New England v. OSHRC

USCA1 Opinion









April 21, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_________________________


Nos. 93-2038
93-2039

NEW ENGLAND INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, ET AL.,

Respondents.

_________________________

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF
THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
REVIEW COMMISSION

_________________________

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________

_________________________

Rosemary Healey, with whom Edwards & Angell was on brief,
_______________ _________________
for petitioner.
Terri DeLeon, Attorney, with whom Thomas S. Williamson, Jr.,
____________ _________________________

Solicitor of Labor, Joseph M. Woodward, Associate Solicitor, and
___________________
Ann Rosenthal, Counsel, were on brief, for respondents.
_____________


_________________________



_________________________















Per Curiam. In 1991, petitioner New England
Per Curiam.
____________

Industries, Inc. (NEI), a jewelry manufacturer operating a

factory in Providence, Rhode Island, received citations from the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) alleging

violations of some twenty occupational safety and health

standards. These citations became final orders of the

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) pursuant

to a settlement entered into between NEI and the government.

Under the terms of this settlement, NEI agreed, inter alia, to
_____ ____

abate and correct the cited violations by specific dates in 1991.

By the start of 1992, OSHA still had not received

verification that NEI had completed the agreed corrections.

Thus, it conducted a follow-up inspection on January 23, 1992.

This inspection resulted in the issuance, on February 13, 1992,

of citations alleging failures to abate five of the earlier cited

violations, as well as some new citations for so-called "repeat

violations." NEI contested the citations. On December 18, 1992,

the Secretary of Labor moved for summary judgment with regard to

six of the alleged violations (some from each group). NEI did

not oppose the initiative, and an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

granted summary judgment on January 11, 1993. On January 20, a

hearing was held on the remaining three violations. The ALJ

thereafter wrote a decision finding that the remaining violations

had occurred, affirming all nine citations, and assessing

penalties as proposed by the Secretary. OSHRC declined review,

and the decision became a final order. This proceeding followed.


2














We have carefully reviewed the record and the appellate

briefs. We find that, for the most part, the arguments that

petitioner seeks to raise in this court were not seasonably

presented to the ALJ and are, therefore, not properly before

us.1 See 29 U.S.C. 660(a); see also Eagle Eye Fishing Corp.
___ ___ ____ ________________________

v. United States Dep't of Commerce, No. 93-1740, slip op. at 5-6
_______________________________

(1st Cir. March 17, 1994) (discussing doctrine of administrative

waiver). As we have stated, "[i]n the usual administrative law

case, a court ought not to consider points which were not

seasonably raised before the agency." Massachusetts Dep't of
_______________________

Pub. Welfare v. Secretary of Agric., 984 F.2d 514, 523 (1st
_____________ ____________________

Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 81 (1993). Nothing about the
_____ ______

instant case removes it from the sweep of the general rule.

We need go no further. Apart from issues that have

been procedurally defaulted, petitioner raises no fairly

debatable issues of either law or fact. Consequently, we

summarily dismiss the petitions for review, see 1st Cir. R.27.1,
___

and direct enforcement of the challenged order.



The petitions for review are denied and dismissed, and
The petitions for review are denied and dismissed, and
_______________________________________________________

the orders appealed from will be enforced. Costs to respondents.
the orders appealed from will be enforced. Costs to respondents.
_________________________________________ ____________________



____________________

1One aspect of this broad waiver results from petitioner's
neglect to oppose the Secretary's motion for partial summary
judgment. We often have warned that, in the summary judgment
context, "the decision to sit idly by and allow the summary
judgment proponent to configure the record is likely to prove
fraught with consequence." Kelly v. United States, 924 F.2d 355,
_____ _____________
358 (1st Cir. 1991). So it is here.

3