DECISION AND ORDER    Pepper Contracting Services, Inc. (Pepper) was the general contractor on a highway construction project in Tampa, Florida, when an employee was struck by a dump truck and died eighteen days later. The fatality was reported to the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and after an investigation was conducted, OSHA issued1 Pepper a citation for violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act), 29 U.S.C. §§ 651–678.

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING COMPLAINANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNTIMELY NOTICE OF CONTEST    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) conducted an inspection of Respondent’s worksite located at 8498 61.5 Road, Montrose, Colorado from March 23, 2015 to March 24, 2015. On May 8, 2015, OSHA issued two Citations with four items to Respondent. The two Citations proposed Respondent pay a penalty in the amount of $2,800.00. OSHA mailed the Citations to Respondent’s worksite via United States Postal Service (USPS) certified mail. Based on the certified mail return receipt provided by USPS, the citations were received by and signed for by Respondent on May 14, 2015.

DECISION    Charles W. Mason, DDS, & Associates, PLLC, (“Mason”) is an orthodontic practice that operates out of an office building in Kalispell, Montana. After receiving a complaint concerning the practice, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration conducted an inspection on July 14 and August 5, 2010. Following the inspection, on September 29, 2010, OSHA issued Mason a seven-item serious citation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678. The Secretary later withdrew one of the citation items and after conducting a hearing, Administrative Law Judge John H. Schumacher vacated one of the remaining six items and affirmed the other five. He assessed the proposed penalty of $1,500 for each affirmed item, for a total of $7,500.

DECISION AND ORDER    This proceeding is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the Commission or OSHRC) pursuant to section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 659(c) (the Act or OSH Act). On August 18, 2013, Compliance Safety and Health Officer (CO) Leonard Hoban responded to a complaint of someone working without fall protection on a residential roof at 1717 Madison Avenue, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (worksite or Bethlehem worksite). No one was at the worksite when CO Hoban arrived that day, so he returned around 2:00 pm the following day, August 19, 2013.

DECISION    Dana Container, Inc. is a New Jersey-based company that operates several industrial truck tank-washing facilities. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspected a Dana facility in Summit, Illinois, following an accident involving a Dana employee who required emergency medical assistance after he was found unconscious in a tank at the facility. OSHA issued Dana two citations alleging several serious and willful violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678. Most of the items alleged violations of various sections of the permit-required confined spaces (PRCSs) standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.146.

BRIEFING NOTICE   Is OSHA’s jurisdiction over the cited working conditions preempted by the FRA? See OSH Act section 4(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 653(a)(1) (“Nothing in this Act shall apply to working conditions of employees with respect to which other Federal agencies . . . exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health.”)