For years, meaningful reform of the occupational safety and health laws (OSHA, MSHA and NIOSH) has been a goal of the regulated community. There is a new opportunity for reform developing, beginning with the House of Representatives Education and the Work Force Committee "mark up" which took place on May 5. Patton Boggs’ Reform OSHA Coalition, and the Chamber’s OSHA Fairness Coalition seek reform as soon as possible.

Among the changes already being advanced by the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Worker Protections, Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) are:

These four bills were combined for a roll call vote and were passed on May 5 by the Committee by a 24-20 vote. Additional legislation is under review on Capitol Hill including the following proposal from the Reform OSHA Coalition:

Other favorable pending legislative proposals include the adoption of case law definitions for statutory enforcement terms (e.g., "willful" and "unwarrantable failure") and consolidation of the Mine and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commissions into one Independent Safety Commission, which would be entitled to "deference" when courts decide between OSHA/MSHA interpretations and those of the independent commission.

Mandating public review of OSHA and MSHA potential proposed rule outlines, at the earliest possible stage, before an agency draft is developed or distributed, is another needed reform. Early review would put OSHA/MSHA on the right track, instead of working for years to develop extensive drafts that create unrealistic expectations and controversy. The recent silica rulemaking is an excellent example of this needed reform, given its long term development by OSHA, outright rejection by the small business review process, but continuing priority on OSHA agenda.

To achieve safety law reform, NIOSH reform is also needed, since its actions are used to support or suggest rulemaking at OSHA/MSHA and its declarations are often used in court as an alleged "standard of care." Currently, NIOSH does not have to meet the same scientific and feasibility requirements that DOL must meet when it comments on, suggests, or recommends standards. The discrepancy creates conflicts and controversy and has resulted in repeated wasteful efforts in which NIOSH recommends standards that are never adopted.

"Sunset," or (automatic termination) of incomplete, stale rulemaking proceedings, and the prohibition of lawsuits aimed at forcing regulatory action, are also needed reforms. Lawsuits to force adoption of rules have diverted resources and necessary attention at both MSHA and OSHA. The lack of a sunset provision for stale rulemakings not only encourages lawsuits, but permits questionable rules to be adopted in the last days of an administration, creating additional diversions and controversy.

Expedited rulemaking procedures should be explored for consensus or negotiated rules. The current system is simply too time consuming and complex to be effective.

There is a need to focus federal resources on priorities in the safety and health field. About one billion federal budget dollars per year are spent on OSHA, MSHA, and NIOSH. Analysis of extensive injury, illness and fatality data does not drive resource use. For example, occupational motor vehicles, the leading cause of occupational fatalities (thousands), are rarely addressed, while millions of dollars are being spent on a silica rulemaking when CDC statistics show a 30-year downward trend with an order of magnitude reduction in related fatalities. While not one silica-related death is acceptable, the number of deaths reported nationwide by CDC in 1999 was very small compared to other causes.

Not only does the regulatory and enforcement agenda need adjustment, both MSHA and OSHA staff are "support" heavy, with the ratio of support staff to inspector staff standing at about three to one. Moreover, the resources allocated to the growing Hispanic workforce are a mere fraction of their percentage of the workforce in high hazard industries and far less than what their injury and accident rate indicate are needed. A study of resource allocation leading to a refocus is critical and should be mandated by Congress.

Unlike the Republican House legislation, no one in the DC community expects Sen. Kennedy’s legislation to pass the Republican controlled Congress, unless a compromise package is brokered, and that is highly unlikely in this election year.

However, Kennedy’s legislation, along with recent press initiatives highly critical of the Administration’s OSHA and MSHA agencies (e.g., 60 Minutes and the New York Times) may create political pressure that could lead to increased enforcement and further rulemaking activity.

Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) says he will consider legislation to push for the United States to adopt the Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). The United Nations adopted GHS in 2002. The system is intended to improve the quality of hazard communication by establishing standardized requirements that could be used globally for hazard evaluation, safety data sheets, and labels.

Witnesses at the hearing were generally in agreement that the GHS system appeared to successfully address many international and national issues related to Hazard Communication.

Sen. Enzi held an oversight hearing recently that addressed OSHA’s hazard communication standard. The hearing brought out a number of concerns with current MSDS usage in the United States. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao recently indicated that OSHA will review their current standards and study the accuracy of MSDS’s now in use. OSHA Administrator John Henshaw indicated that a change in the text of the standard is not needed at this time, but that there are problems with that involve compliance with the rule. Assistant Secretary Henshaw’s statement before the subcommittee can be found at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=TESTIMONIES&p_id=349

Patton Boggs urges caution in adopting the European system to avoid the mistakes made in adopting the current Hazard Communication rules; particularly the outsourcing of the government’s regulatory authority to groups like the ACGIH and IARC. These groups act in private, closed meetings and, do not disclose conflicts of interest. Nor do they , provide independent appeal procedures. For further information, contact: Henry Chajet 202-457-6511, or at hchajet@pattonboggs.com.

The Patton Boggs Safety Law team is engaged fully in these Congressional efforts and is working with the Reform OSHA Coalition to achieve sound reform. For further information, please contact: Henry Chajet, David Farber, Mark Savit or Jim Christian at 202-457-6000.

As silica claims continue to increase rapidly, a new silica liability decision was issued on March 22, 2004, by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Rather than review the court decision ourselves, we thought our readers might benefit from the comments of the plaintiff's lawyer that handled the case. Below are excerpts of an article by Michael S. Polk, of (Hastings, Minn) that appeared in this month's edition of Harris Silica Litigation Reporter.

[The court's opinion in] "Gray v. Badger Mining Co., a foundry silicosis case, is a very well-written and well-reasoned opinion. It will be helpful to other courts...faced with the issue of ...the following defenses...[in a] silicosis case:

1. "Learned Intermediary"

2. "Sophisticated User"

3. "Sophisticated Intermediary"

4. "Bulk Supplier"

5. "Raw Material/Component Part Supplier"

"The court’s opinion] ... is helpful ... overruling ... the ... Court of Appeals’ earlier decision ... that [held Defendant] silica supplier had no duty to warn the foundry employees ... because the silica had been delivered in bulk ... and because the foundry had knowledge of the hazards."

"Discussing the parties’ stipulation on recoverable damages and the other parties’ settlement, plaintiff's counsel commented: "Litigating these types of cases can be very expensive.... A factual determination was not the primary issue ... It was rather, a legal issue ... Is there a legal duty or is there not?"

"The Supreme Court’s decision to reverse [was] a very important one.... It reaffirms the laws’ requirement that a manufacturer ... pass on to the consumer, be it an employer or an employee in a work context, information that will help to protect the consumer (employee)...."

"[The] ... "Learned Intermediary" defense [was] limited [by the Court] to pharmaceutical products [and is not available] in the industrial context." ....[The] "Sophisticated User" defense ... [did not provide a basis to dismiss the case] ... since there was no evidence that plaintiff ... appreciated the dangers ...[and] strong evidence that [Defendant] had far greater knowledge...." [The Plaintiff's] knowledge was sufficient to relieve [Defendant] of its duty to warn."

[The]... "Sophisticated Intermediary" defense ... [was] held ... only available where ...supplier ... used reasonable care in relying upon the intermediary to give the warning to the end user." ...[Such a showing requires consideration of the purpose [of the] ... product..., the magnitude of the risk, the burden of providing direct warnings ... and the reliability of the intermediary as a conduit."

"[Defendant...provided] intermediary with ... general warnings, vague in nature, re... silicosis ... [Defendant] never warned ... the intermediary about the ineffectiveness of disposable respirators nor instruct ... intermediary that ... employees [should] use only high efficiency respirators as Defendant had instructed its own ... employees....The lesson is that it is not enough simply to show that the intermediary had some knowledge concerning hazards."

[The]"Bulk Supplier" defense...[was] recognized [due to] potential difficulty in reaching the end user in ...in a foundry, [but]...the court felt that it would not be reasonable for [Defendant] to rely on a small foundry to warn ... employees where [Defendant] had not given full information to the foundry...."

[The "Raw Material-Component Part Supplier defense ... should have never been raised because it did not fit the facts of the case. This defense is set forth in Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §5 (1998) and provides an additional defense to suppliers of inherently safe raw materials that are used as a component in some type of finalized product. " [T]he raw sand used at the foundry ... was never integrated into another product but ... simply used for ... building molds."

"This decision will not have an effect on case filings in Minnesota because ... [it]reaffirms existing law....[H]owever, [it] provides an important guide to other courts around the country who may be confronted with this issue. It is well reasoned and applies the Restatement in a balanced manner. This is one of the most extensive "sophisticated user"/"bulk supplier" opinions ever issued nationally in silica litigation....""

Patton Boggs counsels clients on product stewardship programs and liability prevention, including hazard warnings and regulatory mandates. We have particular expertise in silica-related issues as the result of the 100 years of cumulative experience of our partners representing mining, equipment, and construction materials companies on silica regulatory requirements, enforcement cases, research, product liability matters, insurance coverage and recovery. For further information on our services related to silica defense planning, contact John Austin at 202- 457-6167, or email jaustin@pattonboggs.com.

On Wednesday, April 28, the Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) held a meeting to discuss the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) request for federal regulations that should be reformed to be included in its draft 2004 Report to Congress (information available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/regpol-reports_congress.html).

OMB is required to publish a report each year summarizing the costs and benefits of federal regulations, and to include recommendations for regulatory reform. This year, OMB's request for reform nominations focuses on regulations affecting small and mid-sized manufacturers and IRS paperwork requirements affecting small businesses. Nominations at the meeting included, among several issues, OSHA's Hazard Communications Rules and MSHA's Diesel Particulate Matter Rule for Metal/Non-Metal mines, as well as the Federal Permitting Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the Permissible Exposure Limit of Hexavalent Chromium.

There was also discussion on the quality of the information used to calculate the estimated burdens of possible regulations. The deadline for submitting comments to OMB is May 20, 2004. SBA Advocacy Office plans to file comments with OMB and welcomes your input on regulations and IRS paperwork requirements that should be reformed or eliminated. Patton Boggs has and will continue to submit materials to Advocacy for consideration and we welcome input from our clients and friends. Please email suggestions or questions to: hchajet@pattonboggs.com, or telephone at (202-457-6511).

4. MSHA Can Be Sued For Failure to Inspect

In a case with the potential for significant implications for mine operators, The U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that MSHA can be sued by miners and others injured when MSHA fails to carry out mandatory duties under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act. The case addressed a situation where MSHA allegedly did not conduct an investigation following several safety and health complaints. The Court found that MSHA was not protected by the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception because agency officials had breached mandatory duties under federal law and agency rules.

Following in internal investigation, the Office of Inspector General determined that although the MSHA field office supervisor received complaints, he did not evaluate them because he believed anonymous complaints were not valid. The court found that under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, MSHA must conduct an "immediate inspection" when it receives a written complaint of a mine hazard signed by miners or miners' representatives. The court said that even if a complaint does not technically meet the Act's requirements, MSHA is required by the agency's inspection handbook to evaluate "all complaints of alleged hazards." Further, MSHA's policy manual says that where a complaint does not meet technical requirements, the inspector receiving the information "must evaluate and determine a course of action."

MSHA continues to emphasize its health standards with increased sampling activity across the industry. The resulting issues of technical and economic feasibility of compliance are brought into sharp focus when the agency contemplates issuing a violation and setting an abatement time. Patton Boggs believes that MSHA is required to make a feasibility finding, before issuing citations and abatement demands for regulations such as the diesel particulate standards.

MSHA fully expects that any overexposures will be addressed by operator personal protection programs, but remains insistent on the application of feasible engineering compliance methods. Operator strategies for these difficult issues, based on Patton Boggs’ long history of winning citation cases and representing industry in rulemaking proceedings, will be addressed by Henry Chajet on May 15 at Salt Lake City at the Joint Health and Safety Conference. For conference information please contact: www.minesafetyconference.com) For a copy of Mr. Chajet’s presentation, please email: hchajet@pattonboggs.com

The North Carolina Court of Appeals, based on a finding that the employer knew that a workplace was contaminated by mold, but provided no protection for the workers, found that the employer could be held responsible on the basis of intentional tort, thus excluding the claim from the protection of the workers’ compensation law.

According to papers filed with the court the employer repeatedly assured the employee that the workplace and premises were safe and free from "toxic" molds. The employee reportedly was diagnosed with complete loss of the balance function of his inner ears and significant damage to other ear organs. He continued to work until he was diagnosed as completely disabled. The case is Cameron v. Merisel Inc., N.C. Ct. App., No. 02-1330 (3/16/04) http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2004/021330-1.htm.

7. Owner Remedial Measures Does Not Prove It Controlled Independent Contractor Prior to Accident

A scaffold disassembly worker employed by an independent contractor was injured when a piece of scaffolding he stepped on gave way. At the time of the accident, the independent contractor had been hired to perform routine scaffold construction. The independent contractor assumed responsibility for any injury suffered by its employees during the course of the contract. The injured worker filed claims of strict liability, breach of implied warranties, and premises liability against the owner in federal district court. The district court allowed the employee to attempt to show that the plant owner had actual control, as opposed to contractual control, over the scaffold disassembly process that led to his injury.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit Court said that the plant owner and the independent contractor initially investigated the accident, interviewing workers and taking photographs of the accident site. On that same day, after the investigation, the independent contractor’s crew resumed work without any input from either the owner or the independent contractor. The owner set up a committee of its employees and those of the independent contractor to investigate the accident.

The committee recommended that all of the independent contractor’s meetings should be publicized, that a method to prevent the scaffold from shifting should be provided, and that a standard maintenance procedure for assembling and disassembling scaffolds should be developed. Other safety measures were subsequently implemented by the independent contractor and by the owner.

The Court said that none of these remedial actions showed that the owner had de facto control over the scaffold disassembly work at the time of the injury. The court found that these measures were merely evidence of the company’s ownership of the scaffold and its right to impose safety regulations and to conduct periodic inspections.

The case is: Lee v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 5th Cir., No. 02-60886, unpublished opinion (3/22/04). http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/02/02-60886.0.wpd.pdf

On April 5, 2004, OSHA proposed revisions to its electrical installation standard. "The general industry electrical installation standard has not been updated since 1981, so it is important that we update these requirements to reflect the most current practices and technologies in the industry," said OSHA Administrator John Henshaw. "These changes will strengthen worker protections and help eliminate inconsistencies and possible confusion between OSHA's requirements and many state and local building codes which have adopted updated NFPA and NEC provisions."

Proposed changes to OSHA's general industry electrical installation standard (1910 Subpart S) focus on safety in the design and installation of electric equipment in the workplace. The changes draw heavily from the 2000 edition of the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces (NFPA 70E), and the 2002 edition of the National Electrical Code (NEC).

The agency is proposing to replace the reference to the 1971 National Electrical Code in the mandatory appendix to the powered platform standard with a reference to OSHA's electrical installation standard and to update the standard to reflect current practice and technology in the field and to address requests to revise the standard to conforms with the most recent editions of NFPA 70E.

OSHA's existing electrical standard (1910.302-308) is based on the 1979 edition of NFPA 70E. Comments and hearing requests on the proposed rule must be submitted by June 4. The proposed regulation can be found at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=18100.

9. GAO Report Re; OSHA's Voluntary and Cooperative Programs

OSHA’s voluntary compliance program strategies have improved employers' safety and health practices, according to a recent GAO Report. The report stated that many participants said the programs resulted in reduced injury and illness rates and also fostered "better working relationships with OSHA."

Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, said the report "shows that OSHA's voluntary compliance programs have so far proven successful in improving safety at workplaces across the country." OSHA Administrator John Henshaw said the report recognizes that these strategies "are highly effective in extending OSHA's reach" and "complement and augment OSHA's aggressive efforts to enforce occupational safety and health standards." http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=10771

10. MSHA Explains Excessive History of Violations Civil Penalty Procedure

A recently released MSHA bulletin addresses the 30 CFR, Part 100 excessive history of violations provision for civil penalty assessments. MSHA's civil penalty assessment regulations, in 30 CFR Part 100, contain a provision for assessing higher penalties to mine operators or to independent contractors with an excessive history of violations.

Each time a violation is assessed, MSHA calculates the overall history of violations for the mine or the independent contractor. History is based on the number of final violations during a preceding 24-month period, with a 6-month delay factor included.

The 24-month period used to calculate history begins 30 months prior to the date of the violation. Any production operator or independent contractor who attains 20 penalty points, for an overall history as calculated as set out in the regulations, is considered to have an excessive history of violations.

An excessive history of violations affects the amount of the penalty assessed for most 104(a) citations that are considered non-significant and non-substantial (non-S&S). Most 104(a) non-S&S citations receive a single penalty assessment (currently a flat $60). However, when a 104(a) non-S&S citation is issued at a mine or to an independent contractor with an excessive history of violations, that citation is assessed by the regular formula method. The regular formula method currently results in a penalty of $72 to $60,000. Special assessments of 104(a) non-S&S citations issued at mines or to independent contractors with excessive history are also increased accordingly. http://www.msha.gov/regs/complian/pib/2004/pib04%2D11.pdf

Patton Boggs safety and health team provides help in negotiating penalties with MSHA and designing programs to prevent repeat violations and excessive histories. For information, contact: Henry Chajet, 202-457-6511, or at hchajet@pattonboggs.com; or Mark Savit at 202-457-5269, or at msavit@pattonboggs.com.

11. Preventing First Responder Accidents on Mine Sites

MSHA recently issued a bulletin addressing prevention of injuries and deaths of first responders and emergency medical personnel on mine sites. MSHA issued the bulletin because MSHA believes that the hazards encountered during rescue and recovery efforts can be significantly reduced with appropriate hazard recognition training, knowledge of emergency and evacuation procedures, the use of self-rescuers, proper respiratory protection, and other instruction.

The bulletin reminds operators that CFR Sections 75.1713-1, 77.1702, and 56/57.18014 require mine operators to make arrangements with appropriate services for emergency medical assistance and transportation of any injured persons at a mine. MSHA, through the National Mine Health and Safety Academy, has developed a training course for first responders in mine hazard recognition. Contact Johnnie Tyler at the National Mine Health and Safety Academy at 304-256-3541 for additional information regarding training courses or materials. http://www.msha.gov/regs/complian/pib/2004/pib04%2D10.pdf

12. Fines and Penalties

Below are some of the significant penalty actions brought since our last newsletter. We note that none of these actions were brought against Patton Boggs clients. We take pride in the success of our programs in assisting clients to prevent adverse consequences. We offer programs on supervisor and management training , prevention of repeat violations, procedures and policy to manage independent contractor risk, 24/7 incident investigation "roll out" teams, and informal settlement representation to advance safety and health but prevent inappropriate enforcement.

We believe that when these services are combined with our clients’ aggressive safety and health programs, they successfully minimize the risk of severe enforcement. For further information, contact : Henry Chajet, 202-457-6511, or at hchajet@pattonboggs.com; or Mark Savit at 202-457-5269, or at msavit@pattonboggs.com.

Failure to Abate, Penalty Increased Twentyfold

OSHA has cited a kitchen and bath company in Florida after return inspections to the plant confirmed that the company had failed to correct dangerous conditions observed during prior inspections.

OSHA initially inspected the company after receiving information that employees were being exposed to serious safety hazards. The company was issued a citation for five alleged serious violations, with a proposed penalty of $1,425. After the company failed to provide certification to OSHA that the hazards had been corrected, an investigator returned to the facility.

During this inspection, employees were again observed exposed to two of the cited hazards. The proposed penalties for these reported "failure-to-abate" violations, which now included the number of days employees continued to be exposed to the hazards, rose to $22,500. The investigator also observed new electrical hazards and the use of unapproved plastic piping to distribute compressed air throughout the plant, exposing employees to the danger of exploding pipes. These citations carried proposed penalties of $7,600.

After again failing to hear from the company, OSHA returned to the facility for a third time and observed that unauthorized plastic piping was still being used to carry compressed air throughout the plant. The proposed penalty for this hazard, $2,000, was increased to $46,000.

Scaffolding

OSHA has cited a masonry company in Mississippi after finding the company used dangerously unsafe scaffolding at a construction site despite having been penalized for similar hazards several times in recent years. Penalties totaling $113,400 have been assessed. OSHA conducted its inspection as part of a regional effort to prevent falls at construction sites.

The agency issued citations for seven alleged repeat violations, with proposed penalties totaling $96,600, including failure to assure that scaffolding was properly erected, that scaffold platforms were fully decked, and that workers had safe access to and from scaffold platforms. One repeat citation was issued because the company did not provide eye protection for workers using masonry saws.

OSHA had previously cited the company for safety violations similar to those observed at the work site. As part of a settlement agreement, the company owner agreed to comply with OSHA safety standards at future work sites and attend a scaffolding safety course, but he did not do so.

The company was also cited for four alleged serious violations, with penalties totaling $16,800, for failing to inspect scaffolding, to provide adequate scaffold plank supports, and to prevent employees from working on a scaffold platform improperly supported by a fork truck.

Protection Against Cave-In, Fall and Drowning Hazard

OSHA has proposed fines in the amount of $371,000 against the lead contractor on a highway project in Massachusetts. According to OSHA, the contractor failed to protect its workers against cave-in, fall and drowning hazards at four different worksites.

OSHA's inspection found employees at two worksites exposed to cave-in hazards while working in unprotected excavations that also lacked safe means of escape. According to OSHA, at both sites the supervisors with the knowledge to spot the cave-in hazards and the authority to correct them failed to do so. In addition, workers at one site were exposed to falls of up to 28 feet from an unguarded walkway while workers at the other site faced crushing hazards from a crane that had been set on unstable ground and had not been inspected for defects.

Workers at two other sites who were required to work over or near rivers faced serious injury if they fell in the water since the required life-saving skiffs, life vests and ring buoys were not available. Also, an unsafe raft was used to transport workers across the river and an un-inspected and improperly positioned scaffold posed additional hazards.

Fall Protection, Storage of Explosive Gas Cylinders

Contractors on a Chicago job site have received proposed penalties of $324,500 for exposing workers to potentially deadly falls. OSHA has proposed $176,000 in fines against the prime contractor on a 48-story high-rise and a $148,500 fine against a subcontractor responsible for steel erection on the site. Both companies were issued citations for alleged serious and willful violations for lack of fall protection and for improper storage of gas cylinders.

The prime contractor also received repeat citations for issues related to fall protection. The fines and OSHA citations follow an inspection that allegedly found workers not protected from falls while performing steel beam connecting work at greater than 30 feet above the next level, and structural steel not being connected with at least two bolts per connection. Those violations were classified as willful. Citations alleged as serious include additional fall protection issues, the improper storage of compressed gas cylinders and the failure to separate oxygen cylinders from acetylene cylinders.

Machine Guarding, Electrical Hazards, Fall Protection

A Chicago company is facing $84,750 in fines following an OSHA inspection conducted following receipt of a formal complaint. OSHA has alleged serious safety violations including machine guarding issues, electrical hazards and potential fall problems. Serious workplace health violations were alleged for noise, control of wood dust and potential explosion hazards.

OSHA issued alleged willful violations for over-exposures to wood dust and deficiencies in the company's "lockout/tagout" program to ensure that machinery does not start up accidentally when workers are performing repairs or maintenance.

PPE, Guards, Fire Prevention, Training, Fall Protection & Lockout

A $462,600 penalty has been proposed against an Illinois manufacturing company for alleged willful and serious violations of numerous safety requirements. The investigation, which followed receipt of a complaint, found that the company has consistently failed to correct grave and potentially disastrous workplace hazards, including the lack of such basic worker protections as personal protective equipment, machine guarding, fire prevention measures, safety training, fall protection, and lockout/tagout procedures.

The current fine and OSHA citations follow an inspection initiated in September 2003, following receipt of a complaint. The inspection led to 17 alleged serious violations and 23 alleged willful violations ranging from electrical hazards and smoking permitted within 20 feet of a spray painting operation to a lack of eye and foot protection and improper use or lack of the use of respirators. OSHA has cited the company numerous times since 1995 and, according to OSHA, the company has failed to correct identified hazards.