OSHA Inspection: REGAL WARE, INC.

Issued

2026-02-12 00:00:00

Abate by

2026-04-01 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(k)(3)(ii): The employer did not ensure that each employee was informed of the purpose of hearing protectors, the advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types, and instructions on selection, fitting, use and care:  On or about December 19, 2025, the employer did not ensure that employees working in the facility and required to utilize hearing protectors were instructed on the selection, fitting, and use of hearing protectors.

Issued

2026-02-12 00:00:00

Abate by

2026-04-01 00:00:00

Penalty

Initial $0.00 · Current $0.00

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.95(c)(1): The employer did not administer a continuing, effective hearing conservation program as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (o) whenever employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average sound level of 85 decibels measured on the A scale, or equivalently a dose of fifty percent:  On or about January 22, 2026, the employer failed to develop and implement an effective monitoring program as described in 29 CFR 1910.95(d). An employee operating the Minster Blanking Press was exposed to occupational noise in excess of the 8-hour Time Weighted Average (TWA) sound level of 85dBA or equivalently a dose of 50%. Noted deficiencies include, but may not be limited to, the following:  (1) The employer did not ensure that the sampling strategy was designed to identify employees for inclusion in the Hearing Conservation Program (HCP) and enable proper selection of hearing protectors (as per 1910.95(d)(1)(i)). Employees utilized hearing protection with a Noise Reduction Rating (NRR) ranging from 25dB to 33dB. The employer implemented a blanket HCP for all employees regardless of actual noise exposure. Employees were given the freedom to select any kind of hearing protection foregoing attention to the attenuation provided by their hearing protectors for their actual noise exposure and specific tasks.   (2) The employer did not ensure that the sampling strategy accounted for circumstances where high worker mobility, significant variations in sound level, or a significant component of impulse noise rendered area monitoring inappropriate (as per 1910.95(d)(1)(ii)). The employer relied on area monitoring through the use of a EXTECH sound level meter. The Task Based Noise Exposure Assessment Method (T-BEAM) was not utilized to objectively demonstrate area sampling produced equivalent results to personal sampling.   (3) The employer did not ensure that monitoring was repeated whenever a change in production, process, equipment, or controls increases noise exposure to the extent that additional employees may be exposed at or above the action level (as per 1910.95(d)(3)(i)). The employer did not repeat monitoring or established a periodic sampling strategy when changes that increases noise exposure occurred.