(b)(4). (Tr. 128.) Respondent did not object to that<span><span></span>
					</span>amendment<span>
					</span>either<span>
					</span>and it was<span><span></span>
					</span>also<span><span></span>
					</span>granted. (Tr. 131.) </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Items to be Adjudicated</p>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The remaining items still in dispute relate to the LOTO requirements, floor holes, exits, occupational noise exposure, and PPE. Specifically: Citation 1, Item 1a, which alleges<span><span></span>
					</span>a willful,<span>
					</span>repeat<span><span></span>
					</span>or serious<span><span></span>
					</span>violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(4)(i); Citation 1, Item 1b, which alleges<span><span></span>
					</span>a willful repeat<span><span></span>
					</span>or serious<span><span></span>
					</span>violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A); Citation 1, Item 1c, which alleges<span><span></span>
					</span>a willful,<span><span></span>
					</span>repeat<span>
					</span>or serious<span>
					</span>violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(6)(i); Citation 2, Item 1, which alleges<span><span></span>
					</span>a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(a)(8); Instances (a),<span>
					</span>(d)<span>
					</span>and (e)<span>
					</span>of Citation 2, Item 3b, which allege serious violations<span><span></span>
					</span>of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(b)(5); Citation 2, Item 4, which alleges<span><span></span>
					</span>a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.95(b)(1); Citation 2, Item 5c, which alleges<span><span></span>
					</span>a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.95(i)(3); Citation 2, Item 7, which alleges<span><span></span>
					</span>a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.132(a); and Citation 3, Item 2, which alleges<span><span></span>
					</span>an other than serious violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.95(m)(2)(ii)(E).</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 " style="outline-width:1; " xmlns:text="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0" text:is-list-header="true">Discussion</p>
			<div>
				<p><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As a preliminary matter, Respondent<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">contends<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the Citations at issue were “brought in contravention to OSHA’s field operations manual.” (Resp’t Br. at 10.) OSHA provides guidance to its inspectors in the form of a “Field Operations Manual,” which is often referred to as the FOM. </span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr. 668.) </span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Commission has long held that<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">FOM does not create rights</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or defenses.<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">FMC Corp.</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 5 BNA OSHC 1707</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 1710</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(No. 13155, 1977)</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Johnson Controls, Inc</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 15 BNA OSHC 213</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">2</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 2143 n. 8 (</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">No.<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">89-2614, 1993) (</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">FOM is</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>guide for OSHA personnel).<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Accordingly</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, even<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">if Respondent had evidence<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">of a failure<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to comply with the FOM, such evidence would not alter its responsibility to comply with the OSH Act or relieve it from liability if it fails to do so.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; "><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While the FOM is not binding, the Secretary does have the burden of proving the violations alleged. T</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he Secretary must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the cited standard applies; (2) its terms were violated; (3) the employer knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known, of the violative condition; and (4) one or more employees had access to the cited condition.  </span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Astra Pharm. Prods</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 9 BNA OSHC 2126, 2129 (No. 78-6247, 1981), </span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d in relevant part,</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> 681 F.2d 69 (1st Cir. 1982).</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 style_Heading2 style_Heading2 " style="margin-left:24px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:24px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">I.</span>Citation 1,<span><span></span>
				</span>Willful Violations of the LOTO Standard<span>
				</span>(29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span>§ 1910.147(c))</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Citation 1, Item 1a<span><span></span>
				</span>– Failure to Have Machine Specific LOTO Procedures<span><span></span>
				</span>- 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.147(c)(4)(i)</p>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Citation 1, Item<span><span></span>
					</span>1a, alleges that, in violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(4)(i),<span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent failed to develop sufficient LOTO procedures for various equipment:<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Quote style_Quote " style="margin-left:48px; ">Employees performed servicing and maintenance operations on chicken processing<span>
					</span>and production equipment<span><span></span>
					</span>including but not limited to<span>
					</span>the AMFEC Mixer Model #510, the chamber machine ... and frank-o-matic<span><span></span>
					</span>and the employer had not developed machine specific lock out tag out procedures detailing the appropriate procedure to lock and tag the equipment out of service, thereby exposing employees to serious injury, on or about March 2, 2016.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>At the hearing, the Secretary presented evidence regarding the lack of specific<span>
					</span>LOTO<span>
					</span>procedures for four machines: the chamber machine, the gizzard machine, the mixer machine, and the frank-o-matic.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref7" href="#ftn7">6</a></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Applicability<span>
				</span>and Violation</p>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The LOTO standard covers the servicing and maintenance of machines in which the<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">unexpected</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>energization or start</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">up, or the release of stored energy could cause injury to employees. 29 C.F.R. §<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">191</span>0.147(a)(1)(i). “Servicing and/or maintenance” includes “cleaning” machines. 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(b). When<span>
					</span>an employee is required to service or maintain a machine<span>
					</span>with<span>
					</span>the potential to energize, start-up, or release stored energy<span>
					</span>without sufficient notice, an energy control program is required. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dayton Tire</span>, 23 BNA OSHC 1247, 1250<span><span></span>
					</span>(No. 94-1374, 2010),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d in pertinent part, vacated in part</span>, 671 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Energy control procedures must be “developed, documented and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous<span><span></span>
					</span>energy when employees are engaged” in activities such as service, maintenance, or cleaning. 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(4)(i).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent does not<span>
					</span>contest the standard’s<span><span></span>
					</span>applicability<span><span></span>
					</span>and the record would not support such a<span>
					</span>position<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteTextChar style_FootnoteTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">. </span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteTextChar style_FootnoteTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">(</span>Resp’t Br. 10-11.) Employees engaged in<span>
					</span>routine cleaning,<span>
					</span>service,<span><span></span>
					</span>and maintenance activities for at least four specific machines<span><span></span>
					</span>(the<span>
					</span>chamber machine, the gizzard machine, the mixer<span>
					</span>machine, and the frank-o-matic). (Tr.<span>
					</span>49-52,<span>
					</span>57,<span><span></span>
					</span>60-61,<span>
					</span>63,<span><span></span>
					</span>756-57, 759-61.) This work could result in injuries<span>
					</span>if the machines unexpectedly started up<span>
					</span>during these<span>
					</span>activities. (Tr.<span>
					</span>52,<span>
					</span>57, 64, 756-58, 761; Exs.<span>
					</span>C-4,<span>
					</span>C-5, C-6,<span><span></span>
					</span>C-7.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Rather than contesting<span>
					</span>applicability, Respondent<span>
					</span>argues<span>
					</span>its LOTO program sufficiently addressed the four machines. (Resp’t Br. at<span>
					</span>14.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary disagrees. He argues that<span>
					</span>Respondent’s program generically covered all machines and lacked<span>
					</span>enough<span>
					</span>detail<span>
					</span>to permit employees to appropriately lockout<span>
					</span>the four<span><span></span>
					</span>machines with more than one source of energy. (Sec’y Br. at 19-21.)<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The cited standard requires<span>
					</span>LOTO procedures<span>
					</span>that<span>
					</span>specifically<span>
					</span>address how to control hazardous energy<span>
					</span>for each type of machine. 29<span style="color:#333333; letter-spacing:-.021cm; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C.F.R. §</span><span style="color:#333333; letter-spacing:-.014cm; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1910.147(c)(4).</span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> The procedures must be sufficiently specific to “enable<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">an employee to lock out a machine safely.” </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Drexel Chem. Co.,</span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>17 BNA OSHC<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1908, 1913 (No. 94-1460, 1997)</span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. When employers have different types of machines,</span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>it is unlikely<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a single<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">identical</span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">LOTO procedure will be effective for all machinery. </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In particular, g</span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">eneric LOTO procedures are not permissible for</span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>machines<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">with</span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>more than one source of energy.</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref8" href="#ftn8">7</a></span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> 29 C.F.R.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1910.147(c)(4)(i)</span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Angelica Textile Servs., Inc.</span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">27 BNA OSHC 1246, 1255<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#333333; width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(No.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#212121; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">08-1774, 2018)</span><span style="color:#212121; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(finding procedures<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#212121; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">inadequate</span><span style="color:#212121; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>when they f</span><span style="color:#212121; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ailed to account for each energy source)</span><span style="color:#212121; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#212121; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">appeal docketed</span><span style="color:#212121; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, No. 18-2831 (2d Cir. Sept. 21, 2018)</span><span style="color:#212121; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">As noted, as part of the resolution of<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>2014 Citations for<span>
					</span>failing to comply<span>
					</span>with the LOTO<span><span></span>
					</span>standard, Birdsboro<span>
					</span>hired<span>
					</span>LSCI, who, among other things, developed materials about energy control, including the LOTO Plan. (Tr. 190-91, 208, 344; Exs.<span>
					</span>C-21,<span>
					</span>C-44, C-45.) This<span><span></span>
					</span>LOTO Plan provides background on the control of hazardous energy, including the text of the LOTO standard. (Ex. C-21.) It has<span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>detailed standard procedure for single energy source/single<span>
					</span>plug machines. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span>at 42. In other words, the LOTO Plan provides the steps on how to de-energize only<span><span></span>
					</span>those<span><span></span>
					</span>machines<span>
					</span>with<span>
					</span>one source of energy that can be<span>
					</span>controlled<span><span></span>
					</span>by removing a single plug. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>The LOTO<span>
					</span>Plan<span>
					</span>notes<span>
					</span>that machines can have multiple energy sources but does not include<span>
					</span>LOTO<span>
					</span>procedures for<span>
					</span>such<span>
					</span>equipment. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span>at 7. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent concedes<span>
						</span></span><span style="width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">its<span>
						</span></span><span style="width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">LOTO<span>
						</span></span><span style="width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Plan<span>
						</span></span><span style="width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">lacks<span>
						</span></span><span style="width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">machine specific procedures for<span>
						</span></span><span style="width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="width: 105;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">four specific machines<span>
						</span></span>(the chamber machine, the gizzard machine, the mixer machine, and the frank-o-matic). (Resp’t Br. at 14; Tr. 209-11,<span>
					</span>450,<span>
					</span>763.) Each of these machines had two sources of energy—electric and pneumatic. (Tr. 52, 57, 61, 756-58, 760.) While the LOTO<span>
					</span>Plan<span>
					</span>instructs employees<span>
					</span>on<span>
					</span>how to de-energize machines<span>
					</span>with<span><span></span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>single energy source<span>
					</span>powered by a single plug,<span>
					</span>it<span><span></span>
					</span>does<span><span></span>
					</span>not<span><span></span>
					</span>address<span><span></span>
					</span>how to control<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>pneumatic<span><span></span>
					</span>sources of<span>
					</span>energy<span><span></span>
					</span>for the four machines at issue. (Tr. 450-51;<span>
					</span>Ex.<span>
					</span>21.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent claims that<span>
					</span>although the LOTO Plan lacked this information,<span>
					</span>“LOTO machine specific procedures for the chamber machine, a<span>
					</span>frank o matic, a mixer, and a gizzard machine ... were developed separately for the USDA.” (Resp’t Br. at 14.) But, it neither offered nor introduced any evidence of these<span>
					</span>or any other machine specific<span><span></span>
					</span>procedures.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref9" href="#ftn9">8</a></span>
					<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Capeway Roofing Sys. Inc</span>., 20 BNA OSHC 1331, 1342-43 (No. 00-1968, 2003) (party would have provided the evidence had it been helpful),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span>, 391 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2004).<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>Mr.<span>
					</span>Reid, the current Maintenance Manager, acknowledged that the Birdsboro lacked machine specific procedures in 2016. (Tr.<span>
					</span>763-64.)<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Although<span>
					</span>Mr. Wieder referred to a “plan for USDA,” he acknowledged that he had not seen<span>
					</span>“USDA documents” for the four machines the Secretary discussed as having multiple energy sources<span><span></span>
					</span>and they were not part of the LOTO Plan in place at the time of the Citation. (Tr. 443-44, 450.) Nor were<span>
					</span>any such procedures<span>
					</span>provided to LSCI. (Tr. 371, 412, 424-25.) Indeed,<span><span></span>
					</span>after March 2, 2016 (the date referenced in the Citation), Respondent had LSCI come<span>
					</span>back and create,<span><span></span>
					</span>for the<span>
					</span>first<span><span></span>
					</span>time,<span><span></span>
					</span>machine specific<span>
					</span>LOTO procedures.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref10" href="#ftn10">9</a></span> (Tr.<span>
					</span>414-15,<span>
					</span>453-54; Resp’t Br. at 15.) If<span>
					</span>Birdsboro had machine specific LOTO procedures,<span>
					</span>retaining LSCI to develop the procedures after the inspection started<span>
					</span>would not have been necessary. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent also cites its<span>
					</span>Lockout/Tagout Periodic Inspection<span>
					</span>Forms as<span><span></span>
					</span>evidence of appropriate<span>
					</span>machine specific procedures. (Resp’t Br. at 14.) There were no inspection forms for the<span>
					</span>chamber machine, the mixer<span>
					</span>or the frank-o-matic. (Ex.<span>
					</span>C-19.) One form<span><span></span>
					</span>indicates that<span>
					</span>Mr.<span><span></span>
					</span>Criswell, the Maintenance Manager<span><span></span>
					</span>at the time, reviewed the energy control procedures for the gizzard machine with one employee<span><span></span>
					</span>on January 10, 2014.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref11" href="#ftn11">10</a></span>
					<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span>at 1. This document<span><span></span>
					</span>indicates<span>
					</span>he reviewed the employee’s understanding of lockout<span>
					</span>procedures<span><span></span>
					</span>for that machine<span>
					</span>but provides no<span>
					</span>information as to what procedures<span>
					</span>the employee followed<span><span></span>
					</span>during the<span>
					</span>review<span><span></span>
					</span>to<span><span></span>
					</span>safely control hazardous energy. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>At best,<span>
					</span>the form suggests<span><span></span>
					</span>that, two years before the<span>
					</span>2016 OSHA<span>
					</span>inspection,<span><span></span>
					</span>one employee showed Mr. Criswell how he locks out the gizzard machine. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>There is no evidence the other<span>
					</span>twenty employees who might need to clean or maintain the machine understood how to<span>
					</span>safely<span>
					</span>lockout the machine<span><span></span>
					</span>to control hazardous energy. (Tr. 48-49; Resp’t Br. at 10.) Nor is there evidence that the<span>
					</span>lockout<span>
					</span>procedure<span><span></span>
					</span>used<span><span></span>
					</span>for the gizzard machine, or<span><span></span>
					</span>the procedures for<span><span></span>
					</span>any of the other machines with multiple energy sources, was<span>
					</span>documented<span><span></span>
					</span>as of the date referenced in the Citation.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref12" href="#ftn12">11</a></span> Thus, there is no evidence<span>
					</span>Respondent had<span>
					</span>machine specific procedures<span>
					</span>with<span>
					</span>enough information to permit employees to safely lockout machines with more than one energy source.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">By<span>
					</span>not addressing<span>
					</span>all<span>
					</span>sources<span><span></span>
					</span>of energy for the four different machines, Respondent’s<span>
					</span>LOTO<span>
					</span>program<span>
					</span>failed to<span><span></span>
					</span>provide enough information to<span>
					</span>permit<span>
					</span>employees to lock the machines out and protect themselves from unexpected energization. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Drexel,<span>
						</span></span>17 BNA OSHC at 1913<span><span></span>
					</span>(requiring that<span>
					</span>LOTO procedures inform the employee of the “[s]pecific procedural steps” necessary to perform the lockout process). Respondent violated the cited standard.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Exposure</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Employees routinely<span>
					</span>engaged in service and maintenance activities on the four machines. The chamber machine<span>
					</span>vacuum seals product into packing by sucking the air out of<span>
					</span>the bag containing product and then sealing it. (Tr. 56, 756.) It<span>
					</span>was used at least weekly<span><span></span>
					</span>and sometimes<span>
					</span>as often as once a day. (Tr. 57, 756.) Maintenance employees serviced and repaired the machine.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span><span><span></span>
					</span>This<span>
					</span>sometimes required taking<span>
					</span>the machine<span><span></span>
					</span>apart. (Tr.<span>
					</span>756-57.) If the chamber machine was not properly locked out,<span>
					</span>the machine’s moving parts could injure an employee. (Tr. 57; Ex. C-5.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The gizzard machine<span>
					</span>separates<span>
					</span>the gizzard<span><span></span>
					</span>from the rest of the animal. (Tr.<span>
					</span>62-63, 759; Ex. C-7.) It had<span>
					</span>several<span>
					</span>different gears and<span>
					</span>had<span>
					</span>to be taken apart and cleaned at the end of every day it was used. (Tr.<span>
					</span>63,<span>
					</span>760.) The machine<span>
					</span>frequently broke down<span><span></span>
					</span>and had to be<span>
					</span>repaired. (Tr. 63, 761.) Like the chamber machine, the gizzard machine’s moving chains and gears could cause injury if the machine was not properly locked out before cleaning or repairs commenced. (Tr.<span>
					</span>63-64.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The mixer machine was used once or twice a week and had to be cleaned after each use. (Tr.<span>
					</span>49-50.) Maintenance workers<span>
					</span>occasionally<span>
					</span>serviced or repaired<span><span></span>
					</span>it. (Tr. 50.) The<span><span></span>
					</span>mixer’s interior<span><span></span>
					</span>panels spin when in operation<span><span></span>
					</span>and it should be locked out<span>
					</span>for service or maintenance. (Tr.<span>
					</span>51-52; Ex. C-4.) In February 2016, an employee put his hand in the mixer and was injured. (Tr.<span>
					</span>414.)<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The frank-o-matic was less frequently used<span><span></span>
					</span>than the other three machines. However, it was still operated at least once a month, and sometimes as often as once a week. (Tr. 60, 758-59.) It required cleaning after<span>
					</span>each<span>
					</span>use and sometimes had to be serviced or repaired. (Tr. 60-61, 759.) During these activities,<span>
					</span>the machine should be<span>
					</span>properly locked out. (Tr<span>
					</span>61; Ex. C-6.) The Secretary showed that employees were required to service or maintain machines with multiple energy sources and were exposed to the hazard of unexpected energization. </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Knowledge</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent was previously cited for a lack of LOTO procedures. (Tr.<span>
					</span>199-200, 207; Ex.<span>
					</span>C-39.) The 2014 Citations included a violation of<span>
					</span>the same<span>
					</span>LOTO<span>
					</span>provision at issue here, 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.147(c)(4)(i), for failing to have machine specific<span>
					</span>LOTO procedures. (Ex. C-39 at 13.) That<span><span></span>
					</span>2014<span><span></span>
					</span>violation was<span><span></span>
					</span>itself<span><span></span>
					</span>characterized as<span>
					</span>repeat<span><span></span>
					</span>because the 2012 Citations<span>
					</span>included a<span>
					</span>serious<span>
					</span>violation<span>
					</span>for not having machine specific energy control procedures for all required equipment. (Exs.<span>
					</span>C-39 at 13;<span>
					</span>C-54 at 6.) As noted above, Respondent accepted the 2014 violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.147(c)(4)(i), including its repeat characterization. (Exs. C-39, C-44.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Mr. Wieder,<span><span></span>
					</span>the Operations Director,<span><span></span>
					</span>was aware of both<span>
					</span>prior violations of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.147(c)(4)(i).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 498-99, 509.) In particular, he<span><span></span>
					</span>admitted that he closely looked at<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>2012 and<span>
					</span>the 2014 Citations. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>He<span><span></span>
					</span>understood<span>
					</span>that the LOTO standard requires machine specific procedures.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>Ms. Murray-Garcia, the HR Manager<span><span></span>
					</span>handling safety,<span><span></span>
					</span>was<span>
					</span>similarly<span>
					</span>aware that the Birdsboro was cited for not having machine specific-LOTO procedures<span><span></span>
					</span>in 2014. (Tr. 199-200, 207-8; Resp’t Br. at 12.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">After<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>2014 Citations, Birdsboro took steps to develop a LOTO program. (Tr. 190-91; Ex. C-21.) LSCI provided it with<span><span></span>
					</span>information about the control of hazardous energy. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>This information included a<span>
					</span>LOTO Plan<span><span></span>
					</span>LSCI described<span>
					</span>as a<span>
					</span>“first draft.” (Tr.<span>
					</span>344.) As the HR Manager acknowledges,<span><span></span>
					</span>the LOTO Plan<span>
					</span>LSCI<span>
					</span>provided in 2015<span>
					</span>anticipated<span><span></span>
					</span>machine specific procedures<span><span></span>
					</span>being<span><span></span>
					</span>added<span><span></span>
					</span>to it. (Tr. 206-7.) Further, in<span>
					</span>over half<span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>dozen emails sent<span>
					</span>over<span>
					</span>its one-year contract, LSCI<span>
					</span>repeatedly<span>
					</span>reminded<span>
					</span>the HR Manager of the need for<span>
					</span>machine specific LOTO procedures. (Tr. 219-20,<span><span></span>
					</span>228-9, 231-39,<span><span></span>
					</span>280,<span>
					</span>407-10,<span>
					</span>412-13,<span>
					</span>424; Ex. C-46.) Despite these regular reminders, Respondent never developed the necessary machine specific procedures<span><span></span>
					</span>before<span>
					</span>the<span><span></span>
					</span>date alleged in the Citation.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref13" href="#ftn13">12</a></span> (Tr.<span>
					</span>211, 280.) <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See E. Smalis Painting</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Co., Inc.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">,<span>
						</span></span>22 BNA OSHC 1553, 1562, 1566<span><span></span>
					</span>(No. 94-1979, 2009) (finding actual knowledge when<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>employer failed to take reasonable and necessary steps to address the known hazard). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent’s<span>
					</span>actual knowledge that it was not in compliance<span>
					</span>with the cited standard<span><span></span>
					</span>satisfies the Secretary’s<span><span></span>
					</span>burden<span>
					</span>of proving<span>
					</span>the violation alleged in<span>
					</span>Citation 1, Item 1a. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Dayton,<span>
						</span></span>23 BNA OSHC at 1256<span><span></span>
					</span>(finding<span>
					</span>actual knowledge of the failure to utilize LOTO procedures). </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Characterization</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary alleges the violation is willful, or, in the alternative, repeat<span><span></span>
					</span>or serious.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(</span>Tr. 7, 11.)<span><span></span>
					</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>A willful violation is one committed voluntarily with either an intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to the OSH Act’s requirements. </span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See e.g.,<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Bianchi Trison Corp</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 409 F.3d 196, 208 (3d Cir. 2005). “[A]n employer's prior history of violations, its awareness of the requirements of the standards, and its knowledge of the existence of violative conditions are all relevant considerations in determining whether a violation is willful in nature.” </span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">MJP Constr. Co</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 19 BNA OSHC 1638, 1648 (No. 98-0502, 2001),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff'd</span>, 56 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2003)<span><span></span>
					</span>(unpublished). The motive for failing to comply with the OSH Act “need not be evil or malicious” for the violation to be characterized as willful. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Kaspar Wire Works, Inc</span>., 18 BNA OSHC 2178, 2181<span><span></span>
					</span>(No. 90-2775, 2000),<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff'd</span>, 268 F.3d 1123 (D.C. Cir. 2001);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dukane Precast, Inc</span>., 785 F.3d 252, 255 (7th Cir. 2015) (employer’s reckless behavior sufficient to characterize the violation as willful).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">As noted, Mr. Wieder, the Operations Director,<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>Ms. Murray-Garcia,<span>
					</span>the HR Manager,<span><span></span>
					</span>were aware that the cited standard applied to Birdsboro’s operations because of the 2014<span>
					</span>Citations. Those citations<span><span></span>
					</span>included a repeat violation of the same standard cited in connection with<span>
					</span>this<span>
					</span>Item 1a, 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.147(c)(4)(i). (Ex. C-39 at 14.) Just like the present matter, the 2014<span><span></span>
					</span>violation<span>
					</span>also<span>
					</span>concerned<span>
					</span>Respondent’s failure to develop machine specific LOTO procedures. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>Mr. Wieder executed<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>2014 Settlement Agreements resolving this violation. (Tr. 512; Ex. C-44.) <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Revoli Constr</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">. Co., Inc.</span>, 19 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>1682, 1685-86 (No. 00-0315, 2001)<span><span></span>
					</span>(employer had heightened awareness of the standard because it was previously cited for violations of the same standard). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Even before<span>
					</span>the settlement of the 2014 Citations, Mr. Wieder<span>
					</span>knew<span>
					</span>the facility needed a LOTO program. In<span>
					</span>February<span>
					</span>2012,<span>
					</span>when OSHA commenced an inspection of the facility,<span>
					</span>he was the CEO of MVP, the company that owned the facility. (Tr. 480,<span><span></span>
					</span>486.) Although he was not working for MVP when the 2012 Citations were issued, he<span>
					</span>was<span>
					</span>aware of them<span>
					</span>and reviewed them<span>
					</span>when he returned to work at the facility for a subsequent owner in January 2013. (Tr. 482-83, 486.) He also<span>
					</span>reviewed and provided input on the agreement<span>
					</span>resolving<span>
					</span>the 2012 Citations. (Tr. 498-99.) That agreement (the 2013 Settlement Agreement) acknowledged Birdsboro’s acceptance of a violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.147(c)(4)(i),<span><span></span>
					</span>which is the requirement to have<span>
					</span>sufficiently developed, documented,<span><span></span>
					</span>and utilized procedures for the control of hazardous energy,<span><span></span>
					</span>as well as<span>
					</span>its acceptance of<span>
					</span>two<span>
					</span>additional<span>
					</span>serious violations of other provisions of the LOTO standard. (Exs. C-54,<span>
					</span>C-57.) So, in 2013,<span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent resolved the 2012<span>
					</span>Citations, including the<span><span></span>
					</span>LOTO violations,<span><span></span>
					</span>by accepting responsibility and paying a penalty and,<span><span></span>
					</span>in<span>
					</span>the following year, it resolved additional<span>
					</span>LOTO violations by again accepting the violations and paying another penalty.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref14" href="#ftn14">13</a></span> (Exs. C-44, C-45, C-57.) By the time of the<span>
					</span>most recent<span><span></span>
					</span>inspection,<span>
					</span>Birdsboro<span><span></span>
					</span>was well aware of the<span>
					</span>necessity<span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>written<span>
					</span>procedures that specifically<span><span></span>
					</span>address<span>
					</span>how to de-energize machines<span>
					</span>with<span><span></span>
					</span>multiple energy sources. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">MJP</span>, 19 BNA OSHC at 1648 (supervisor chargeable with knowledge of the requirement “based on their prior work experience, wherever that experience originates”);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Altor, Inc.,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>23 BNA OSHC 1458, 1467 (No. 99-0958, 2011) (citations of<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>same standard previously issued to other companies owned by the same individuals considered to show heightened awareness);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">S. Scrap Materials, Co., Inc.</span>, 23 BNA OSHC 1596, 1619-20 (No. 94-3392, 2011) (settlement of prior citations of<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>same standard supported willful characterization),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span>, 498 F. App’x 145 (3d Cir. 2012)<span><span></span>
					</span>(unpublished). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Because OSHA did not demand further abatement after<span>
					</span>Respondent<span><span></span>
					</span>provided information<span>
					</span>to the agency<span>
					</span>as part of the 2014 Settlement Agreement,<span>
					</span>Respondent argues it<span>
					</span>could reasonably<span>
					</span>infer it<span>
					</span>was<span>
					</span>fully compliant with<span>
					</span>the LOTO standard. (Resp’t Br. at 15.) Such an inference is wholly inappropriate here as both<span>
					</span>the HR Manager<span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>the Operations Director,<span>
					</span>Mr. Wieder,<span><span></span>
					</span>knew<span>
					</span>Birdsboro needed<span><span></span>
					</span>to take additional steps to come into and remain in compliance. Indeed, one of the conditions of the 2014 Settlement Agreement was for<span>
					</span>Birdsboro<span><span></span>
					</span>to retain a consultant for at least one year to<span>
					</span>develop<span><span></span>
					</span>a written health and safety program. (Exs. C-44, C-45.) <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">A. Schonbek</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>& Co., Inc</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">.,<span>
						</span></span>9 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>1189,<span>
					</span>1190<span>
					</span>(No. 76-3890, 1980)<span>
					</span>(upholding willful<span>
					</span>characterization<span><span></span>
					</span>when<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>employer was aware of the general hazard<span>
					</span>even though past<span>
					</span>violation related to<span>
					</span>a different machine),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span>, 646 F.2d 799 (2nd Cir. 1981).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Although Respondent<span>
					</span>complied with the requirement to<span>
					</span>retain<span>
					</span>a consultant<span>
					</span>to assist with coming into compliance<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>development of<span><span></span>
					</span>a health and safety program, it failed to follow<span>
					</span>the consultant’s<span><span></span>
					</span>advice. Ms. Murray-Garcia,<span>
					</span>the HR Manager<span><span></span>
					</span>overseeing safety,<span><span></span>
					</span>knew the general LOTO<span>
					</span>Plan<span>
					</span>lacked<span>
					</span>machine specific LOTO procedures. (Tr. 206-7, 223.) The document itself references the<span><span></span>
					</span>need for machine specific LOTO procedures. (Tr. 269-73; Ex. C-21 at 0239.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>For example, it includes<span>
					</span>placeholders for “equipment specific LOTO procedures” and<span>
					</span>procedures for<span>
					</span>“New Equipment”<span>
					</span>to be added to the document.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref15" href="#ftn15">14</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 206-7;<span>
					</span>Ex. C-21<span><span></span>
					</span>at<span>
					</span>0236,<span>
					</span>0239.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Emphasis style_Emphasis " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Active Oil</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Emphasis style_Emphasis " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Serv., Inc.</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 21 BNA OSHC<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1092,<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1098, 2004-09<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(No. 00-0482, 2005)<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(finding heightened awareness based on a pr</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ior</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>citation and<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the content of<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the employer’s</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>written safety program)</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span>The HR Manager<span><span></span>
					</span>reviewed<span>
					</span>these<span><span></span>
					</span>blank pages<span>
					</span>on which<span><span></span>
					</span>equipment specific information was to be added, as well as the rest of the LOTO Plan. (Tr.<span>
					</span>268-71, 273.)<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Further,<span><span></span>
					</span>LSCI specifically<span>
					</span>informed<span>
					</span>Respondent<span>
					</span>multiple times about<span>
					</span>the need for<span>
					</span>machine specific<span>
					</span>procedures to be developed.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref16" href="#ftn16">15</a></span> (Tr.<span>
					</span>226-29, 231-35, 238-39, 276; Exs. C-46, C-49.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>For example, LSCI<span>
					</span>told<span>
					</span>the HR Manager<span><span></span>
					</span>to have “machine LOTO procedures on file and up to date.” (Tr. 238-39; Ex. C-46 at 1.) These written reminders, which the HR Manager acknowledges were supplemented with telephone conversations,<span>
					</span>preclude finding<span>
					</span>Respondent’s<span>
					</span>failure to develop the<span>
					</span>procedures on how to lockout<span><span></span>
					</span>and tagout machines with multiple energy sources was mere negligence.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref17" href="#ftn17">16</a></span> (Tr. 226, 233; Ex. C-46.) <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Rawson Contractors, Inc.,<span>
						</span></span>20 BNA OSHC 1078, 1082 (No. 99-0018, 2013)<span>
					</span>(hiring outside consultant to monitor compliance “insufficient to negate willfulness” when the<span><span></span>
					</span>employer failed to enforce safety rules). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent<span>
					</span>relies on<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dayton Tire</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>v. Sec’y of Labor</span>, 671 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2012) as support for characterizing the violations<span><span></span>
					</span>as serious. (Resp’t Br. at<span>
					</span>6-8.) In<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dayton</span>,<span>
					</span>like here,<span>
					</span>the employer was previously cited for violating the LOTO standard. 671<span><span></span>
					</span>F.3d<span>
					</span>at<span>
					</span>1255. After the<span><span></span>
					</span>citation, the employer failed to correct similar deficiencies at another<span><span></span>
					</span>location. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span>. The Commission determined<span>
					</span>the violation was willful because<span><span></span>
					</span>the employer either knew the second facility was in violation of<span>
					</span>the LOTO standard or<span>
					</span>it<span>
					</span>was unwilling to investigate its<span><span></span>
					</span>compliance. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span>at 1255-56. The D.C. Circuit<span>
					</span>disagreed that<span>
					</span>this was<span>
					</span>enough<span>
					</span>to<span>
					</span>characterize the employer as being plainly indifferent to safety. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span>.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Here,<span>
					</span>the evidence<span>
					</span>of willfulness<span>
					</span>is stronger. First,<span>
					</span>this matter<span>
					</span>involves<span>
					</span>citations issued to<span>
					</span>the same<span>
					</span>employer for violations of the same standard at the same<span>
					</span>facility.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref18" href="#ftn18">17</a></span> The present matter is more like the situation in<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">A.J. McNulty & Co.</span>, 283 F.3d 328<span><span></span>
					</span>(D.C. Cir. 2002), than the one in<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dayton</span>. In<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">A.J. McNulty</span>,<span><span></span>
					</span>the employer had<span>
					</span>twice<span>
					</span>previously settled violations of the<span>
					</span>fall protection standard. 238 F.3d<span>
					</span>at 338. When cited<span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>a third time, the D.C. Circuit found the violation willful<span>
					</span>because the<span>
					</span>employer<span>
					</span>was<span><span></span>
					</span>aware of the regulation, failed to comply<span><span></span>
					</span>with it, and lacked a good faith belief it was<span>
					</span>in compliance. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>Similarly,<span>
					</span>at Birdsboro’s facility,<span>
					</span>supervisors<span><span></span>
					</span>had actual knowledge of<span>
					</span>past<span><span></span>
					</span>citations<span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>this same<span>
					</span>LOTO<span>
					</span>standard as well as other<span>
					</span>violations<span><span></span>
					</span>related to LOTO. In particular,<span>
					</span>Mr. Wieder, the Operations Director,<span><span></span>
					</span>acknowledged his involvement<span><span></span>
					</span>with the resolution of two prior citations for the same sub-section of the LOTO standard. (Tr. 498-99, 509.) <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Anderson Excavating & Wrecking Co</span>., 17 BNA OSHC 1890, 1892-93, 1995-97 (No. 92-3684, 1997)<span>
					</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(relying on<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">employer’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">history of recent citations for violations of the same standard as part of willful determination</span>),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff'd</span>, 131 F.3d 1254 (8th Cir. 1998). The HR Manager<span>
					</span>responsible<span>
					</span>for safety, was<span>
					</span>also<span>
					</span>aware of the<span>
					</span>2014<span>
					</span>LOTO violations. (Tr.<span>
					</span>199.) Knowledge<span>
					</span>from this past violation<span>
					</span>was supplemented<span>
					</span>with information from Ms. Rothrock of LSCI, who<span>
					</span>specifically, and repeatedly, reminded<span><span></span>
					</span>Birdsboro<span>
					</span>it<span>
					</span>needed to have machine procedures “on file and up to date.”<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Ex. C-46.) <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Thomas Indus. Coatings, Inc</span>., 23 BNA OSHC 2082, 2092 (No. 06-1542, 2012) (finding violation willful because the employer was familiar with the<span>
					</span>requirements of the cited standard and could not have believed its arrangements were adequate).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Second,<span>
					</span>unlike<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dayton</span>, there is no need to guess whether Respondent knew machine specific procedures were required<span><span></span>
					</span>for this facility<span>
					</span>and that they did not have them.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr.<span>
					</span>200,<span>
					</span>208-9, 231,<span>
					</span>238-40; Ex.<span>
					</span>C-21.) Respondent chose not to<span>
					</span>prepare machine specific procedures even after<span><span></span>
					</span>its consultant<span><span></span>
					</span>explained they were needed. (Ex. C-46.) It knew it<span><span></span>
					</span>needed a LOTO program which guided employees in how to control hazardous energy, knew its LOTO Plan was incomplete, and still failed to act until after an employee injury and another OSHA inspection. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Jim Boyd Constr., Inc.</span>, 26 BNA OSHC 1109, 1111<span><span></span>
					</span>(No.<span><span></span>
					</span>11-2559, 2016)<span><span></span>
					</span>(violation willful when employer knew both the facts and legal requirements);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Hern Iron Works, Inc.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1206,<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1214 </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(No. 89-433, 1993)<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(“A willful violation is differentiated by heightened awareness of the illegality of the conduct or conditions</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">)</span>. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Third,<span>
					</span>in this matter,<span>
					</span>Respondent’s conscious actions were<span>
					</span>part of<span>
					</span>an on-going failure to prioritize safety.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref19" href="#ftn19">18</a></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">A.E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. Sec’y of Labor</span>, 295 F.3d 1341, 1346 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (affirming a finding of plain indifference when the company ignored repeated general reports from a safety engineer). For example, the HR Manager acknowledged she had many responsibilities, particularly after Respondent chose not to replace its health and safety manager after Mr. Shifflet left in 2014. (Tr. 192, 516-17.) Mr. Shifflet had been a full-time employee tasked with oversight for environmental, health and safety. (Tr. 189.) Almost all of his responsibilities were shifted to Ms. Murray-Garcia, who already was a full-time employee overseeing the human resources department. (Tr. 189, 192.) She had no formal safety and health training or experience. (Tr. 453.) The only assistance she had at the facility was a part-time receptionist who was hired sometime in 2016. (Tr. 194-95.) The facility had a high turnover of employees and difficulty retaining employees for some positions, such as those in the<span>
					</span>Kill<span>
					</span>Room,<span><span></span>
					</span>because of the unpleasant nature of<span><span></span>
					</span>the work. (Tr. 309-10.) Preparing the documentation necessary to abate the 2014 Citations was not given “high priority.” (Tr. 240.) In<span>
					</span>light of her<span><span></span>
					</span>human resources tasks,<span><span></span>
					</span>Ms. Murray Garcia<span>
					</span>did not have enough time<span>
					</span>to address getting the abatement documentation to OSHA. (Tr. 233, 240.)<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">
					</span>Ms. Rothrock of LSCI expressed her belief<span>
					</span>that<span>
					</span>Ms. Murray-Garcia had many responsibilities besides<span>
					</span>safety,<span><span></span>
					</span>and this<span>
					</span>complicated<span>
					</span>the effort to<span>
					</span>bring the facility into compliance. (Tr. 416-19.) Indeed,<span>
					</span>Ms. Rothrock<span><span></span>
					</span>was “not surprised” when<span>
					</span>Ms. Murray-Garcia called<span>
					</span>in<span><span></span>
					</span>2016<span>
					</span>and requested additional services, including the development of the machine specific procedures<span>
					</span>Ms. Rothrock<span>
					</span>had repeatedly<span><span></span>
					</span>asked<span>
					</span>Respondent<span><span></span>
					</span>about. (Tr. 425-26.) <span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Whether these actions alone would be sufficient to sustain a willful characterization, is an unnecessary question. There is no need to<span>
					</span>guess<span>
					</span>how Respondent would have behaved if it<span><span></span>
					</span>was aware<span><span></span>
					</span>of the requirement. Respondent<span>
					</span>knew it needed machine specific procedures and yet it failed to develop them. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Compare Thomas Indus.,<span>
						</span></span>23 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>2092<span><span></span>
					</span>(finding violation willful when the employer was aware of the requirement and<span><span></span>
					</span>made a conscious decision not to comply),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">with</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">E. Smalis,<span>
						</span></span>22 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at<span>
					</span>1577 (finding a violation willful when the employer would not have complied with standard “even had it known of its obligations”). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent knew<span><span></span>
					</span>of the requirement, was reminded of what was necessary to come into compliance,<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>still<span>
					</span>failed to<span><span></span>
					</span>act. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Emphasis style_Emphasis " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">MJP</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1648</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(stating that relevant considerations include prior history of violations and awareness of standard's requirements).<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>The violation was willful.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref20" href="#ftn20">19</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Citation 1, Item 1b<span>
				</span>–LOTO Training -<span>
				</span>29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A)</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Citation 1, Item 1b alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A), which requires training to ensure<span>
					</span>employees understand<span>
					</span>the purpose<span>
					</span>and function of the energy control program. Employees who lockout<span><span></span>
					</span>or tagout machines for maintenance<span><span></span>
					</span>are<span>
					</span>referred<span><span></span>
					</span>to as “authorized employees.” 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(b). Such employees<span><span></span>
					</span>must receive training that includes the<span>
					</span>methods and means necessary for energy isolation and control. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A). The Secretary alleges that<span>
					</span>Respondent<span>
					</span>did<span><span></span>
					</span>not adequately train<span>
					</span>employees performing servicing and maintenance on<span>
					</span>the chamber machine, the gizzard machine, the mixer machine,<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>frank-o-matic<span>
					</span>as of<span>
					</span>March 2, 2016.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref21" href="#ftn21">20</a></span> (Sec’y Br. at 36.) </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Applicability<span><span></span>
				</span>and<span><span></span>
				</span>Violation</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Besides<span>
					</span>having procedures in place to prevent unexpected energization, the LOTO standard<span>
					</span>also requires employers to train employees to ensure they understand and have sufficient skills to<span>
					</span>recognize applicable energy sources and isolate and control such energy as appropriate. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A). Of particular importance is the need to train the authorized employees who perform servicing or maintenance on energized machines. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A), 1910.147(b) (defining authorized employee). As discussed in connection with Citation 1, Item 1a, employees in the sanitation and maintenance departments routinely cleaned, serviced, and maintained machines with the potential to injure employees if they became energized during such activities. At least four of these machines<span>
					</span>had both electric and pneumatic sources of energy. (Tr.<span>
					</span>52, 57, 61, 756, 758, 760.) While Respondent conducted “general awareness training,” the Secretary argues<span>
					</span>this<span><span></span>
					</span>training<span><span></span>
					</span>did not<span>
					</span>provide<span><span></span>
					</span>enough<span><span></span>
					</span>information for<span>
					</span>authorized<span>
					</span>employees to safely lockout machines<span><span></span>
					</span>with multiple energy sources.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref22" href="#ftn22">21</a></span> (Sec’y Br. at 37; Resp’t Br. at 11, 13.) The Secretary<span>
					</span>emphasizes<span>
					</span>that because<span>
					</span>Respondent’s<span><span></span>
					</span>LOTO Plan<span>
					</span>lacked<span><span></span>
					</span>machine specific<span>
					</span>procedures,<span>
					</span>Respondent<span>
					</span>could not<span><span></span>
					</span>properly<span><span></span>
					</span>train<span><span></span>
					</span>employees<span><span></span>
					</span>on<span><span></span>
					</span>how to lockout all energy sources<span>
					</span>that powered<span>
					</span>the chamber machine, the gizzard machine, the mixer machine, and the frank-o-matic.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref23" href="#ftn23">22</a></span> (Sec’y Br. at 37.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">In response, Birdsboro<span>
					</span>does not allege<span>
					</span>it<span>
					</span>or LSCI provided training for authorized employees. (Resp’t Br. at 11-13.) Nor<span>
					</span>would<span>
					</span>the record support such a finding. The<span>
					</span>HR Manager<span>
					</span>provided<span>
					</span>what<span>
					</span>Respondent<span>
					</span>refers to as “safety orientations.” (Tr.<span>
					</span>189; Resp’t Br. at 11.) In doing so,<span>
					</span>she relied on materials prepared by a former employee. (Tr. 190.) She<span>
					</span>lacked formal safety and health training or experience<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>could not<span>
					</span>answer questions on the topics<span>
					</span>referenced in the<span>
					</span>training<span>
					</span>materials<span>
					</span>independently. (Tr.<span>
					</span>190, 453; Resp’t Br. at 11-12.) After what Respondent describes as a “large turnover,”<span>
					</span>it<span><span></span>
					</span>brought<span>
					</span>LSCI<span>
					</span>back in to<span>
					</span>conduct<span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>LOTO “general<span>
					</span>awareness” training<span><span></span>
					</span>in February 2016.<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr.<span>
					</span>419-20,<span>
					</span>427-30; Resp’t Br. at 13.) The training was not designed for “authorized<span>
					</span>employees,”<span><span></span>
					</span>i.e.,<span><span></span>
					</span>those employees who lockout<span><span></span>
					</span>or tagout machines to perform servicing or maintenance.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 427-30.) It<span>
					</span>was a<span><span></span>
					</span>general<span>
					</span>overview<span><span></span>
					</span>rather<span>
					</span>than a<span>
					</span>training about how to lockout and tagout specific machinery with multiple energy sources.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref24" href="#ftn24">23</a></span> (Tr.<span>
					</span>424,<span><span></span>
					</span>427-34.) Necessarily, employees could not be trained appropriately if such<span>
					</span>procedures<span>
					</span>did not exist. (Tr.<span>
					</span>430-34;<span>
					</span>552.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Drexe</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">l</span>, 17 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at<span>
					</span>1913 (the purpose of having prescribed lockout procedures is “to guide an employee through the lockout process”). The Secretary showed the cited standard applies<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span><span></span>
					</span>was violated.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Exposure</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">When<span>
					</span>an employee’s job assignment includes<span>
					</span>equipment servicing or maintenance, and it is reasonably predictable that the employee will encounter the hazard of unexpected energization while performing such work,<span>
					</span>LOTO<span>
					</span>training is required. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Gen. Motors,<span>
						</span></span>22 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at<span>
					</span>1022. As discussed, employees routinely cleaned, serviced and repaired the four machines<span>
					</span>with air and pneumatic energy sources. (Tr.<span>
					</span>49-52,<span>
					</span>57, 63-64, 756-57, 760-61.) Each time they were exposed to<span>
					</span>the possibility of the<span>
					</span>unexpected start-up<span><span></span>
					</span>of the machinery. </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Knowledge</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">To establish knowledge, the Secretary does not need to show the employer was aware it was violating an OSHA standard. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">N&N Contractors, Inc.,<span>
						</span></span>18 BNA OSHC 2121, 2124 (No. 96-0606, 2000),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span>, 255 F.3d 122 (4th<span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>Cir. 2001). Showing<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>employer knew or should have known of the condition constituting the violation<span><span></span>
					</span>is sufficient. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span>. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Here, there is no dispute Respondent<span><span></span>
					</span>had<span><span></span>
					</span>actual knowledge of the need for LOTO training. In 2014,<span>
					</span>it<span>
					</span>was cited<span>
					</span>for violating this same<span>
					</span>provision of the LOTO<span>
					</span>standard. (Ex. C-39 at 11.) The HR Manager was aware of the 2014<span><span></span>
					</span>Citations, including that one component was the failure to provide LOTO training. (Tr. 199-200.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent<span>
					</span>also<span>
					</span>resolved<span>
					</span>the<span><span></span>
					</span>2012<span>
					</span>Citations,<span><span></span>
					</span>which<span>
					</span>also<span>
					</span>included a violation of<span>
					</span>this<span>
					</span>same<span>
					</span>LOTO<span>
					</span>training standard, 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(7)(i). (Ex. C-54 at 8.) Mr. Wieder, the Operations Director,<span><span></span>
					</span>reviewed<span>
					</span>both the citations themselves as well as<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>2013 Settlement Agreement resolving<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>violations. (Tr.<span>
					</span>498-99.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">At the time of the inspection, Respondent was aware of both the standard and its applicability to its operations. The HR Manager<span>
					</span>knew the scope<span>
					</span>of the safety<span>
					</span>orientation<span><span></span>
					</span>she<span>
					</span>conducted,<span><span></span>
					</span>and that Birdsboro<span>
					</span>lacked<span>
					</span>machine specific<span>
					</span>LOTO procedures. Even if<span>
					</span>Respondent<span><span></span>
					</span>lacked actual knowledge about the scope of LSCI’s training,<span>
					</span>it<span>
					</span>could recognize<span><span></span>
					</span>it was<span><span></span>
					</span>not possible for the training to<span>
					</span>address how to lockout machines with multiple energy sources. Further, a<span><span></span>
					</span>simple inquiry of LSCI would have confirmed that the training was not designed for authorized employees who<span>
					</span>needed to perform lockouts. (Tr. 424,427-34.) This<span>
					</span>establishes<span><span></span>
					</span>knowledge<span><span></span>
					</span>of the violative condition.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See JPC,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>22 BNA OSHC at 1861 (finding knowledge when the employer failed to take steps to discover the violative condition). </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Characterization<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary argues that the violation is<span>
					</span>willful, or, in the alternative repeat<span><span></span>
					</span>or serious. (Sec’y Br. at 40; Tr. 7, 11.) The undersigned finds that the violation is repeat. Respondent had actual knowledge that authorized employees needed specific training in how to de-energize machines. (Ex. C-39<span><span></span>
					</span>at 11.)<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>It knew the content of<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>safety orientations the<span>
					</span>HR Manager<span>
					</span>conducted<span>
					</span>and<span><span></span>
					</span>could have learned that LSCI’s February 2016 training was not<span>
					</span>adequate<span><span></span>
					</span>for authorized employees. However,<span>
					</span>a willful characterization requires more than<span>
					</span>establishing knowledge<span><span></span>
					</span>of the violative condition. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dayton</span>,<span>
					</span>671 F.3d<span>
					</span>at 1255 (rejecting the Commission’s characterization of a LOTO violation as willful). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">While this violation may not be willful, it<span>
					</span>is a repeat violation. As discussed, Respondent was previously cited for violating this<span>
					</span>same<span>
					</span>sub-section of the LOTO<span>
					</span>standard<span><span></span>
					</span>(29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A))<span><span></span>
					</span>at this facility<span><span></span>
					</span>less than two years before. (Ex.<span>
					</span>C-39<span><span></span>
					</span>at 11.) Like the instant matter, this<span><span></span>
					</span>prior violation concerned<span><span></span>
					</span>a failure to property train about energy hazards employees may encounter when<span>
					</span>repairing and serving production equipment. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span> In resolving that citation, Respondent accepted<span>
					</span>the violation as issued. (Ex. C-44).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent fails to rebut the<span><span></span>
					</span>Secretary’s evidence that the 2014 violation<span><span></span>
					</span>was substantially<span><span></span>
					</span>similar to<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span><span></span>
					</span>present violation.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref25" href="#ftn25">24</a></span>
					<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">D.M. Sabia</span>, 90 F.3d<span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>860<span><span></span>
					</span>(“A repeated violation requires no more than a second violation and does not require proof of “flaunting”);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Potlach Corp</span>., 7 BNA OSHC<span><span></span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>1063<span>
					</span>(violation is repeated if the<span><span></span>
					</span>same employer was previously cited for a substantially similar violation). </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Citation 1, Item 1c<span><span></span>
				</span>–LOTO<span>
				</span>Inspections- 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(c)(6)(i)</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Applicability, Violation,<span><span></span>
				</span>and Exposure</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Citation 1, Item 1c<span>
					</span>concerns the<span><span></span>
					</span>requirement to conduct periodic inspections of energy control procedures. At least annually,<span>
					</span>employers<span><span></span>
					</span>must<span>
					</span>inspect their energy control procedures to ensure<span>
					</span>they<span><span></span>
					</span>comply with the LOTO standard and<span>
					</span>that<span><span></span>
					</span>employees are following the procedures. 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(6)(i). The employer must complete a written certification<span>
					</span>indicating<span>
					</span>the inspections have occurred. 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(6)(ii). As explained above, there is no dispute that Respondent needed a<span>
					</span>compliant<span>
					</span>LOTO program<span>
					</span>because<span>
					</span>employees cleaning,<span>
					</span>maintaining,<span><span></span>
					</span>or servicing<span>
					</span>energized equipment<span><span></span>
					</span>could encounter the hazard of<span>
					</span>unexpected energization<span><span></span>
					</span>during such activities. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary alleges that Respondent failed to conduct periodic<span><span></span>
					</span>inspections of<span>
					</span>its LOTO procedures. (Sec’y Br. at 40-41.) Respondent<span>
					</span>concedes it<span>
					</span>did not<span>
					</span>inspect<span>
					</span>its<span><span></span>
					</span>energy control procedures. (Resp’t Br. at 14.) <span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_CommentReference style_CommentReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:8pt; font-size:12pt; ">It</span><span><span></span>
					</span>argues the cited standard only requires<span>
					</span>an<span>
					</span>“annual”<span>
					</span>review, and so no inspection was necessary because<span>
					</span>the latest iteration of its<span><span></span>
					</span>LOTO<span>
					</span>Plan<span>
					</span>was less than a year old. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent misconstrues the cited standard as requiring<span>
					</span>only<span>
					</span>a review of the written procedures. Besides inspecting<span>
					</span>written procedures,<span>
					</span>employers<span>
					</span>must also<span>
					</span>assess whether employees are<span>
					</span>appropriately<span>
					</span>following<span>
					</span>a compliant<span><span></span>
					</span>LOTO procedure<span>
					</span>when<span>
					</span>they<span>
					</span>lockout<span><span></span>
					</span>or tagout machinery.<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(6)(i). For<span>
					</span>authorized employees, such as those<span>
					</span>who service or maintain energized equipment, the<span>
					</span>assessment<span><span></span>
					</span>must include<span>
					</span>a review<span>
					</span>with<span>
					</span>each authorized employee<span><span></span>
					</span>of his or her<span><span></span>
					</span>responsibilities under the company’s lockout procedure.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref26" href="#ftn26">25</a></span> 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.147(c)(6)(i)(C).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Even accepting that<span>
					</span>Birdsboro<span>
					</span>reviewed the written LOTO Plan in October 2015, there is no evidence<span>
					</span>it conducted<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span><span></span>
					</span>type of<span>
					</span>inspection the cited standard<span><span></span>
					</span>requires<span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>over a<span>
					</span>year before the date referenced in the Citation.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref27" href="#ftn27">26</a></span> (Tr.<span>
					</span>208; Ex. C-19.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent does not argue<span>
					</span>it<span>
					</span>had no<span>
					</span>LOTO procedures<span>
					</span>before<span><span></span>
					</span>LSCI delivered the<span><span></span>
					</span>written<span>
					</span>LOTO Plan in<span><span></span>
					</span>October 2015. Nor does it allege<span>
					</span>its procedures changed when LSCI delivered the LOTO Plan in October 2015. Indeed, its Maintenance Manager,<span>
					</span>Mr.<span>
					</span>Criswell,<span><span></span>
					</span>certified he was<span>
					</span>conducting inspections<span>
					</span>on certain machines<span>
					</span>from<span>
					</span>January<span><span></span>
					</span>10, 2014,<span><span></span>
					</span>through January<span>
					</span>20, 2015.<span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Ex. C-19.) After that date,<span>
					</span>there is no evidence of any<span>
					</span>inspections until OSHA commenced its investigation in March 2016.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref28" href="#ftn28">27</a></span>
					<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Further,<span><span></span>
					</span>the inspections that did occur were incomplete. On January 10, 2014, Mr. Criswell indicated he reviewed<span>
					</span>the LOTO<span>
					</span>procedures for the gizzard machine with one employee. (Ex. C-21.) There is no information<span>
					</span>about a similar<span>
					</span>review with the<span>
					</span>rest of the authorized<span>
					</span>employees. Nor<span><span></span>
					</span>is<span>
					</span>there<span><span></span>
					</span>evidence of<span>
					</span>any inspections of the LOTO procedures for the gizzard<span>
					</span>machine<span>
					</span>in 2015 or 2016. (Tr. 555-57; Ex. C-21.) Moreover,<span>
					</span>there is no evidence of any inspections for<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>chamber machine, the mixer,<span><span></span>
					</span>or the frank-o-matic<span><span></span>
					</span>at any time. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">
					</span>It appears that rather than<span>
					</span>reviewing all<span>
					</span>the procedures on all the machines<span><span></span>
					</span>with every employee<span><span></span>
					</span>tasked with maintaining or cleaning the machines, in 2014, Mr. Criswell inspected<span>
					</span>one employee locking out one type of machine each month. (Ex. C-21.) David Olah, the<span>
					</span>Area Director,<span><span></span>
					</span>explained that<span>
					</span>because<span>
					</span>LSCI ultimately concluded over forty machines needed machine specific procedures,<span>
					</span>the one machine/one employee<span>
					</span>a month<span>
					</span>approach<span>
					</span>would<span>
					</span>mean it would be years before Respondent inspected the procedures the maintenance<span>
					</span>and sanitation<span>
					</span>employees followed<span><span></span>
					</span>when locking out<span>
					</span>all the different types of production<span>
					</span>machinery.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref29" href="#ftn29">28</a></span> (Tr. 556-57.)<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Thus, even crediting the evidence of<span>
					</span>inspections in 2014, there is no evidence it covered all the machines<span><span></span>
					</span>or that any inspections occurred in the year before the date alleged in the Citation.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref30" href="#ftn30">29</a></span><span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary showed Respondent had to inspect its employees’ understanding of the LOTO procedures and<span>
					</span>failed to do so<span><span></span>
					</span>for at least one year. The standard was violated and employees cleaning, maintaining, or servicing energized equipment were exposed to the hazard of<span>
					</span>injuries from unexpected energizations.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">10.</span>Knowledge</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent makes no claim that<span><span></span>
					</span>it<span><span></span>
					</span>thought the inspections were being done. Rather, it contends they were unnecessary as of the date alleged in the Citation. (Resp’t Br. at 14.) As found above, inspections were necessary under the cited standard. As<span>
					</span>Respondent<span>
					</span>had<span>
					</span>actual knowledge of this<span><span></span>
					</span>requirement,<span><span></span>
					</span>it<span>
					</span>has no basis to claim it did not know the inspections were not being done. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent was previously cited for violating this same requirement in 2014. (Ex. C-39 at 12.) Both the Operations Director and the HR Manager were aware of the prior LOTO violations. (Tr. 199, 505, 512; Ex. C-44.) Mr. Wieder,<span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent’s Operations Director,<span><span></span>
					</span>accepted this violation on Birdsboro’s behalf<span><span></span>
					</span>in the 2014 Settlement Agreement. (Ex. C-44.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">In addition,<span>
					</span>LSCI provided<span>
					</span>OSHA<span>
					</span>with thirteen documents each titled “Lockout/Tagout Periodic Inspection Form.” (Ex. C-19; Tr. 294-95.) The forms include the name of the machine, who conducted the inspection, the authorized employee with whom the energy control procedures<span>
					</span>were being reviewed, and the date.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref31" href="#ftn31">30</a></span> (Ex. C-19.) Above the signature is a certification: “I hereby certify the periodic inspection for compliance with lockout/tagout standards on this machine/equipment have been satisfactory completed with the employee identified above.” (Ex. C-19 (mistakes in original).) LSCI provided Respondent with the forms and reminded the HR Manager, who had been delegated the responsibility for safety,<span><span></span>
					</span>to be sure the inspections occurred. (Tr. 228, 230-31, 238-39; Ex. C-46.) Thus, the forms themselves reference the requirement to inspect LOTO procedures and Respondent’s consultant reminded the HR Manager of the need for such inspections. (Exs. C-21, C-46.) Respondent<span><span></span>
					</span>knew of<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>cited standard and does not dispute<span>
					</span>that<span>
					</span>it knew no<span>
					</span>inspections<span>
					</span>occurred<span><span></span>
					</span>between<span><span></span>
					</span>January 20, 2015<span><span></span>
					</span>and the start of the March 2016 inspection. (Ex. C-19; Tr. 293.) </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Characterization<span><span></span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary argues the violation is willful, or, in the alternative repeat<span><span></span>
					</span>or serious. (Sec’y Br. at 43; Tr. 7, 11.) Respondent had actual knowledge of the need<span>
					</span>for LOTO<span>
					</span>inspections. (Exs.<span>
					</span>C-19,<span>
					</span>C-39<span><span></span>
					</span>at 12.) It was previously<span>
					</span>cited for violating this<span><span></span>
					</span>same<span>
					</span>subpart of the LOTO standard (29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.147(c)(6)(i))<span><span></span>
					</span>for failing to conduct periodic inspections of its LOTO procedures<span>
					</span>in 2014. (Ex. C-39 at 12.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">After<span>
					</span>accepting this<span>
					</span>serious<span>
					</span>violation<span><span></span>
					</span>in 2014,<span>
					</span>Respondent retained LSCI<span>
					</span>for assistance with<span>
					</span>learning how to comply with this requirement. (Tr.<span>
					</span>515-15.) LSCI provided Respondent with a form checklist to<span>
					</span>guide supervisors in conducting<span>
					</span>inspections. (Tr. 238-9, Ex. C-19.) The<span>
					</span>checklist guides<span>
					</span>a supervisor through the requirements to comply with the inspection called for by<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>cited standard. (Ex. C-19.) The Maintenance Manager, Mr. Criswell, signed several inspection forms certifying he reviewed the LOTO procedures with certain employees for a few machines. (Tr. 295-96; Ex. C-19.) However, these efforts quickly subsided and there is no evidence of any inspections for over a year before the date alleged in the instant Citation. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Despite having numerous machines, some with multiple energy sources, there is no evidence of a single inspection of the LOTO procedures any employee used on any machine for over a year.<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Ms. Rothrock of<span>
					</span>LSCI<span><span></span>
					</span>repeatedly reminded the HR Manager,<span><span></span>
					</span>Ms. Murray-Garcia,<span><span></span>
					</span>of<span>
					</span>the<span><span></span>
					</span>ongoing obligation to continue to conduct the inspections.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr.<span>
					</span>221-22, 227, 231;<span>
					</span>Ex. C-46<span><span></span>
					</span>at 1.) In an email on September 29, 2015,<span>
					</span>near the end of the one-year contract between LSCI and Birdsboro, Ms. Rothrock<span>
					</span>pointedly<span>
					</span>explained to Ms. Murray-Garcia that<span>
					</span>failing to<span>
					</span>comply<span><span></span>
					</span>with the inspection and other requirements would<span>
					</span>place the company at risk for repeat or willful<span><span></span>
					</span>violations. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span>. Still, Respondent failed to<span>
					</span>heed<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>warning and did not<span>
					</span>resume the inspections.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref32" href="#ftn32">31</a></span> (Ex. C-19.) As discussed above in connection with the characterization of Citation 1, Item 1a,<span>
					</span>Birdsboro failed to sufficiently<span>
					</span>prioritize safety. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The prior violation and<span>
					</span>provisions of its safety program gave Respondent a heightened awareness of the inspection requirement. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Emphasis style_Emphasis " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Active Oil</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 21 BNA OSHC at 1098, 2004-</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">0</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">9 (finding heightened awareness based on a previous citation and the content of the employer’s written safety program)</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Anderson,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>17 BNA OSHC at 1892-93<span><span></span>
					</span>(finding heightened awareness because the provision was “essentially contained in one of the work<span><span></span>
					</span>rules in the company’s safety plan”);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Lanzo,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>20 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at 1649. Respondent knew of the requirement<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>its applicability<span>
					</span>to its operations.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref33" href="#ftn33">32</a></span> The record lacks any<span>
					</span>explanation for why<span>
					</span>it ceased conducting the required inspections<span><span></span>
					</span>after being made aware of the requirement as a result of the prior citation and LSCI. Its conscious disregard of a known requirement is willful. <span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Hern Iron</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at 1214</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Penalty for Citation 1, Items 1a, 1b, and 1c</p>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; "><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Before turning to the penalty to be assessed, t</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he undersigned notes that Respondent does not<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">contend</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">any of the alleged violations are duplicative.  Such an argument would fail because the abatement</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">one of the violations alleged in Citation 1 would not, without further action, bring Respondent into compliance with the other requirements of 29 C.F.R. §</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1910.147(c).</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dayton Tire</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">23 BNA OSHC<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1267;</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">N.E. Precast LLC</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 26 BNA OSHC 2275, 2279</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(No.</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#212121; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">13-1169 & 13-1170, 2018) (violations w</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#212121; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ith<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#212121; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the same abatement may be duplicative),</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#212121; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="font-style:italic; color:#212121; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#212121; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 773 F. App</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#212121; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">’</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#212121; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">x 70 (2d Cir. 2019) (unpublished).</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Item 1a relates to the requirement to have appropriate LOTO procedures,</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Item 1b concerns the requirement to appropriately train authorized employees about energy control procedures, and Item 1c is about Respondent’s failure to review, or inspect, employee’s understanding of the company’s LOTO procedures.</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr. 552-53.)</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The abatement necessary for each of these violations is distinct.</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Having compliant written procedures, would not abate a failure to train about those proc</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ed</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ures.  Nor</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">does<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">having compliant written procedures satisfy the requirement to annually<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">inspect</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>whether authorized employees understand their role in conducting lockouts.</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Gen. Motors</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 22 BNA OSHC<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1024 (finding separate violations of subpart (c) of the LOTO standard were not duplicative because one related to the<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">failure to have an energy control program and the others related to the implementation of specific aspects of th</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">e</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>program);</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dayton Tire</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 23 BNA OSHC at</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1267 (violations alleging a failure to provide locks and a violation of the failure to train authorized employees<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">we</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">re<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">not<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">duplicative because a single abatement could not<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">c</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ure both deficiencies);</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Burkes Mech., Inc</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_normaltextrun style_normaltextrun " style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 21 BNA OSHC 2136, 2142 (No. 04-475, 2007) (violations of two different standards related to the control of hazardous energy not duplicative). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Although the violations are not duplicative, the Secretary has grouped them for penalty purposes and<span>
					</span>proposes a single penalty of $124,709 for Items 1a, 1b, and 1c. The undersigned finds it appropriate to group these three violations<span>
					</span>of the LOTO standard<span>
					</span>for penalty purposes. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">When assessing penalties, the OSH Act requires consideration of the<span><span></span>
					</span>violation’s<span><span></span>
					</span>gravity, Respondent’s history of compliance, its size,<span><span></span>
					</span>and any good faith<span><span></span>
					</span>it has shown. 29 U.S.C.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>666(j). The violation’s gravity is typically given the most weight. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">J. A. Jones Constr. Co</span>., 15 BNA OSHC 2201, 2214 (No. 87-2059, 1993). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>These violations could cause contusions, lacerations,<span><span></span>
					</span>and broken bones. (Tr. 635-41.) Employees routinely cleaned and serviced these machines,<span><span></span>
					</span>some on a daily basis,<span><span></span>
					</span>which<span>
					</span>increases<span><span></span>
					</span>the likelihood of<span>
					</span>an injury from an improperly locked out machine. (Tr.<span>
					</span>636, 640.) Between fourteen and eighteen employees were responsible for cleaning machinery and another four to six had repair and maintenance responsibilities. (Tr. 48-49; Resp’t Br. at 10.) Violations of<span>
					</span>the<span><span></span>
					</span>LOTO standard<span><span></span>
					</span>are<span>
					</span>generally<span><span></span>
					</span>considered to be of higher<span><span></span>
					</span>gravity<span>
					</span>because of<span><span></span>
					</span>the likely injury resulting<span><span></span>
					</span>from such violations. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Angelica</span>,<span>
					</span>27 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>1259 (noting the “high gravity nature of LOTO” violations);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Worldwide Mfg., Inc</span>., 19 BNA OSHC 1023, 1024 (No. 97-1381, 2000),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span>, 22 F. App’x<span><span></span>
					</span>684 (8th<span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>Cir. 2001)<span><span></span>
					</span>(unpublished).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent is a large employer with a history of violations. At the time of<span>
					</span>inspection, it employed approximately 270 to 280 employees. (Tr.<span><span></span>
					</span>43,<span><span></span>
					</span>305,<span>
					</span>477; Resp’t Br. at 10.) <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Burkes,<span>
						</span></span>21 BNA OSHC at<span>
					</span>2142 n.10 (finding employer with over<span>
					</span>220 employees to be a “large employer”). In terms of its compliance history, as discussed, a little over a year before the<span>
					</span>issuance of the<span>
					</span>present Citations,<span>
					</span>Respondent<span><span></span>
					</span>was cited for violating<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>LOTO standard. The<span><span></span>
					</span>2014<span><span></span>
					</span>Citation included: (1)<span><span></span>
					</span>a repeat violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.147(c)(4)(i), which is<span>
					</span>the same standard cited<span>
					</span>in this matter<span>
					</span>as part of Item 1a;<span><span></span>
					</span>(2) a serious<span>
					</span>violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A), which is the same standard cited as<span>
					</span>in<span>
					</span>Item 1b; and (3)<span>
					</span>a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.147(c)(6)(i), which is the same standard cited<span>
					</span>in Item 1c.<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Ex. C-39.) The<span>
					</span>2014 Citation also included<span><span></span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>violation of<span>
					</span>another provision of<span>
					</span>the LOTO standard as well as violations of several other standards. Later that same year<span>
					</span>Respondent received<span>
					</span>two more<span>
					</span>citations on December 25, 2014. (Ex. C-52.) Although these<span>
					</span>other<span>
					</span>citations did not include violations of the LOTO standard, they<span>
					</span>counsel against any penalty reduction for history. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Revoli</span>, 19 BNA OSHC at 1687 (finding employer’s long history of non-compliance “weighs heavily against it”). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Finally,<span>
					</span>as to good faith, the violations<span><span></span>
					</span>of<span>
					</span>29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span>§<span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(4)(i), 1910.147(c)(6)(i) were<span><span></span>
					</span>willful<span><span></span>
					</span>and the violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A) was repeat. Respondent<span><span></span>
					</span>did make some effort at training workers<span><span></span>
					</span>and taking steps to address the<span>
					</span>deficiencies<span>
					</span>in its<span><span></span>
					</span>LOTO program.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>However,<span><span></span>
					</span>these meager efforts came after<span>
					</span>multiple<span><span></span>
					</span>citations and still fell<span>
					</span>well<span>
					</span>short of what the<span>
					</span>LOTO<span>
					</span>standard requires. No reduction for good faith is appropriate. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Worldwide</span>, 19 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at<span>
					</span>1024<span><span></span>
					</span>(good faith penalty reduction not appropriate for<span>
					</span>an<span>
					</span>employer with a “history of prior violations” and where abatement measure came “too late”). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>“The purpose of a penalty is to achieve a safe workplace, and penalty assessments, if they are not to become simply another cost of doing business, are keyed to the amount an employer<span>
					</span>appears to require before it will comply.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Quality Stamping Prod</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">s</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">. Co</span>., 16 BNA OSHC 1927, 1929 (No. 91-414, 1994). Respondent has<span>
					</span>reached two prior settlements with OSHA<span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>LOTO violations. (Exs. C-39, C-44,<span>
					</span>C-54,<span>
					</span>C-57.) Still, it failed to come into compliance<span><span></span>
					</span>with<span>
					</span>applicable<span>
					</span>standards which<span><span></span>
					</span>protect against serious<span>
					</span>hazards in its<span><span></span>
					</span>workplace. A<span>
					</span>penalty of<span>
					</span>$124,709<span><span></span>
					</span>is assessed for Citation 1, Items 1a, 1b,<span><span></span>
					</span>and 1c. </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 style_Heading2 style_Heading2 " style="margin-left:24px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">I.</span>Citation 2, Item 1, Serious Violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span>§<span>
				</span>1910.23(a)(8) - Floor Holes</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; "><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As amended, Citation 2 alleges three instances where Respondent violated 29 C.F.R.<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§ </span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1910.23(a)(8).</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref34" href="#ftn34">33</a></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">This standard required the guarding of every floor hole into which employees can<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">accidentally</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_BodyTextChar style_BodyTextChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>walk.</span>
					<span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">At the time of the alleged violation, a “Floor hole” was defined an opening in any floor “measuring less than 12 inches but more than 1 inch in its least dimension” and “through which materials but not persons may fall.” 29 C.F.R.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1910.21(a)(1).</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Instance (a)</span></p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Instance (a) of this citation item concerns an area in<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">one of<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">P</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">icking</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>R</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">oom</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr. 75-76, Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">11.) </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In the Picking Rooms, employees set the machines to pick the feathers off the animals after they are killed. (Tr. 38-39.) </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In Picking Room 2</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, there was</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>three-inch gap between a raised grate where certain employees worked and the regular floor. (Tr. 76-77; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">11.) </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">There was no guarding for this floor hole. (Ex. C-11.) </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Area Director explained that the gap could cause employees to trip but they could not fall through the hole. (Tr. 566.) </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The dimensions of the opening fit within the definition of “floor hole</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as it was greater than one inch but not more than<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">twelve.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr. 77; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">11</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 2</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.) </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">So, the Secretary<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">established the standard’s<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">applicability</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and its violation</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Secretary also established<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">exposure<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">knowledge</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of the violative condition</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Employees worked on top of<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">raised grate.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">7</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">5</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-77</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex. C-11</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.) </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">T</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">S</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">uperintendent<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">explained he<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was familiar with this area</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, including the grating. (Tr. 75-7</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">7</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>He<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">acknowledged being aware that the gap was open “most of the time.” (Tr. 79.) </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Phoenix Roofing, Inc.</span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 17 BNA OSHC 1076, 1079 (No. 90-2148, 1995) (“Employer knowledge</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is established by a showing of employer awareness of the physical conditions constituting the violation”),</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d,</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">79 F.3d 1146 (5th Cir. 1996) (unpublished). </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Additionally</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the condition was open and obvious</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>making it easy<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">discover, as the<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Superintendent<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">did. (Tr.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">75</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-80</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex. C-11</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.) </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Kokosing Constr. Co</span>., 17 BNA OSHC 1869, 1871 (No. 92-2596, 1996) (holding that “the conspicuous location, the readily observable nature of the violative condition, and<span>
					</span>the presence of Kokosing’s crews<span>
					</span>in the area warrant a finding of constructive knowledge”). </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Instances (b) and (c)</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Applicability<span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Instances<span><span></span>
					</span>(b)<span>
					</span>and (c)<span>
					</span>relate<span><span></span>
					</span>to conditions observed on or about July 6, 2016 in the “Northwest end of the Evisceration Room.” The Evisceration Room is adjacent to the Picking Rooms discussed in connection with Instance (a). In the Evisceration Room,<span>
					</span>the liver and gizzard are<span>
					</span>separated,<span><span></span>
					</span>and the birds are inspected. (Tr. 41-42.) This room had<span>
					</span>two<span>
					</span>openings<span><span></span>
					</span>in the floor. One was an unguarded 10-inch opening between the end of a walkway and the start of the waste trough. (Ex. C-11, Tr. 96-97.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>This is the basis for Instance (c). Near this<span>
					</span>opening,<span>
					</span>there was another 10-inch gap<span>
					</span>in the grating<span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>another trough. This<span>
					</span>other gap<span>
					</span>is the basis for Instance (b). (Ex. C-11<span><span></span>
					</span>at 5a, Tr.<span>
					</span>97.) The<span>
					</span>Area Director explained that employees could walk into<span>
					</span>either<span><span></span>
					</span>of these<span>
					</span>openings, but could not fall through<span><span></span>
					</span>them, so<span>
					</span>both<span>
					</span>openings<span><span></span>
					</span>are considered<span>
					</span>floor holes<span><span></span>
					</span>within the meaning of the cited standard. (Tr. 569.) </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Violation</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">When there is a floor<span>
					</span>hole, employers have two options<span><span></span>
					</span>for guarding, a<span>
					</span>railing<span>
					</span>or<span>
					</span>a cover. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(a)(8). Specifically,<span><span></span>
					</span>the floor hole must be guarded with either:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Quote style_Quote " style="margin-left:48px; ">(i) A standard railing with standard toeboard on all exposed sides, or (ii) A floor hole cover of standard strength and construction. While the cover is not in place, the floor hole shall be constantly attended by someone or shall be protected by a removable standard railing. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:0cm; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span>. Although there was a single chain<span><span></span>
					</span>near the trough<span><span></span>
					</span>referenced in Instances<span>
					</span>(b) and (c), the Secretary showed it was inadequate. To be considered a guardrail within the meaning of the standard, there would have to be two chains<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>toeboard. (Tr.<span>
					</span>571-72.) There<span>
					</span>was only one chain<span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>there was<span>
					</span>no toeboard. (Ex.<span>
					</span>C-11 at<span>
					</span>5a and<span>
					</span>6a.) Further, the<span>
					</span>single chain<span><span></span>
					</span>did<span>
					</span>not<span><span></span>
					</span>block the<span>
					</span>opening at<span>
					</span>discussed<span><span></span>
					</span>in<span>
					</span>Instance (b)<span><span></span>
					</span>at all. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span>at 5a. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">In its brief, Respondent argues<span><span></span>
					</span>the trough was “constantly attended.” (Resp’t Br. at 16.) However, for that to be relevant, the trough would have had to have a cover of standard strength and construction. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(a)(8)(ii). No one discussed the existence of such<span><span></span>
					</span>a<span><span></span>
					</span>cover,<span><span></span>
					</span>and none is visible in the photographs of the conditions. (Ex. C-11.) Further, while many employees worked in this area and some were charged with regularly cleaning the floor<span><span></span>
					</span>by pushing waste into the trough, there is no evidence<span><span></span>
					</span>that<span><span></span>
					</span>anyone<span>
					</span>was<span>
					</span>attending the opening to prevent workers from tripping. (Tr. 91.) </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Exposure<span><span></span>
				</span>and Knowledge</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Approximately fifty employees worked in this area, including some who cleaned waste into the trough throughout the day. (Tr.<span>
					</span>91; Ex. C-11.) The<span>
					</span>area was always wet and occasionally slippery. (Tr. 93, Ex. C-11 at 5-6.) Both conditions were open and obvious and located in high traffic areas. (Tr. 90-91.) The conditions were either known or<span>
					</span>could have easily been discovered with reasonable diligence. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Kokosing<span>
						</span></span>17 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at<span>
					</span>1871;<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Am. Airlines, Inc</span>., 17 BNA OSHC 1552, 1555 (No. 93-1817, 1996) (consolidated) (finding knowledge<span>
					</span>in<span>
					</span>connection with violations of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.23<span>
					</span>when conditions were in plain view and supervisory personnel were present). </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Characterization<span><span></span>
				</span>and Penalty<span><span></span>
				</span>of Citation 2, Item 1, Instances (a), (b), and (c)</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary argues this violation is serious and proposes a single penalty of $5,880 for the three Instances. Respondent<span>
					</span>raises no arguments<span>
					</span>concerning<span>
					</span>the characterization<span><span></span>
					</span>or proposed penalty. (Resp’t Br. at 16-17.) The Area Director explained that the openings created a trip and fall hazard that could result in broken bones, sprains, and strains. (Tr. 567, 571, 574.) Still, he considered it<span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>low gravity<span><span></span>
					</span>violation. (Tr.<span>
					</span>575-76; Ex. C-10.) He argued that no size or good faith reductions were appropriate as Respondent had over 250 employees and lacked a good overall safety program. (Tr. 575-77.) Finally, because of Respondent’s history, he argued that the penalty<span>
					</span>that<span>
					</span>would otherwise be appropriate for the<span>
					</span>violation’s<span>
					</span>gravity should be increased by 10%. (Tr.<span>
					</span>577-78.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The undersigned agrees that the<span>
					</span>violation’s gravity<span>
					</span>does not warrant the maximum penalty. As for good faith, Respondent promptly addressed the violation but<span><span></span>
					</span>lacked<span><span></span>
					</span>an effective overall safety program. (Tr. 78-79.) Respondent’s<span><span></span>
					</span>large size does not warrant a<span><span></span>
					</span>reduced penalty. (Tr. 477.) Finally, its history of violations makes some increase appropriate. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Quality<span>
						</span></span>Stamping,<span>
					</span>16 BNA OSHC at 1929 (weighing the employer’s substantial history when calculating the penalty).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The violations<span>
					</span>are<span>
					</span>serious.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The<span><span></span>
					</span>Secretary’s proposed grouping of the three<span>
					</span>Instances with a single penalty of $5,880 is appropriate. A penalty of $5,880 is assessed for Citation 2, Item 1, Instances (a), (b), and (c). </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 style_Heading2 style_Heading2 " style="margin-left:24px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">I.</span>Citation 2, Item 3b-<span>
				</span>Serious Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(b)(5)<span>
				</span>–<span><span></span>
				</span>Exit Signage</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Birdsboro’s facility consists of<span>
					</span>several<span>
					</span>different rooms and areas. In the<span>
					</span>Kill<span>
					</span>Room, employees hand live animals to rabbis for slaughtering. (Tr. 36-37, 150; Ex. C-17 at 1, 3, 7.) Adjacent to the<span>
					</span>Kill<span>
					</span>Room there are two<span>
					</span>Picking Rooms,<span>
					</span>where machines remove the feathers from<span><span></span>
					</span>the animals<span><span></span>
					</span>(in other words, the “product”).<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 38-39.) After the<span>
					</span>Picking Rooms,<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>product enters<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>Evisceration<span>
					</span>Room where certain parts are<span>
					</span>removed,<span><span></span>
					</span>and the<span>
					</span>product is<span><span></span>
					</span>inspected. (Tr.<span>
					</span>41-42.) The<span><span></span>
					</span>product moves<span>
					</span>to the<span>
					</span>Process<span>
					</span>Room for salting and chilling. (Tr. 42-43.) Some<span>
					</span>product is also<span>
					</span>sent to<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>Grind<span>
					</span>Room<span><span></span>
					</span>for additional processing. (Tr. 42-43, 49.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Citation 2, Item 3b relates to alleged violations<span><span></span>
					</span>of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span>§ 1910.37(b), for insufficient exit markings. If a door does not<span>
					</span>lead to an exit, it<span>
					</span>must be marked “not an exit” or otherwise explain what is behind the door.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref35" href="#ftn35">34</a></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-weight:normal; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:normal; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-weight:normal; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:normal; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(b)(5). In addition,<span>
					</span>if the way to exit is not immediately apparent, signs must be posted along the exit access route to indicate both the direction of travel and the nearest exit. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(b)(4). The “line-of-sight to an exit must be clearly visible at all times.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Instances (a) and (e) – Violations of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(b)(5)</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Instance (a)</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Instance (a) alleges that the door connecting the<span>
					</span>Evisceration<span>
					</span>Room to<span>
					</span>Picking<span>
					</span>Room 2<span><span></span>
					</span>should have indicated it was not an exit. There is no debate the door lacked a<span>
					</span>sign identifying<span><span></span>
					</span>it<span><span></span>
					</span>as leading to<span>
					</span>Picking Room 2<span><span></span>
					</span>or otherwise indicate the door did not lead to an<span>
					</span>exit.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref36" href="#ftn36">35</a></span> (Tr. 113;<span>
					</span>Ex. C-13 at 1, 4A.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Besides this door, the<span><span></span>
					</span>room had<span>
					</span>three other<span>
					</span>doors. (Tr. 113-15.) One of these other doors, which was located on a<span>
					</span>different wall,<span><span></span>
					</span>had an<span>
					</span>exit sign<span><span></span>
					</span>above<span>
					</span>it. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>Respondent alleges that<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>OSHA compliance officer (CO) investigating the facility<span><span></span>
					</span>purposely framed the photograph of the area<span>
					</span>to<span><span></span>
					</span>exclude<span>
					</span>the exit sign. (Resp’t Br. at<span>
					</span>17.) This claim is meritless. First, the exit sign is visible in one of the<span>
					</span>CO’s<span>
					</span>photographs, just not all of them. (Ex. C-13<span><span></span>
					</span>at<span>
					</span>4A.) Moreover,<span>
					</span>the cited standard concerns whether doors along an exit route are clearly marked to indicate they are not an exit. (Tr. 706.) Thus, the existence of some exit signage does not mean there has been no violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(b)(5), which is concerned<span><span></span>
					</span>with doors<span>
					</span>not leading<span>
					</span>to exits.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">This is not to say that the presence of the exit sign is irrelevant. Its<span><span></span>
					</span>presence shows that the door in question was along an exit route. (Sec’y Br. at 50.) Someone seeking to quickly exit along this route might come to<span>
					</span>this<span>
					</span>door and think it was an exit when it just leads to another<span><span></span>
					</span>interior<span>
					</span>room. (Tr. 583-84.) For this reason, the standard requires the doorway itself to be marked.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 583-84, 706.) The standard applies and was violated.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref37" href="#ftn37">36</a></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">As for exposure,<span>
					</span>between fifty and sixty<span>
					</span>employees worked in this room every day. (Tr. 41-42, 63, 91; Ex. C-12.) The amount of equipment and other space limitations made the need for clear exit routes critical. (Tr.<span>
					</span>708.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Turning to knowledge, the<span>
					</span>Superintendent<span>
					</span>was familiar with this area of the<span><span></span>
					</span>facility. (Tr.<span>
					</span>63, 112.) The condition was in plain view and the lack of signage was readily apparent. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See A.L. Baumgartner Constr.,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>16 BNA OSHC 1995, 1998 (No. 92-1002, 1994) (constructive knowledge established when cited condition is readily apparent). The Secretary met his burden.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Instance (e)</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Instance (e)<span>
					</span>relates to<span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>single<span>
					</span>door from the process room.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref38" href="#ftn38">37</a></span> At one end of the process room,<span><span></span>
					</span>there is a single door<span><span></span>
					</span>close to<span><span></span>
					</span>a set of double doors. (Tr. 132;<span>
					</span>Ex. C-13<span><span></span>
					</span>at 6.) Above the double doors, there is an illuminated<span><span></span>
					</span>exit sign. (Ex. C-13 at 6.) Adjacent to the double doors, a<span>
					</span>single door connected<span>
					</span>the process room<span>
					</span>to what was referred to as the ammonia or cooler room. (Tr. 132-34.) This adjacent room<span>
					</span>contained the compressor for the cooling system<span><span></span>
					</span>and did not lead to an exit. (Tr. 132-33.) There<span>
					</span>is no signage on the<span><span></span>
					</span>single<span><span></span>
					</span>door indicating either what was behind it or<span>
					</span>explaining<span><span></span>
					</span>it was not an exit. (Tr. 134;<span>
					</span>Ex. C-13<span><span></span>
					</span>at 6.) The Area Director explained<span>
					</span>that an employee attempting to exit the<span>
					</span>area could be confused as to whether it could use<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>single door, as opposed to the adjacent double doors,<span><span></span>
					</span>to exit the building.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref39" href="#ftn39">38</a></span> (Tr. 581.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Employees worked in this area and thus were exposed to the hazard. (Ex. C-13<span><span></span>
					</span>at 6.) The<span>
					</span>Superintendent was familiar with this area<span>
					</span>and Respondent<span><span></span>
					</span>could have discovered<span>
					</span>the lack of signage with reasonable diligence. (Tr.<span>
					</span>100,<span>
					</span>125.) <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See A.L. Baumgartner,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>16 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>1998 (constructive knowledge established when cited condition is readily apparent).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary established the violation.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Instance (d)- Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(b)(4)</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Instance (d) concerns a set of double doors from the<span>
					</span>packing area<span>
					</span>to the Evisceration Room. These doors were not labeled. (Tr. 125;<span>
					</span>Ex. C-13 at 5.) Unlike the other Instances,<span><span></span>
					</span>which involved doors that did not lead to an exit,<span><span></span>
					</span>this allegation involved<span>
					</span>doors<span>
					</span>leading<span><span></span>
					</span>to a<span><span></span>
					</span>possible<span><span></span>
					</span>exit route. So, at the hearing,<span><span></span>
					</span>the Secretary<span>
					</span>moved to<span>
					</span>amend Instance (d) to allege, in the alternative, a violation of section (b)(4) of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.37, as opposed to section (b)(5) as was initially alleged in the Citation. (Tr.<span>
					</span>131,<span>
					</span>581.) Respondent did not object to the amendment and<span>
					</span>the request was granted. (Tr. 131.) Section (b)(4) provides:<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Quote style_Quote " style="margin-left:48px; "><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_QuoteChar style_QuoteChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">If the direction of travel to<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_QuoteChar style_QuoteChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_QuoteChar style_QuoteChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">exit or exit discharge is not immediately apparent, signs must be posted along the exit access indicating the direction of travel to the nearest exit and exit discharge. Additionally, the line-of-sight to an exit must be clearly visible</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_QuoteChar style_QuoteChar " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at all times.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(b)(4). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The<span>
					</span>Superintendent<span>
					</span>indicated that the double doors<span>
					</span>shown in Ex. C-13<span>
					</span>were one possible<span>
					</span>way to exit the building. (Tr. 126-27.) Neither he nor any<span>
					</span>other<span>
					</span>witness<span><span></span>
					</span>explained<span><span></span>
					</span>whether the double doors depicted in<span>
					</span>Exhibit C-13 represented the “nearest exit.” The Superintendent<span><span></span>
					</span>did<span><span></span>
					</span>explain, however,<span><span></span>
					</span>that<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span><span></span>
					</span>lit exit signs<span>
					</span>in the<span>
					</span>room<span><span></span>
					</span>made it<span>
					</span>immediately apparent how to exit this area. (Tr. 171-72; Ex. C-13 at 5.) This testimony was not sufficiently refuted.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary failed to<span>
					</span>show that the double doors<span>
					</span>needed to be labeled. Because they were a possible exit, the<span><span></span>
					</span>lack of labeling did not violate section (b)(5). Nor did the Secretary establish that they were the nearest way to exit the building or that the line of sight to the nearest exit was not clearly visible in violation of section (b)(4). Instance (d) is vacated. </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Characterization and Penalty<span><span></span>
				</span>for Citation 2, Item 3(b), Instances (a) and (e)</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent does not challenge the characterization as serious.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The record supports this characterization.<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The Area Director explained that<span>
					</span>marking doorways is important because a failure to do so harms safe egress in the event of an emergency. (Tr.<span>
					</span>581,<span>
					</span>708.) If an employee cannot<span><span></span>
					</span>quickly determine how to leave, they may<span>
					</span>enter a doorway<span>
					</span>that<span>
					</span>does not lead<span>
					</span>to an exit and<span>
					</span>become<span><span></span>
					</span>trapped. (Tr. 581.) Such a hazard<span>
					</span>is appropriately characterized as<span>
					</span>serious. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Tree of Life Inc., d/b/a Gourmet Award Foods, N.E. Div.</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1535, 1537<span><span></span>
					</span>(No. 00-0433, 2001) (finding a violation related to egress serious rather than de minimis). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Initially, in the Citation, the Secretary proposed a single grouped penalty for of $5,888 for Citation 2, Items 3(a) and 3(b). The Secretary subsequently withdrew Item 3(a), and two of the five<span>
					</span>Instances that were part of Item 3(b). This left Instances (a), (d), and (e) of Item 3(b). As discussed, only Instances (a) and (e) are affirmed. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary acknowledges the<span>
					</span>violation’s<span>
					</span>gravity is not particularly high. (Tr. 584; Sec’y Br. at 51.) Respondent<span>
					</span>had<span>
					</span>some exit signage and<span><span></span>
					</span>directional<span><span></span>
					</span>markings. However, it also had a high turnover of its<span>
					</span>large<span>
					</span>workforce, which made appropriate exit signage important in a large multi-room facility. (Tr.<span>
					</span>305,<span>
					</span>419-20,<span>
					</span>422, 426, 708.) New<span>
					</span>employees<span>
					</span>could be unfamiliar<span>
					</span>with<span>
					</span>which<span>
					</span>one of<span><span></span>
					</span>several doors<span>
					</span>connected<span>
					</span>to an exit or<span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>dead end. (Tr. 708.) As for good faith,<span>
					</span>Respondent<span>
					</span>lacked<span>
					</span>a robust safety program<span>
					</span>and a further reduction for this factor is not<span>
					</span>appropriate. Likewise,<span>
					</span>Respondent<span><span></span>
					</span>has a history of violations<span><span></span>
					</span>and is a large company, so these factors do not warrant a further reduction in the penalty. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Given the withdrawals and the vacation of Instance (d), a lower penalty than<span><span></span>
					</span>what the Secretary proposes is appropriate. A<span><span></span>
					</span>$2,000<span>
					</span>penalty is assessed<span><span></span>
					</span>for Citation 2, Item 3(b), Instances (a) and (e).</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 style_Heading2 style_Heading2 " style="margin-left:24px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">I.</span>Violations of the<span>
				</span>Occupational<span>
				</span>Noise<span>
				</span>Exposure<span><span></span>
				</span>Standard (29 C.F.R. § 1910.95)</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Citation 2, Item 4 – Serious Violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span>§<span>
				</span>1910.95(b)(1) – Noise Control</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Applicability and Violation</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Item 4 relates to noise in the Picking Room. The cited standard requires administrative or engineering controls<span>
					</span>when noise exceeds<span><span></span>
					</span>specified action levels. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.95(b)(1). If these controls fail to reduce the noise<span>
					</span>below the action<span>
					</span>level, then PPE must be provided and used.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref40" href="#ftn40">39</a></span>
					<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span>. The parties stipulated that cited standard applies and the record supports this. (Tr. 248-51.) In<span>
					</span>particular, the parties agree to the level of noise in the Picking Room exceeded the<span><span></span>
					</span>threshold above which action under 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.95 is required. In March of 2016 the: (a) noise in one area of the Picking Room exceeded the permissible noise dose by 1,662%, (b) noise in a second area exceed the permissible noise dose by 2,225%, (c) noise in a third area exceeded the permissible noise dose by 640%, and (d) noise in<span>
					</span>a fourth<span>
					</span>area<span>
					</span>exceeded<span>
					</span>the permissible noise dose by 295%. (Tr. 250-51.)<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent acknowledged the accuracy of these measurements but disputed whether employees were actually exposed to this level of noise because<span><span></span>
					</span>it provided PPE, including earplugs and earmuffs. (Tr. 251.) For purposes of<span>
					</span>29 C.F.R.<span><span></span>
					</span>§ 1910.95, “employee noise exposures shall be computed ... without regard to any attenuation provided by the use of personal protective equipment.”<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R.<span><span></span>
					</span>§ 1910.95(c)(1);<span>
					</span>Occupational Noise Exposure; Hearing Conservation Amendment, 46 Fed.<span>
					</span>Reg.<span><span></span>
					</span>4078, 4102) (Jan. 16,<span>
					</span>1981)<span><span></span>
					</span>(employers must<span>
					</span>“provide audiometric testing for those employees exposed above the<span>
					</span>[action level]<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">without regard to the use of personal protective equipment</span>”) (emphasis added). Thus, it is the level of noise in a given area that triggers an employer’s responsibilities under the cited standard, not the level of noise employees are exposed to<span>
					</span>when they are<span>
					</span>wearing PPE. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Given that the noise was well above the action level,<span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent needed to implement feasible administrative or engineering controls<span><span></span>
					</span>to address the noise. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.95(b)(1).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The Citation alleges that feasible abatement measures could include the “installation of barriers, baffles, sound-absorbing, or sound-damping materials to reduce employees’ exposure to occupational noise.” Respondent<span><span></span>
					</span>acknowledges that after the investigation commenced, it was able to<span>
					</span>implement feasible administrative and engineering controls to reduce the noise levels. (Resp’t Br. at 19-20.) After the date alleged in the Citation, it<span>
					</span>installed a wall<span>
					</span>and<span><span></span>
					</span>additional ceiling<span>
					</span>material<span>
					</span>in the Picking Room, as well as double-sided acrylic curtains to reduce noise. (Tr. 82-83,<span><span></span>
					</span>119-20, 519;<span><span></span>
					</span>Exs. C-11 at 4, C-13.) It also<span><span></span>
					</span>hired a contractor which advised the company about additional engineering controls it could use to reduce noise. (Resp’t Br. at 19-20; Tr. 120, 522.) There is no evidence that any of these measures could not have been<span>
					</span>implemented<span><span></span>
					</span>before the date alleged in the Citation.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref41" href="#ftn41">40</a></span>
				</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Despite<span>
					</span>its acceptance of the noise readings and the fact that there were feasible engineering controls that could have been adopted,<span>
					</span>Respondent argues that OSHA’s acceptance of the<span>
					</span>abatement<span>
					</span>documents following the 2014 Citations<span>
					</span>precludes the present Citations. (Resp’t Br. at 20.) First, the earlier violation<span>
					</span>refers to Kill Room,<span><span></span>
					</span>rather than Picking Rooms. (Ex. C-39 at 31-33.) Second, the standard<span>
					</span>cited in 2014<span>
					</span>is<span>
					</span>29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.95(c)(1), which requires a hearing conservation program. (Ex. C-39 at 31-33.) So, abating that violation would not mean that<span>
					</span>Respondent had implemented feasible engineering controls, or that it was in compliance with the standards cited as a result of the 2016 inspection<span><span></span>
					</span>(29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.95(b)(1), (g), (i)(3), (m)(2)(ii)(E)). <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Con Agra Flour Milling Co.</span>, 25 F.3d 653, 657<span><span></span>
					</span>(8th Cir. 1994)<span><span></span>
					</span>(vacation of<span>
					</span>prior citation did not give employer reason to believe it would not be later cited for violating different regulations);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Kaspar</span>, 18 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>2183 n.13<span>
					</span>(OSHA may issue a citation for a condition that may have been previously observed but was not cited as a violation).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Third, while OSHA may have accepted the Respondent’s abatement certificate, that does not provide immunity for future violations. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Erie Coke Corp.</span>,<span>
					</span>15 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>1561, 1568-69 (No. 88-0611,<span><span></span>
					</span>1992)<span><span></span>
					</span>(Secretary not estopped from changing position after prior settlements of<span>
					</span>violations),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">denying review in part, and affirming in part</span>, 998 F.2d 134 (3d Cir. 1993) (finding employer’s cross-petition for review untimely). OSHA<span>
					</span>did not<span>
					</span>inspect<span><span></span>
					</span>the facility to test noise levels after receiving Respondent’s abatement certification. Rather, OSHA accepted Respondent’s<span>
					</span>certification<span><span></span>
					</span>that<span>
					</span>it<span>
					</span>appropriately<span>
					</span>abated the<span>
					</span>violations related to<span>
					</span>noise. Resolving those citations did not mean OSHA was approving Respondent’s entire safety program<span><span></span>
					</span>or excuse the responsibility to continue to comply with the OSH Act. (Tr. 688-89.) <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Flu</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">o</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">r Daniel</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1529, 1533<span><span></span>
					</span>(No. 96-1729, 2001) (consolidated) (rejecting estoppel claim based on past compliance inspections),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span>, 295 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2002).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary showed that the engineering controls Respondent had in place at the time of the inspection were inadequate. After being cited for<span>
					</span>failing to have a hearing conservation program<span>
					</span>in 2014, Respondent installed<span><span></span>
					</span>some new motors, which<span><span></span>
					</span>it hoped would reduce the noise. (Tr.<span>
					</span>518-19.) However,<span>
					</span>it failed to conduct testing to determine if<span>
					</span>the actions it took<span>
					</span>impacted the level of noise. (Tr.<span>
					</span>520; Ex. 39 at 31-34.) Mr. Wieder, the Operations Director, admitted he “dropped the ball” in terms of assessing whether the steps taken had an impact on the level of noise. (Tr. 521.) Testing conducted by OSHA<span><span></span>
					</span>in 2016<span><span></span>
					</span>showed the new motors had no significant impact on the noise.<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 250.) Respondent failed to utilize feasible<span>
					</span>administrative or engineering controls as<span><span></span>
					</span>required.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref42" href="#ftn42">41</a></span>
				</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Exposure</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Many employees worked in the Picking Room and were exposed to the noise. Employees in four different areas of the Picking Room wore dosimeters to assess the<span><span></span>
					</span>level of<span>
					</span>noise<span><span></span>
					</span>in<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>room. While these employees were<span>
					</span>provided with PPE and required to use it, the standard requires employers to first implement feasible engineering controls before relying on PPE.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref43" href="#ftn43">42</a></span> 29 C.F.R. § 1910.95(b)(1)<span><span></span>
					</span>(specifying that if administrative and engineering controls fail to reduce the sound levels sufficiently, then<span>
					</span>PPE<span>
					</span>shall be provided). <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Anchor Hocking Corp</span>., 3 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>1389, 1391<span><span></span>
					</span>(No. 3783, 1975) (Cleary,<span><span></span>
					</span>Comm’r,<span>
					</span>concluding that 29 C.F.R. § 1910.95(b)(1) requires feasible administrative or engineering controls whenever employees are subjected to sound levels exceeding those specified in the standard).<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Knowledge</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">As for knowledge, the HR Manager and<span>
					</span>the Operations Director,<span>
					</span>Mr. Wieder,<span><span></span>
					</span>both acknowledged that as of the time alleged in the<span>
					</span>Citation,<span><span></span>
					</span>they were aware that the noise levels were high enough to trigger the requirement to conduct annual audiograms. (Tr. 309, 518.) The<span>
					</span>2014 Citations included a<span><span></span>
					</span>violation<span>
					</span>for failing to administer an effective hearing conservation program as<span>
					</span>required by<span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.95(c)(1). (Ex. C-39 at 30.) The violation alleged<span>
					</span>exposure to noise over<span>
					</span>22 decibels higher than the action level set out in the standard. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>Respondent<span>
					</span>accepted this violation, including the repeat characterization as part of the 2014 Settlements. (Ex.<span>
					</span>C-39 at 30-31;<span>
					</span>C-45.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Mr. Wieder<span><span></span>
					</span>was aware of both this 2014 Citation, as well as an earlier one<span><span></span>
					</span>issued to MVP in 2012, that<span>
					</span>also involved a<span>
					</span>serious<span>
					</span>violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.95(c)(1). (Ex. C-54 at<span>
					</span>31-32.) The 2012<span><span></span>
					</span>Citation<span>
					</span>discussed<span><span></span>
					</span>three employees on<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>picking line all being exposed to noise well above the action level. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span>.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Even without this history of noise violations,<span>
					</span>the level of noise was readily apparent. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Con</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">t’l Elec. Co.,<span>
						</span></span>13 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>2153, 2155 (No.<span>
					</span>83-921, 1989)<span><span></span>
					</span>(high<span>
					</span>noise levels would have indicated to a reasonably diligent employer<span>
					</span>that exposure might exceed action levels). The area had four picking machines and the parties agreed that noise readings were<span><span></span>
					</span>substantially<span><span></span>
					</span>above the action level. (Ex. C-11; Tr. 143, 248-49.) </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Characterization<span>
				</span>and Penalty</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent does not dispute the<span>
					</span>violation’s<span>
					</span>characterization as serious. The<span><span></span>
					</span>record supports this<span><span></span>
					</span>characterization. Four employees were monitored, and the level of noise in the areas where they worked greatly exceeded the standard. (Tr. 250-51; Ex. C-10.) The high levels of noise could cause hearing loss. (Tr.<span>
					</span>587.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">In terms of the penalty amount, the Secretary proposes $12,471. This amount<span>
					</span>is<span>
					</span>appropriate<span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>the violation’s gravity, Respondent’s large size, its history of violations, including ones related to noise,<span><span></span>
					</span>and its inadequate safety program. (Tr. 727-29; Ex. C-10.) The availability of PPE somewhat mitigates the<span>
					</span>violation’s<span>
					</span>gravity. Respondent<span>
					</span>also<span>
					</span>took action to address the noise both during the investigation and after the Citation was issued. However, Respondent was previously cited for noise-related violations, and this history warrants a higher penalty. So, a penalty of $12,471 is assessed for Citation 2, Item 4. </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Citation 2,<span>
				</span>Items 5a, 5b, and 5c</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Items<span><span></span>
				</span>5a<span><span></span>
				</span>and 5b– 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.95(g)<span><span></span>
				</span>–Audiology<span>
				</span>Testing Program</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent accepted responsibly for Citation 2, Items 5a and b in its brief. (Resp’t Br. 20-21.) Item 5a relates to a violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.95(g)(7)(i) for failing to compare<span><span></span>
					</span>annual audiograms to the baseline audiograms. Item 5b<span>
					</span>relates to a violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.95(g)(8)(ii)(B),<span><span></span>
					</span>which requires that employees already using hearing protectors<span>
					</span>must<span><span></span>
					</span>be refitted and retrained in the use of hearing protectors as well as being provided with hearing protectors offering greater attenuation if necessary. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The record supports affirming the violations.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Employers covered by the occupational noise standard must establish and maintain an audiometric testing program. 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.95(g);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Trinity Indus. Inc</span>., 15 BNA OSHC 1579, 1590 (No. 88-1547, 1992)<span><span></span>
					</span>(“an employer's obligation to conduct monitoring is mandatory once a threshold noise level is reached”),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">rev'd on other grounds</span>, 16 F.3d 1149 (11th Cir. 1994).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The program must include several elements, including evaluation of audiograms<span><span></span>
					</span>and re-fitting employees with hearing protection under certain circumstances. 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span>§<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.95(g)(1)(7), 1910.95(g)(8)(ii)(B). At the hearing, the parties stipulated that<span>
					</span>the cited standard applies to the cited conditions. (Tr. 251.) Respondent does not dispute that its employees were subject to noise and covered by the cited standard. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">In terms of Citation 2, Item 5a, the<span>
					</span>Operations Director, Mr. Wieder,<span>
					</span>admitted the consultant retained to conduct the<span>
					</span>audiological<span>
					</span>testing was<span>
					</span>not<span>
					</span>comparing the test results to baseline audiograms. (Tr.<span>
					</span>524.) Nor<span>
					</span>was<span>
					</span>Birdsboro itself doing<span><span></span>
					</span>this. (Tr. 315.) As for Citation 2, Item 5b, the HR Manager<span>
					</span>acknowledged that Respondent was not refitting employees hearing<span>
					</span>protection based on the results of any audiograms. (Tr. 317-18.) Respondent does not<span>
					</span>deny<span><span></span>
					</span>it<span>
					</span>knew or could have known of the violations. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Both violations were appropriately characterized as serious, given the connection to the potential for hearing loss. (Ex. C-10.) <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Reich v. Trinity Indus.</span>, 16 F.3d 1149, 1150<span><span></span>
					</span>(11th Cir. 1994)<span><span></span>
					</span>(“Noise at the work place is a serious health problem”).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>For penalty purposes, the Secretary proposes a single penalty for Items 5a, 5b,<span><span></span>
					</span>and 5c. </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Citation 2,<span><span></span>
				</span>Item 5c – 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.95(i)(3)<span><span></span>
				</span>– Hearing Protection</p>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The noise standard requires employers to give employees:<span><span></span>
					</span>“the opportunity to select their hearing protectors from a variety of suitable hearing protectors provided by the employer.” 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.95(i)(3). Respondent required employees to wear earplugs and earmuffs<span>
					</span>in the Picking Room<span>
					</span>to address the level of noise in the facility.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref44" href="#ftn44">43</a></span> (Tr. 321,<span>
					</span>588.) However, it only provided one type of earplug and one type of earmuff. (Tr. 138,<span>
					</span>320-21; Ex. C-15.) Employees could not<span>
					</span>choose their hearing protectors “from a variety” of hearing protectors, they had to wear the two items provided. (Tr. 321.) The standard requires options to ensure proper fit. (Tr. 587-89.) Respondent failed to provide the opportunity to select<span>
					</span>hearing protection as the cited standard<span><span></span>
					</span>requires.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref45" href="#ftn45">44</a></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The HR Manager<span>
					</span>knew<span>
					</span>employees were required to wear the earplugs and earmuffs. (Tr. 321.) And she knew, prior to the inspection,<span><span></span>
					</span>that<span>
					</span>Birdsboro<span>
					</span>only offered one type of earplug and one type of earmuff. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span> As for exposure, multiple<span>
					</span>employees worked in the Picking Room, and<span>
					</span>Respondent acknowledged the noise levels<span>
					</span>were<span>
					</span>well<span>
					</span>above the level<span>
					</span>at which<span>
					</span>action is required. (Tr. 251.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Like<span>
					</span>the other noise-related violations,<span>
					</span>the Secretary established that<span><span></span>
					</span>this violation is serious. There is a potential for hearing loss when noise levels exceed<span>
					</span>the limits the cited standard<span><span></span>
					</span>sets. Such hearing loss would be permanent. Respondent failed to have multiple components of<span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>compliant program for occupational noise exposure.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref46" href="#ftn46">45</a></span>
				</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading4 style_Heading4 " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Penalty for Citation 2, Items 5a, 5b, and 5c</p>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">In terms of penalty, the Secretary proposes<span><span></span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>single penalty of<span>
					</span>$12,471<span><span></span>
					</span>for Items 5a, 5b,<span><span></span>
					</span>and 5c. The<span><span></span>
					</span>violations<span><span></span>
					</span>have a high gravity. The noise levels were well above the action levels<span><span></span>
					</span>in several different areas of the facility<span><span></span>
					</span>where many employees worked. Respondent<span>
					</span>took<span>
					</span>some steps<span>
					</span>towards hearing conservation. (Tr. 315-17, 524-25; Ex. C-10.) The single grouped penalty addresses the good faith shown by these actions.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref47" href="#ftn47">46</a></span> Reductions for size or history are not appropriate for the same reasons discussed in connection with the other affirmed violations. So, Citation 2, Items 5a,<span>
					</span>5b, and<span>
					</span>5c are affirmed as serious<span><span></span>
					</span>and a single grouped penalty of $12,471 is assessed for these violations. </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Citation 3,<span><span></span>
				</span>Item 2 – 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.95(m)(2)(ii)(E)<span>
				</span>–<span><span></span>
				</span>Keeping Records of Audiometric Testing</p>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The final noise-related alleged violation relates to the<span>
					</span>requirement<span><span></span>
					</span>to<span>
					</span>maintain<span>
					</span>records of audiometric tests. Specifically, the cited standard requires employers<span>
					</span>to maintain records of<span>
					</span>employees’<span><span></span>
					</span>most recent noise exposure assessment<span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">.</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref48" href="#ftn48">47</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.95(m)(2)(ii). Respondent<span><span></span>
					</span>conducted<span><span></span>
					</span>audiometric testing and maintained<span><span></span>
					</span>some<span>
					</span>records<span>
					</span>about this<span>
					</span>testing. (Tr.<span>
					</span>315, 608,<span>
					</span>Ex.<span>
					</span>C-26.) However,<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>level of noise in the<span>
					</span>area<span>
					</span>where the employee works<span><span></span>
					</span>was not included in<span><span></span>
					</span>the records. (Tr. 607; Ex. C-26.) Respondent does not<span>
					</span>disagree,<span>
					</span>but argues it was reviewing and retaining the reports provided to it by an outside consultant. (Resp’t Br. at<span>
					</span>24.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Having<span><span></span>
					</span>records<span>
					</span>of<span><span></span>
					</span>audiometric testing<span>
					</span>does not<span>
					</span>preclude finding a violation. The<span>
					</span>Secretary showed the records were incomplete<span><span></span>
					</span>because they did not include the level of noise in the area of the site where the employee worked. (Tr. 607-8; Ex. C-26.) Including such information allows an employer to see if there have been shifts in the hearing of individuals working in noisier areas of the facility. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>The records showed the results of hearing tests, but not noise levels in the workplace. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">As for knowledge, there is no contention that Respondent knew the records were missing<span>
					</span>the information required by the cited standard. (Sec’y Br. at<span>
					</span>64.) Nor does the Secretary dispute that the HR Manager reviewed the records before filing them. (Tr. 315, 318.) However, she had a limited background in health and safety. (Tr.<span>
					</span>187,<span>
					</span>190, 198.) When she took on these responsibilities after the former health and safety manager left, she was not asked how much she<span>
					</span>understood about hearing conservation. (Tr. 198.) Still, she<span><span></span>
					</span>was<span><span></span>
					</span>tasked with the responsibility for this and the other safety responsibilities. (Tr.<span><span></span>
					</span>195-96.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Despite her limited background, the HR Manager<span>
					</span>was<span>
					</span>aware of<span>
					</span>noise issues at the facility. As noted above, Respondent was previously cited for noise-related violations<span><span></span>
					</span>in 2014.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Ex. C-39 at 30-31.)<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Although the<span>
					</span>2014 Citations<span>
					</span>did not relate to<span>
					</span>subpart (m), they did make Respondent aware of the<span>
					</span>need for a hearing conservation program<span><span></span>
					</span>and informed it that action needed to be taken.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref49" href="#ftn49">48</a></span> Further, had the HR Manager or anyone else engaged in a<span>
					</span>reasonably diligent<span>
					</span>review of the records, they would<span>
					</span>have discovered that the summary reports<span>
					</span>were missing<span>
					</span>required information. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See JPC Gr</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">p</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">. Inc.,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>22 BNA OSHC 1859, 1861<span><span></span>
					</span>(No. 05-1907, 2009) (finding knowledge when<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>employer failed<span>
					</span>to take steps to discover<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>violative condition). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">As discussed, the facility had areas with extremely high levels of noise. Many employees worked in these areas, triggering the need for an effective hearing conservation program.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The records being kept<span>
					</span>were insufficient to<span>
					</span>allow Respondent to effectively assess the impact of its noise control measures. (Tr.<span><span></span>
					</span>607-8.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary characterizes the violation as other-than-serious and proposes no penalty. The record does not show a potential<span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>serious harm<span><span></span>
					</span>from this violation<span><span></span>
					</span>alone. (Ex. C-10 at<span>
					</span>14-15.) Respondent<span>
					</span>was<span>
					</span>conducting the required testing and<span>
					</span>maintaining the summary reports provided to it by an outside consultant in good faith. (Tr. 315, 318.) When learning that the reports did not have<span>
					</span>all the<span>
					</span>information<span><span></span>
					</span>required by the cited standard, it retained a new consultant. (Tr.<span>
					</span>524-25.) The record supports the other-than-serious characterization.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>No penalty is assessed for this violation. </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 style_Heading2 style_Heading2 " style="margin-left:24px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">I.</span>Citation 2, Item<span>
				</span>7 – 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.132(a)<span>
				</span>–<span><span></span>
				</span>PPE</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent<span>
					</span>does not dispute<span>
					</span>that PPE was necessary and that it needed to provide it to employees. (Resp’t Br. at 23.) <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Voegele Co.</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Inc. v.</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>OSHRC</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 625 F.2d 1075, 1078 (3d Cir. 1980)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(PPE required when a reasonable person recognizes a hazard warranting its use). W</span>hen<span>
					</span>PPE is<span>
					</span>necessary,<span>
					</span>it<span><span></span>
					</span>must<span>
					</span>be<span>
					</span>“used and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition.” 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.132(a). The Secretary alleges two<span>
					</span>Instances of violations<span><span></span>
					</span>of this standard.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Instance (a)</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Employees were provided with PPE and were using it at the facility. (Ex. C-17; Tr. 150-55.) The PPE included reusable smocks<span><span></span>
					</span>as well as<span>
					</span>disposable<span>
					</span>aprons and plastic sleeves. (Tr. 152-53, 257.) The Secretary argues that this PPE was not being maintained in a sanitary condition.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref50" href="#ftn50">49</a></span> (Sec’y Br. at 60-61.) Employees were not cleaning or removing<span>
					</span>disposable<span><span></span>
					</span>PPE before entering the cafeteria and no rules required<span><span></span>
					</span>this. (Ex. C-17 at 13; Tr. 157, 259-61.) Nor was there a system to ensure new PPE would be put on after employees finished in the cafeteria. (Tr. 253-54.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Employees working in the<span>
					</span>Kill<span>
					</span>Room had the potential to be exposed to animal blood, fecal matter,<span><span></span>
					</span>and bacteria, such as Campylobacter. (Tr. 325-26.) At the time of the inspection,<span>
					</span>there was no<span><span></span>
					</span>monitor to ensure sleeves, gloves, hairnets,<span><span></span>
					</span>and aprons would be disposed of before employees entered the cafeteria. (Tr. 253-54.) Likewise, although employees wore protective smocks there was no system to ensure that these were left outside of the cafeteria or cleaned before<span>
					</span>an employee entered or exited<span><span></span>
					</span>the cafeteria. (Tr. 158-59.) During the inspection, employees were photographed in the cafeteria still wearing PPE<span>
					</span>including<span><span></span>
					</span>hairnets,<span><span></span>
					</span>plastic sleeves,<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>earmuffs. (Tr. 157-59, 259-60; Ex. C-17 at 13.) The HR Manager acknowledged being aware<span>
					</span>of<span>
					</span>employees sometimes<span>
					</span>entering<span>
					</span>the cafeteria without removing PPE.<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 261-62.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent argues<span>
					</span>its Superintendent<span>
					</span>was not aware of “someone suffering an illness from exposure in the plant.” (Resp’t Br. 23.) Proof of<span>
					</span>an illness or injury<span>
					</span>is unnecessary<span>
					</span>to prove<span>
					</span>a violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.132(a). <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See e.g.,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Arcadian</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Corp</span>.,<span><span></span>
					</span>20 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>2001,<span><span></span>
					</span>2009 (No. 93-0628, 2004) (goal of the<span>
					</span>OSH<span>
					</span>Act is to prevent the first accident);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. OSHRC</span>, 607 F.2d 871, 874 (3d Cir. 1979)<span>
					</span>(“the statute is violated when a recognized hazard is maintained, whether or not an injury occurs”).<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary<span>
					</span>satisfied<span>
					</span>his burden<span>
					</span>by showing<span>
					</span>a reasonable<span><span></span>
					</span>employer<span>
					</span>would know<span>
					</span>there was a need for PPE<span><span></span>
					</span>and also knew, or was capable of knowing,<span>
					</span>it was not being “used and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition.”<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref51" href="#ftn51">50</a></span> 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§<span>
						</span></span>1910.132(a);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Tube-Lok Prods</span>., 9 BNA OSHC 1369, 1372 (No.<span>
					</span>16200,<span>
					</span>1981)<span><span></span>
					</span>(PPE required when a<span>
					</span>reasonable person familiar with the circumstances would recognize the need for it). Here, Respondent<span>
					</span>does not deny<span><span></span>
					</span>PPE was necessary<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span><span></span>
					</span>knew employees wore PPE into the cafeteria. Nonetheless,<span><span></span>
					</span>it<span>
					</span>failed to take corrective action as of the date alleged in the Citation. The Secretary met his burden and the violation is affirmed.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Instance (b)</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">While Instance (a)<span>
					</span>concerned whether the PPE was maintained in a sanitary condition,<span>
					</span>Instance (b) concerns<span><span></span>
					</span>the<span><span></span>
					</span>reliability<span>
					</span>of<span>
					</span>the PPE employees<span>
					</span>used<span>
					</span>in the<span>
					</span>Kill<span>
					</span>Room,<span>
					</span>Picking<span>
					</span>Line,<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>Evisceration<span><span></span>
					</span>Room. The Citation alleges:<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Quote style_Quote " style="margin-left:48px; ">employees involved with poultry killing and processing were not provided with, and did not maintain or<span>
					</span>use personal protective equipment [in] a reliable and intact condition. ... These items were not resilient enough to withstand the work environment and to protect employees<span><span></span>
					</span>and their clothing.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:0cm; ">Exhibit C-17<span><span></span>
					</span>shows an employee’s exposed skin visible through the torn PPE<span><span></span>
					</span>in the<span>
					</span>Kill<span>
					</span>Room. (Ex. C-17 at<span>
					</span>7A.; Tr. 153-54.) Respondent argues it was the “employee’s choice” as to how they wore the PPE<span><span></span>
					</span>provided<span><span></span>
					</span>to them. (Resp’t Br. at 23.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The cited standard does not permit such discretion on the part of employees. When PPE is necessary,<span>
					</span>29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1910.132(a) requires<span>
					</span>the employer<span>
					</span>to<span>
					</span>ensure it is “used, and maintained<span><span></span>
					</span>in a sanitary and reliable condition.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">The Budd Co</span>.,<span>
					</span>1 BNA OSHC 1548, 1550<span><span></span>
					</span>(No. 199, 1974)<span><span></span>
					</span>(consolidated),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff'd</span>,<span><span></span>
					</span>513 F.2d 201 (3d Cir. 1975). Respondent<span>
					</span>does not claim<span>
					</span>employee misconduct<span><span></span>
					</span>led to the<span>
					</span>torn PPE. It<span>
					</span>does not allege it had a rule against purposely tearing PPE<span><span></span>
					</span>or that it instructed employees<span>
					</span>of<span>
					</span>the risks associated with<span><span></span>
					</span>doing so. According to the Superintendent,<span>
					</span>Birdsboro<span>
					</span>provided<span>
					</span>items that employees could use to avoid having exposed skin, but there was not a rule<span>
					</span>for<span>
					</span>their<span>
					</span>skin to be covered.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref52" href="#ftn52">51</a></span> (Tr. 155-56.) Respondent<span><span></span>
					</span>did not instruct<span>
					</span>employees to<span>
					</span>replace PPE if it stopped serving as a reliable<span>
					</span>protective<span>
					</span>barrier. It allowed<span>
					</span>them<span>
					</span>to wear ripped PPE. (Tr. 155-56; Ex. C-17<span><span></span>
					</span>at 7-8.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The standard requires more than just the provision of PPE, employers must also ensure it is maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Otis Elevator v. Marshall</span>, 581 F.2d 1056, 1058<span><span></span>
					</span>(2d Cir. 1978) (affirming a violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.132(a) and stating,<span><span></span>
					</span>“Leaving the decision to the discretion of the employee is not sufficient compliance with the regulation”);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Erie Coke</span>, 15 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at 1563<span>
					</span>(requiring employer to provide PPE). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">As<span><span></span>
					</span>stated, it is not disputed that employees working in these areas were exposed to hazardous conditions and that Respondent was aware of this. (Tr. 325-26;<span>
					</span>Ex. C-17.) The<span>
					</span>Superintendent<span>
					</span>knew<span>
					</span>employees sometimes wore<span><span></span>
					</span>torn PPE. (Tr. 154-56.) Employees are required to take animals from containers and prepare them to be killed.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 605-6.) The live chickens have sharp claws and beaks that can scratch open exposed skin. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span> The HR Manager was aware that this work potentially exposed employees<span>
					</span>to animal<span>
					</span>blood and fecal matter. (Tr. 328.) Exposed skin could become infected with animal feces or bacteria, and such<span>
					</span>infections could lead to serious illness. (Tr. 604.)<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent argues that its<span>
					</span>Superintendent was unaware of anyone suffering illness<span>
					</span>as a result of being exposed to something at its facility. (Tr. 154-55.) However, the HR<span>
					</span>Manager<span>
					</span>knew<span><span></span>
					</span>of one employee who suffered from the symptoms consistent with exposure to the<span>
					</span>Campylobacter bacteria. (Tr. 326-27.) Even if that worker’s illness was<span>
					</span>unrelated to<span>
					</span>bacterial<span>
					</span>exposure<span><span></span>
					</span>at Birdsboro’s facility, the Secretary still showed<span>
					</span>employees were<span>
					</span>exposed to hazardous conditions<span><span></span>
					</span>if their PPE was not maintained in a sanitary and reliable manner.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading3 style_Heading3 " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">A.</span>Characterization and Penalty</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary argues that the violation was appropriately characterized as serious and proposes<span><span></span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>penalty of $11,758<span><span></span>
					</span>for both<span><span></span>
					</span>Instances. (Sec’y Br. at 63.) While<span>
					</span>Respondent<span>
					</span>disputes<span>
					</span>the merits of<span>
					</span>Citation 2, Item 7, it<span>
					</span>does not raise any specific argument as to the<span>
					</span>serious<span>
					</span>characterization<span><span></span>
					</span>or<span>
					</span>the<span>
					</span>penalty amount. (Resp’t Br. at<span>
					</span>23.) The<span>
					</span>Area Director explained the hazards of the workplace and how employees could be<span>
					</span>seriously<span>
					</span>injured from inappropriate PPE. (Tr. 603-6.) Among other risks, exposure to bacteria in the workplace<span>
					</span>could cause infection serious enough to require hospitalization. (Tr.<span>
					</span>606.) The record supports the serious characterization.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">In terms of the penalty amount,<span>
					</span>the Secretary argues that the violation was of moderate gravity. (Sec’y Br. at 63.) As noted above,<span><span></span>
					</span>the conditions at the facility created the possibility of exposure to<span>
					</span>cuts from handling the animals and<span>
					</span>exposed skin could become infected, including by<span>
					</span>campylobacter. (Tr. 605.) While Respondent provided<span><span></span>
					</span>PPE, the Secretary showed it did not comply with the cited standard’s requirement to ensure its use and maintenance in a reliable<span>
					</span>and sanitary<span>
					</span>condition. Because<span>
					</span>work<span>
					</span>in the<span>
					</span>Kill<span>
					</span>Room involved<span>
					</span>animal<span>
					</span>feces, blood, and an odor, Respondent had some difficulty retaining employees<span><span></span>
					</span>in those positions. (Tr. 309-10.) So, it rotated employees<span><span></span>
					</span>in and out of the Kill Room. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>Thus, a number of different employees were exposed to hazards from the failure to comply with the cited standard. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">J. A. Jones</span>, 15 BNA OSHC<span><span></span>
					</span>at<span>
					</span>2214 (assessing the violation’s gravity includes consideration of the number of employees exposed). Respondent has a history of violations, warranting<span><span></span>
					</span>an increase in the penalty amount. And, as discussed with the other violations,<span><span></span>
					</span>no reduction for<span>
					</span>size is appropriate. So, the Secretary’s proposed penalty of $11,758<span><span></span>
					</span>is appropriate<span><span></span>
					</span>and is assessed for Citation 2, Item 7, Instances (a) and (b). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; text-align:center; margin-left:0cm; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Findings<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">of</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Fact<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">and</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Conclusions<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">of</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Law</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The foregoing decision constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law<span>
					</span>in accordance with Rule<span>
					</span>52(a)<span><span></span>
					</span>of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; line-height:1.5; margin-left:0cm; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Heading1 style_Heading1 " style="outline-width:1; " xmlns:text="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0" text:is-list-header="true">ORDER</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_NormalWeb style_NormalWeb " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; line-height:normal; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ORDERED that:</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1; margin-left:96px; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Citation 1,<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1; margin-left:144px; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">a.</span>Item 1a, alleging a willful,<span>
				</span>repeat<span><span></span>
				</span>or serious<span><span></span>
				</span>violation<span>
				</span>of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.147(c)(4)(i), is AFFIRMED as<span>
				</span>Willful;</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1; margin-left:144px; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">b.</span>Item 1b, alleging a willful,<span><span></span>
				</span>repeat<span><span></span>
				</span>or serious<span><span></span>
				</span>violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A) is AFFIRMED as<span>
				</span>Repeat,</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1; margin-left:144px; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">c.</span>Item 1c, alleging a willful,<span><span></span>
				</span>repeat<span><span></span>
				</span>or serious<span><span></span>
				</span>violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span>§ 1910.147(c)(6)(i) is AFFIRMED as<span>
				</span>Willful,</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="line-height:1; margin-left:144px; text-indent:0cm; ">and<span>
					</span>a<span>
					</span>single<span>
					</span>penalty of $124,709 is ASSESSED.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1; margin-left:96px; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">2.</span>Citation 2, Item 1, alleging<span>
				</span>a serious violation<span>
				</span>of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.23(a)(8)<span>
				</span>is AFFIRMED as Serious<span>
				</span>and a penalty of<span><span></span>
				</span>$5,880<span><span></span>
				</span>is ASSESSED.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1; margin-left:96px; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">3.</span>Instances (a) and (e) of<span>
				</span>Citation 2, Item 3b,<span>
				</span>each<span>
				</span>alleging serious violations<span><span></span>
				</span>of<span>
				</span>29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.37(b)(5)<span>
				</span>are AFFIRMED as Serious and a penalty of $2,000 is ASSESSED.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1; margin-left:96px; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">4.</span>Instance (d) of Citation 2, Item 3(b),<span><span></span>
				</span>alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.37(b)(5), or in the alternative 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.37(b)(4),<span><span></span>
				</span>is VACATED.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1; margin-left:96px; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">5.</span>Citation 2, Item 4, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.95(b)(1), is AFFIRMED as Serious and a penalty of $12,471 is ASSESSED. </p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1; margin-left:96px; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">6.</span>Citation 2,<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; line-height:1; margin-left:144px; text-indent:1.27cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">a.</span>Item 5a, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.95(g)(7)(i), is AFFIRMED as Serious,</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; line-height:1; margin-left:144px; text-indent:1.27cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">b.</span>Item 5b, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.95(g)(8)(ii)(B), is AFFIRMED as Serious,</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; line-height:1; margin-left:144px; text-indent:1.27cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">c.</span>Item 5c, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.95(i)(3), is AFFIRMED as Serious,</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; line-height:1; margin-left:144px; text-indent:0cm; ">and a<span>
					</span>single<span>
					</span>penalty of $12,471 is ASSESSED.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; line-height:1; margin-left:144px; text-indent:0cm; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; line-height:1; margin-left:144px; text-indent:0cm; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; line-height:1; margin-left:144px; text-indent:0cm; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1; margin-left:96px; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">7.</span>Citation 2, Item 7, alleging a serious violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
				</span>1910.132(a), is AFFIRMED as Serious, and a penalty of $11,758 is ASSESSED.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1; margin-left:96px; text-indent:1.27cm; line-height:1; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">8.</span>Citation 3, Item 2, alleging an<span><span></span>
				</span>other-than-serious violation of 29 C.F.R.<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span> 1910.95(m)(2)(ii)(E), is AFFIRMED as<span>
				</span>Other-Than-Serious, and no penalty is assessed.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="line-height:1; margin-left:96px; text-indent:0cm; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="text-indent:1.27cm; ">SO ORDERED.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:left; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span> /s/___________________________________</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:left; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span> Judge Carol A. Baumerich</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-align:left; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span> U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="line-height:1; text-indent:1.27cm; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Dated:<span><span></span>
					</span>September 23, 2019</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Washington, D.C.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<hr/>"
      <div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; ">
					<a name="ftn-1" href="#ftnref-1"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; ">
					<a name="ftn0" href="#ftnref0"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; ">
					<a name="ftn1" href="#ftnref1"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn2" href="#ftnref2"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">1 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The Joint Pre-Hearing Statement had a typographical error about the date the Citations were issued. There is no dispute they were issued on September 2, 2016. (Tr. 7, 541, 559, 726; Compl. for Docket No. 16-1731 at Ex A; Compl. for Docket No. 16-1575 at Ex. A.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn3" href="#ftnref3"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">2 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>No Citation 1 was issued as part inspection 1131470. The first violation is denoted Citation 2, Item 1. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn4" href="#ftnref4"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">3 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The Commission is an independent adjudicatory agency and is not part of the Department of Labor or OSHA. 29 U.S.C.<span>
					</span>§ 661. It was established to resolve disputes arising out of enforcement actions brought by the Secretary of Labor under the<span>
					</span>OSH<span>
					</span>Act and has no regulatory functions.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>29 U.S.C. § 659(c).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn5" href="#ftnref5"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">4 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The 2014 Citations were the result of two inspections. Inspection 951711 commenced on December 11, 2013 and ended May 27, 2014. (Ex. C-39.) Inspection 951714 commenced on the same day but ended earlier, on May 13, 2014. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>The citations resulting from these two inspections were issued on June 10, 2014. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span>.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn6" href="#ftnref6"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">5 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>This penalty amount is less than what was proposed by the Secretary initially. (Exs. C-44, C-45.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn7" href="#ftnref7"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">6 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>As issued, this Citation also refers to a “flutie machine.” The Secretary acknowledges he offered no evidence about such a machine. (Sec’y Br. at 16.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn8" href="#ftnref8"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">7 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Only in narrow circumstances, when all of the following criteria are met, can an employer avoid documenting the required procedure for each particular machine:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Quote style_Quote " style="margin-left:48px; "><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">(</span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">1)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">The machine or equipment has no potential for stored or residual energy or reaccumulation of stored energy after shut down which could endanger employees; (2) the machine or equipment has a single energy source which can be readily identified and isolated; (3) the isolation and locking out of that energy source will completely deenergize and deactivate the machine or equipment; (4) the machine or equipment is isolated from that energy source and locked out during servicing or maintenance; (5) a single lockout device will achieve a locked-out condition; (6) the lockout device is under the exclusive control of the authorized employee performing the servicing or maintenance; (7) the servicing or maintenance does not create hazards for other employees; and (8) the employer, in utilizing this exception, has had no accidents involving the unexpected activation or reenergization of the machine or equipment during servicing or maintenance.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span>§<span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(4)(i). The four machines relied on by the Secretary all had multiple energy sources, and therefore Respondent could not rely on this exemption. (Tr. 52, 57, 61, 756-58, 760.) Nor is there evidence that Respondent satisfied the rest of the criteria. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn9" href="#ftnref9"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">8 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>At one point, counsel, not a witness, mentioned a “USDA map,” but it was never marked as an exhibit and no witness explained what information the document contained or when any information contained therein was in effect at the facility. (Tr. 212.) <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">See CSA Equip. Co., LLC,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>27 BNA OSHC 1921, 1926, n.10 (No. 12-1287, 2019) (rejecting the argument that evidence at trial was not sufficiently “fleshed out”);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Regina Constr. Co</span>., 15 BNA OSHC 1044, 1049 (No. 87-1309, 1991) (relying on the Secretary’s evidence when Respondent failed to rebut it by presenting a witness with direct knowledge). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn10" href="#ftnref10"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">9 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>At one point in its brief, Respondent claims that the process of developing the machine specific procedures began in February before the inspection. (Resp’t Br. at 13.) However, it later clarifies that: “After the March 2016 inspection began [Birdsboro] contracted with its outside consultant to produce machine specific LOTO procedures for each machine on-site at [Birdsboro].” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span>at 15. While at one point, Mr. Lancaster indicated he thought the process started in February, after being shown March 2016 emails, he clarified he was “not sure” about his claim that the process started in February. (Tr. 354.) Ms. Murray-Garcia confirmed she paid LSCI to create machine-specific LOTO procedures<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">after</span><span><span></span>
					</span>the OSHA inspection began on March 2, 2016. (Tr. 277.) In any event, no one indicated Birdsboro had such procedures as of the date alleged in the Citation.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn11" href="#ftnref11"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">10 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>LSCI provided Respondent with a “Lockout/Tagout Periodic Inspection Form” in late 2014. (Tr. 294-95.) The form referencing the gizzard machine predates Respondent’s receipt of the form by several months. (Ex. C-19 at 1.) The HR Manager tried to explain this discrepancy by indicating that the Maintenance Manager may have transferred his notes to the form after it was provided by LSCI. (Tr. 295.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn12" href="#ftnref12"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">11 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent also alleges it had machine manuals with lockout procedures. (Resp’t Br. at 15.) No such manuals were introduced into the record and there is no evidence of what procedures any such manual contained. Mr. Reid, the current Maintenance Manager, said that “when” a machine comes with a manual, that document tells you how to lockout that machine. (Tr. 762-63.) He did not say Birdsboro had manuals for all of its machines or indicate employees were to refer to manuals to understand how to lockout machines. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>Nor did he say that any manual contains all of the information required by the cited standard, such as authorizations, statements of the intended use of the procedure, explanations of who at Birdsboro has the responsibility for the use of lockout or tagout devices, or the requirement to verify the effectiveness of lockouts. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span>29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span>§<span><span></span>
					</span>1910.147(c)(4). Further, regardless of what manuals may have existed or what they might have said, Mr. Reid acknowledged that at the time of the Citation, there were no machine specific LOTO procedures for any machine at the facility. (Tr. 763-64.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn13" href="#ftnref13"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">12 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>After the inspection started, Respondent retained LSCI to create forty-two machine-specific procedures. (Tr. 414-15, 435, 454.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn14" href="#ftnref14"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">13 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent’s acceptance of the 2014 Citation would also justify characterizing this violation as repeat. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">D.M. Sabia Co</span>., 90 F.3d 854, 856, 860 (3d Cir. 1996) (“A repeated violation requires no more than a second violation and does not require proof of “flaunting”);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Potlach Corp</span>., 7 BNA OSHC 1061, 1063 (No. 16183, 1979) (violation is repeated if the same employer was previously cited for a substantially similar violation and both violations resulted in substantially similar hazards). This matter could be appealed to either the D.C. Circuit or the Third Circuit. The Commission generally applies the law of the circuit where a case will likely be appealed. <span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Kerns Bros. Tree Serv.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">, 18 BNA OSHC 2064, 2067 (No. 96-1719, 2000).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:left; ">
					<a name="ftn15" href="#ftnref15"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">14 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The LOTO Plan also contained the text of the cited standard. (Ex. C-21 at 0222.) This supports finding heightened awareness of the requirement. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">See Lanzo Constr. Co.,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>20 BNA OSHC 1641, 1649 (No. 97-1821, 2004) (finding heightened awareness based in part on a safety manual which incorporated the cited standard),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span>, 150 F. App’x 983 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn16" href="#ftnref16"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">15 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>LSCI also conducted a safety compliance survey for Birdsboro in August 2015 which found that the facility lacked machine-specific procedures on how to control hazardous energy. (Tr. 283, 288-89; Ex. C-49.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn17" href="#ftnref17"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">16 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>These facts also distinguish the present matter from<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Gen. Motors Corp</span>., 22 BNA OSHC 1019 (No. 91-2834E, 2007) (consolidated). In that matter, the employer was aware of the LOTO standard and its requirements, but the Secretary did not show that the employer knew its procedure was deficient. 22 BNA OSHC at 1043-44. In this matter, the Secretary showed Birdsboro knew about the LOTO standard and that it needed to have machine specific procedures for production equipment at this facility. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn18" href="#ftnref18"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">17 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>These prior citations for the same hazard at issue here could also be a basis for characterizing this violation as repeat. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">D.M. Sabia</span>, 90 F.3d at 856 (single prior violation sufficient to find a violation repeated);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Potlach Corp</span>., 7 BNA OSHC at 1063.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn19" href="#ftnref19"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">18 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>To support a willful characterization the Secretary need not establish both a conscious disregard of a known requirement and a plain indifference to safety. The test is whether the employer intentionally, knowingly, or voluntarily disregarded the requirements of the OSH Act,<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">or</span>, acted with “plain indifference to employee safety.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Jim Boyd</span>, 26 BNA OSHC at 1111<span>
					</span>(quoting<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Kaspar</span>, 18 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>2181). <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">See also Williams Enters., Inc.,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>13 BNA OSHC 1249, 1257 (No. 85-355, 1987) (to find a violation willful, there must be evidence that either (1) the employer knew of an applicable standard and disregarded it, or (2) the employer had such reckless disregard for employee safety the employer would not have cared that the conduct violated a standard). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn20" href="#ftnref20"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">19 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>As this Item was grouped with Items 1b and 1c for penalty purposes, the assessed penalty is discussed below. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn21" href="#ftnref21"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">20 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The Citation also notes various other machines. However, as the Secretary acknowledges, the record only includes specific information about the lack of training for these four machines. (Sec’y Br. at 36.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn22" href="#ftnref22"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">21 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary does not argue that Respondent failed to appropriately train workers of the hazards of working around equipment that needs to be locked and tagged out. (Tr. 427.) His contention is focused on the sufficiency of the training for the authorized employees tasked with locking out equipment for service, cleaning, or maintenance. (Tr. 427-28.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn23" href="#ftnref23"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">22 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary also notes that Mr. Urieta, the Superintendent, did not know what machine specific LOTO procedures were when OSHA commenced the March 2016 inspection. (Tr. 65; Sec’y Br. at 32, Resp’t Br. at 10.) He had been in that role for four years at the time, including when the 2014 Citations, which included LOTO violations, were issued. (Tr. 40.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn24" href="#ftnref24"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">23 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Ms. Rothrock explained there was a limited amount of time for the training. (Tr. 426, 431.) In addition to LOTO, LSCI also addressed the topics necessary to certify forklift users. (Tr. 431.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn25" href="#ftnref25"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">24 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>This Item is grouped with Items 1a and 1c for penalty purposes. The penalty to be assessed is discussed below.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn26" href="#ftnref26"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">25 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span>§ 1910.147(c)(6)(i)(C) specifies:<span>
					</span>“Where lockout is used for energy control, the periodic inspection shall include a review, between the inspector and each authorized employee, of that employee's responsibilities under the energy control procedure being inspected.” </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn27" href="#ftnref27"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">26 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The HR Manager indicated she reviewed the LOTO Plan but acknowledged her review was not very thorough. (Tr. 269.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn28" href="#ftnref28"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">27 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>As discussed above, Mr. Criswell left Birdsboro in 2016, after the start of the OSHA investigation. (Tr. 50; Resp’t Br. at 10.), Mr. Reid began undertaking some of his responsibilities before being promoted to Maintenance Manager later that year. (Tr. 301, 749-52.) No documentation related to any inspections in the year before the date alleged in the Citation was introduced into the record. Mr. Reid explained he did not conduct any LOTO inspections before his promotion. (Tr. 754-55.) The HR Manager acknowledged that if there had been any LOTO Inspection Forms completed between January 20, 2015, and the start of the inspection in March 2016, she would have provided them to the Secretary. (Tr. 300-1.) Respondent declined to call Mr. Criswell to rebut the Secretary’s evidence about the absence of inspections for at least one year. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Capeway,<span>
						</span></span>20 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>at<span><span></span>
					</span>1342-43. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn29" href="#ftnref29"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">28 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The maintenance department had four to six employees. (Tr. 49.) The sanitation department, which took care of cleaning the machines, had fourteen to eighteen employees. (Tr. 48-49.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn30" href="#ftnref30"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">29 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary also argues that Respondent could not conduct appropriate inspections because it lacked machine specific procedures for lockouts—Respondent could not inspect the ability of employees to comply with procedures that did not exist. (Sec’y Br. at 41-42.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn31" href="#ftnref31"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">30 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Each inspection form in the record lists “Brandon Criswell” as the authorized inspector. (Tr. 297-98; Ex. C-19.) The forms appear to refer to seven different authorized employees but not all of the forms include a first and last name. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span>. The HR Manager indicated that LSCI provided a blank version of the form in the latter half of 2014<span><span></span>
					</span>as part of the LOTO Plan. (Tr.<span>
					</span>228,<span>
					</span>295-96.) When questioned why some of the forms are dated before LSCI was retained, the HR Manager said<span>
					</span>Mr.<span>
					</span>Criswell, may have transferred his notes from prior inspections to the forms after she instructed him to start using them. (Tr. 295.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn32" href="#ftnref32"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">31 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>As noted, the HR Manager had many responsibilities, and this limited the time available for her to focus on employee safety and health. (Tr. 239-40, 418.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn33" href="#ftnref33"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">32 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The violation also meets the criteria for being characterized as repeat. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">D.M. Sabia</span>, 90 F.3d at 856, 860. Respondent has twice been made aware by OSHA of the need to conduct inspections to ensure that its employees understand their LOTO responsibilities. Yet, Respondent failed to correct the deficiencies. (Exs. C-39, C-44.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn34" href="#ftnref34"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">33 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>After the Citation’s issuance, OSHA promulgated a revised final rule for fall protection applicable to general industry activities. 81 Fed. Reg. 82,494 (Nov. 18, 2016) (Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems). This opinion relies on the regulatory language in effect when the Citation was issued. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyText style_BodyText " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:0cm; ">
					<a name="ftn35" href="#ftnref35"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">34 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">Specifically,</span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the standard mandates that:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Quote style_Quote " style="margin-left:48px; "><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_QuoteChar style_QuoteChar " style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">Each doorway or passage along an exit access that could be mistaken for an exit must be marked “Not an Exit” or similar designation, or be identified by a sign indicating its actual use (e.g., closet).</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Strong style_Strong " style="font-size:10pt; font-weight:normal; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-size:10pt; font-weight:normal; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">29 C.F.R. § 1910.37(b)(5). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn36" href="#ftnref36"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">35 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>At the start of the inspection, there was a solid door connecting these two rooms. (Tr. 112; Ex. C-13 at 1.) Sometime before the inspection ended, this solid door was replaced with heavy-duty acrylic curtains. (Tr. 118-22; Ex. C-13 at 4.)<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn37" href="#ftnref37"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">36 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent also argues, without support, that its facility complied with “Licenses and Inspections.” (Resp’t Br. at 18.) There is no record evidence of compliance with the requirements of any other regulatory authority. It is not clear what entity or regulations Respondent is attempting to refer to when it makes this claim. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id. </span>So, there is no basis for assessing whether these regulations are equivalent to the cited standard. Even if the exit signage in the facility complied with some other requirement at some point in time, the Secretary established that it failed to comply with the cited standard as of the time alleged in the Citation. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn38" href="#ftnref38"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">37 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>This location was also referred to as the packing area. (Tr. 127-28, 132.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn39" href="#ftnref39"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">38 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Like Instance (a), having some exit information, while insufficient to vacate, is relevant to assessing the gravity of Instance (e). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:6.667px; line-height:1; ">
					<a name="ftn40" href="#ftnref40"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">39 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Specifically, the standard requires that:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_Quote style_Quote " style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:6.667px; margin-left:48px; "><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">When employees are subjected to sound exceeding those listed in Table G-16, feasible administrative or engineering controls shall be utilized. If such controls fail to reduce sound levels within the levels of Table G-16, personal protective equipment shall be provided and used to reduce sound levels within the levels of the table. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:6.667px; "><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">29 C.F.R. § 1910.95(b)(1)</span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn41" href="#ftnref41"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">40 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Subsequent remedial measures impact the assessment of the feasibility of abatement and the appropriate penalty. However, the actions do not mean there was no violation as of the date referenced in the Citation. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn42" href="#ftnref42"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">41 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent also argued that after the 2014 Citations it required employees to wear more PPE to protect hearing. (Resp’t Br. at 19.) Because the standard requires the implementation of feasible engineering controls before reliance on PPE, Respondent’s work rule requiring the wearing of earplug and earmuffs does not abate the violation. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn43" href="#ftnref43"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">42 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The presence and use of PPE are relevant to the violation’s gravity. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn44" href="#ftnref44"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">43 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>As noted above, it is undisputed that the level of noise in the Picking Room was well above the level at which action is required. (Tr. 251.) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn45" href="#ftnref45"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">44 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Respondent also argues that it provided appropriate initial training about noise. (Resp’t Br. at 22.) Such training does not excuse the failure to provide the choice of hearing protection. 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span>§ 1910.95(i)(3).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn46" href="#ftnref46"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">45 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary groups this item with items 5a and 5b for penalty purposes. The penalty to be assessed is discussed below.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn47" href="#ftnref47"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">46 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>When the Citation was issued, Citation 2, Items 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d were grouped for penalty purposes. The Secretary declined to lower his proposed penalty after withdrawing Item 5d. (Sec’y Br. at 58-59.) The undersigned agrees that given the high gravity of the remaining violations, $12,471 is the appropriate penalty amount. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn48" href="#ftnref48"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">47 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The cited standard states: “(i) The employer shall retain all employee test records obtained pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section. (ii) This record shall include ... (E) Employee’s most recent noise exposure assessment.” 29 C.F.R.<span>
					</span>§<span><span></span>
					</span>1910.95(m)(2)(ii)(E). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn49" href="#ftnref49"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">48 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Mr. Wieder, the Operations Director, was also aware of the standard’s applicability through his involvement with the 2012 Citations, which discussed noise well above action levels on the picking line. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">MJP</span>, 19 BNA OSHC at 1648 (supervisor chargeable with knowledge of the requirement “based on their prior work experience, wherever that experience originates”). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn50" href="#ftnref50"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">49 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The Citation alleges: “These items of protective equipment were not maintained in a sanitary condition, nor completely removed or cleaned during breaks, and were worn into areas where employees were consuming food.”</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn51" href="#ftnref51"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">50 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The HR Manager was informed an employee was hospitalized possibly because of something he or she contracted while working at Birdsboro. (Tr. 327.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn52" href="#ftnref52"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">51 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Before becoming Superintendent, Mr. Urieta worked as an hourly employee and then the supervisor of the Kill Room. (Tr. 38-39, 165.) </p>
			</div></div></body>
</html>