Opinion ID: 200140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Penalty assessment

Text: 34 Finally, MCC challenges the ALJ's penalty assessment, arguing that it was entitled to a reduction based on its safety record and good faith attempts to enforce a safety program. The OSH Act gives the Commission the authority to assess all civil penalties. 29 U.S.C. § 666(j). In the exercise of this authority, the Commission must giv[e] due consideration to the appropriateness of the penalty with respect to the size of the business of the employer being charged, the gravity of the violation, the good faith of the employer, and the history of previous violations. Id. We review the Commission's penalty assessment only for a manifest abuse of discretion. See Union Tank Car Co. v. OSHA, 192 F.3d 701, 707 (7th Cir.1999); Bush & Burchett, Inc. v. Reich, 117 F.3d 932, 939 (6th Cir.1997). 35 The ALJ was authorized to assess a penalty up to $70,000 for the repeat violation and up to $7,000 for the training violation. See 29 U.S.C. § 666(a) & (b). The penalties imposed, totaling $42,000, were well within the bounds of the Act. It was also within the ALJ's discretion to refuse to give reductions for good faith or prior history based on what he found the evidence in this case established. The four factors set out in 29 U.S.C. § 666(j) need not be given equal weight. The gravity of a particular violation may warrant the assessment of a weighty penalty, even though the employer may rate perfect marks on the other three criteria. Bush & Burchett, 117 F.3d at 940 (citing Sec'y of Labor v. Nacirema Operating Co., 1 OSHC (BNA) 1001, 1003 (OSHRC 1972)). We therefore see no need to disturb the ALJ's decision with respect to the appropriate penalty.