Pursuant to Commission Rule 90, after hearing and carefully considering all the evidence and the arguments of counsel, the Court issues this Decision and Order as its findings of fact and conclusions of law. As discussed further below, the Court finds Complainant established Respondent violated the general duty clause by failing to adequately protect its employees from being struck by heavy equipment traffic within the boundaries of the repaving project. The Court also finds, however, Complainant failed to establish a violation of the training standard found at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.21(b)(2), because he failed to produce evidence the injured employee was not provided adequate training in a language the employee could understand. Accordingly, the Citation and Notification of Penalty is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part.