.

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:

ÝÝÝÝ An employer cited for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. Section 651 et. seq., failed to contest the citation.Ý In a subsequent proceeding under a notification of a failure to correct the violation, the employer claimed that the citation inade-quately described the particular violations.Ý We agree that the citation's description was inade-quate and that the citation did not provide a basis for a subsequent failure-to-correct action.

ÝÝÝÝ Congress established an administrative procedure for enforcement of OSHA involving a division of enforcement and adjudicative responsibilities between two agencies, each inde-pendent of the other.Ý The secretary of Labor promulgated regulations, inspects employers, and issues citations when an employer is found in violation of the statute or regulation.Ý An employer cited for a violation has an opportunity to be heard by an administrative law judge appointed by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and, if a Commission member so directs, by the Commission itself.Ý Under the enforcement scheme a citation may lay the basis for a later failure-to-correct action.ÝÝ The citation establishes the nature of the violation and a date by which the employer should correct the violation.Ý Should the employer fail to correct the violation by that date the Secretary may notify the employer and begin a failure-to-correct action.Ý An employer may be penalized on either a citation or a failure-to-correct notification.Ý Although the procedures for a citation and a failure-to-correct notification are very similar, +++ larger penalties may be imposed under a failure-to-correct notification.Ý On a citation an employer "may be assessed a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each such violation."Ý 29 U.S.C. section 666(c),1 whereas on a failure-to-correct notification an employer "may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each day during which such failure or violation continues." 29 U.S.C. section (d) (emphasis added).

ÝÝÝÝ When an employer receives a citation, he has 15 working days to give notice that he intends to contest the citation.Ý If he gives notice he may contest the citation in a hearing before an administrative law judge.Ý If he fails to give notice the citation and the proposed assessment of penalty "shall be deemed a final order of the Commission and not subject to review by any court or agency." +++ Similarly an uncontested failure-to-correct notification will be deemed a final and unreviewable order. +++

ÝÝÝÝ In this case an OSHA compliance officer and industrial hygienist inspected the employer, Harrison Lumber Company, which runs a small north Georgia sawmill.Ý During the inspection he indicted to either Mr. Harrison, the sawmill's president and owner, or his son, or both of them, work stations where the noise level was too high.Ý Afterwards he discussed what steps the employer could take to learn how to reduce the noise to an acceptable level.Ý The Secretary subsequently issued a citation which described two violations in a general way, basically repeating the language of particular regulations.Ý The citation read:

"Section 1910.95(b)(1):Ý Employer failed to use feasible administrative or en-gineering controls when sound levels exceeded those stated in Table G-16Ý (Request a Compliance Plan be submitted as well as a progress report every 30 days).

Section 2920.95(b)(3):Ý Employer failed to provide a continuing and effective hear-ing conservation program.Ý The employer did not contest this citation.

ÝÝÝÝ About five months later the OSHA compliance officer returned to reinspect the employer.Ý He found the violations uncorrected.Ý The Secretary issued a failure-to-correct notification, which the employer contested in a hearing before an administrative law judge.Ý The ALJ held that the citation had inadequately described the violations.Ý The Secretary urged that the employer could no longer complain of that defect because the citation had become an unreviewable final order, but the ALJ held that because of the defect the citation was void and without legal effect.Ý The Commission affirmed the ALJ's decision in a split decision.Ý One Commission member affirmed on the basis of the ALJ's opinion.Ý Another was unwilling to label the citation as void but agreed that it was unenforceable in a failure-to-correct action.ÝÝ The third Commission member dissented.Ý He would have held that the citation was adequate and even if it was inadequate, the employer's actual knowledge of the nature of the violations in the circumstances of the inspection cured any defect.

ÝÝÝ The first question we must answer is whether in a failure-to-correct action an employer can object to the particularity of an uncontested citation.ÝÝ This question turns on the statute's provisions, but the answer can be reached only by reference.

ÝÝÝÝ Because we hold that an employer may object to the particularity of an uncontested citation in a failure-to-correct action, we examine the citation involved in this case.Ý We agree with the ALJ and the Commission majority that the citation was insufficiently particular.Ý The statute specifically provides:

"Each citation shall be in writing and shall describe with particularity the nature of the violation, including a reference to the provision of the chapter, standard, rule, regulation, or order alleged to have been violated. 29 U.S.C. Section 658(a).

ÝÝÝÝ In this case the citation referred to the regulations alleged to have been violated, but it failed to describe with particularity the nature of the violations.Ý The statute does not require that the description of the violation be elaborate or technical or drafted in a particular form.Ý It does require that the description fairly characterize the violative condition so that the citation is adequate both to inform the employer of what must be changed and to allow the Commission, in a subsequent failure-to-correct action, to determine whether the condition was changed.Ý The statute does not, however, require that the citation specify what corrective measures should be taken, and indeed the employer is often free to correct the violation as he sees fit.

ÝÝÝÝ In this case the citation should have noted the particular work stations where the noise was excessive.Ý Thus informed, the employer would be able to correct the noise levels at those locations.Ý He could also comply with the statute's requirement that he post the citation, or a copy of the citation, " at or near each place a violation referred to in the citation occurred."Ý 29 U.S.C. Section 658(b) (emphasis added).Ý Lacking this information, the citation was inadequate to inform the employer of what must be changed or to allow the Commission to rely on the citation in a failure-to-correct action.

ÝÝÝÝ The citation was also inadequate in referring simply to a "hearing conservation program," a term derived from the regulations.Ý The regulations require a hearing conservation program when the noise level in a work area is excessive, and the employer must rely on administrative controls to limit the duration of each employer's exposure to the noise or on ear protection to reduce the noise level actually reaching the employee's ears.Ý The employer must periodically check both the hearing ability of individual employees and the noise level in the work areas.Ý These periodic checks are intended to ensure that employees will not suffer hearing loss, particularly to detect an individual's hearing loss before it becomes serious.Ý The simple statement that an employer has failed to provide a continuing and effective hearing conservation program failed to inform the employer, presumably ignorant of all the term signifies, of what must be changed, although it was certainly adequate for the better informed Commission to rely on the citation in a failure-to-correct action.

ÝÝÝÝ The decision of the Commission is AFFIRMED.

Ý