United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, DC 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v. OSHRC Docket No. 16-1830 

NORTH PAC CORPORATION, and its successors,

 

Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF NOTICE OF CONTEST

On September 30, 2016, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty (Citation) to North Pac Corporation and its 

successors (Respondent) for alleged violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH 

Act) at Northern Marianas College in Saipan, MP. The Citation resulted from OSHA inspection 

number 1172199. The Citation alleges Serious violations of 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.404(a)(2), 

1926.404(b)(1)(i), 1926.451(f)(14), as well as Repeat violations of 29 C.F.R. §§ 1926.404(b)(2), 

1926.405(b)(1).1 The Secretary proposes $5,700 in penalties for the items characterized as 

Serious and $11,402, for the items characterized as Repeat, for a total of $17,102 in proposed 

 

1 The Secretary relies on two citation items issued as result of OSHA inspection number 930163 

to support the characterization of Citation 2, Items 1 and 2 as Repeat. Those previous citation 

items were affirmed by a final order on December 23, 2013. 
2

penalties. The parties agree, and the record establishes, the Occupational Safety and Health 

Review Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over this matter. (Compl. at 2, Answer at 1.) 

For the reasons set forth below, the Secretary’s October 3, 2017 Motion for Sanctions is 

GRANTED. Respondent’s Notice of Contest is DISMISSED, the violations set forth in the 

Complaint are AFFIRMED, and a total of $17,102 in penalties is ASSESSED.

I. Pre-Hearing Interactions with the Parties

Respondent received the Citation on October 7, 2016.2 A few days later, in a letter dated 

October 11, 2016, it filed a Notice of Contest with OSHA, seeking to contest each citation item

and the proposed penalties. Miguel Cruz, Jr. signed the Notice of Contest and lists the 

Respondent’s address as P.O. Box 501031, Saipan MP 96950.3 The Commission’s Executive 

Secretary used this address to mail Respondent a Notice of Docketing and Instructions to 

Employer to Respondent on November 3, 2017.

4

 The following day, on November 4, 2016, the 

Secretary filed his Complaint. Respondent filed its Answer to the Complaint on November 29, 

2016.5 

 

2 The Secretary provided a copy of the postal receipt indicating a Miguel Cruz signed for a 

delivery mailed to P.O. Box 501031, Saipan MP 96950 on October 7, 2016. Respondent 

admitted that this has been its business address at all times material hereto. (Answer at 1.) 

3 The Notice of Contest identifies Miguel Cruz as Respondent’s General Manager. 

4 The Docketing Notice included a post card that was to be returned to the Commission to verify 

Respondent had complied with the employee posting requirements of Commission Rule 7 for the 

Citation and Notice of Contest. See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.7. This verification postcard was returned 

to the Commission signed by Miguel Cruz, who’s title is listed as “President and GM.” The 

verification is dated November 18, 2016. 

5 After filing the Complaint, the Secretary moved to amend it in a Motion submitted on February 

28, 2017. The amendment was limited to correcting two dates and the undersigned approved the 

Motion on March 16, 2017. 
3

Discovery in this matter began on January 27, 2017, with the undersigned’s order 

directing the parties to confer and submit planning recommendations (Planning Order). Other 

than agreeing to a different hearing date than the one specified in Planning Order, Respondent 

failed to confer with the Secretary regarding any of the other specified matters and did not jointly 

file planning recommendations with the Secretary as the Planning Order required. (April 27, 

2017 Decl. of Sonya Shao (Shao Decl. I).) 

After receiving the Secretary’s planning recommendations, the undersigned scheduled a 

conference call via written notice to discuss the recommendations. When Respondent failed to 

have a representative join the conference call at the time specified in the notice, the undersigned 

called the number provided in Respondent’s Notice of Contest. After several attempts, the 

Secretary’s counsel and the undersigned were connected to a person identified as a manager. 

(Shao Decl. I.) This individual abruptly ended the call without engaging in any discussion. Id. 

Respondent never explained its failure to participate in this scheduled conference call. 

Shortly after this call, on February 28, 2017, the Secretary served his First Set of 

Discovery Requests (Discovery Requests).

6

 To date, Respondent has failed to address the 

Discovery Requests appropriately. (Shao Decl. dated Oct. 31, 2017 (Shao Decl. IV).) The 

Secretary, as well as the undersigned, have made repeated attempts to engage Respondent to 

participate in discovery and comply with the prehearing procedures as set forth in the 

Commission Rules of Procedure (Commission Rules), 29 C.F.R. § 2200, et seq., and the 

undersigned’s orders. (Shao Decl. I, Shao Decl. dated Aug. 25, 2017 (Shao Decl. II); Shao Decl. 

dated Oct. 3, 2017 (Shao Decl. III); Shao Decl. IV.) 

 

6 The Discovery Requests consist of twelve interrogatories and four requests for documentary 

evidence. (Mot. to Compel, Ex. 1.) 
4

Early in the process, on March 15, 2017, the Secretary’s counsel contacted Respondent 

and confirmed its receipt of the Discovery Requests. (Shao Decl. I.) When Respondent failed to 

provide any information by the April 11, 2017 deadline to respond to the Discovery Requests, 

the Secretary’s counsel called the Respondent and offered to extend the deadline until April 21, 

2017. Id. This phone call was followed up with an email, which further explained how to 

respond to the Discovery Requests appropriately and advised Respondent to seek legal counsel. 

(Mot. to Compel, Ex. 3.) After the extended deadline passed, the Secretary’s counsel sent 

another email on April 24, 2017, to learn whether Respondent intended to respond to the 

Discovery Requests. (Shao Decl. I.) When Respondent failed to respond to that email or 

otherwise contact the Secretary’s counsel, the Secretary filed his Motion to Compel and For 

Sanctions (Motion to Compel) on April 27, 2017. 

Respondent did not initially respond to the Motion to Compel, so the undersigned issued 

an Order to Show Cause (First Show Cause Order) on May 18, 2017. This First Show Cause 

Order directed Respondent to show cause as to why the Motion to Compel should not be granted. 

It also explained that a failure to respond would result in sanctions and that these sanctions may 

include the affirmance of all violations and the assessment of penalties without a hearing. 

Respondent received this First Show Cause Order on June 1, 2017, and submitted a response 

dated June 10, 2017 (June Response).

7

 The June Response provided no explanation for why 

Respondent failed to fully comply with the Planning Order, participate in the February 17, 2017 

conference call, or respond to the Discovery Requests. It only re-iterated the denials set forth in 

 

7 As with the prior mailings, Miguel Cruz signed for the delivery. The certified mail return 

receipt is dated June 1, 2017. Delivery was also confirmed using the tracking number and the 

U.S. Postal Service’s website. 
5

the Answer. Accordingly, the undersigned granted the Motion to Compel (Compel Order) on 

June 23, 2017. The Compel Order directed Respondent to respond to the Discovery Requests 

within fourteen days and informed the parties that a failure to comply would result in sanctions. 

Respondent received the Compel Order on July 6, 2017, and was required to respond by July 20, 

2017.

8

Rather than provide responses to the Discovery Requests by this deadline, Respondent 

informed the Secretary about a discrepancy in the description of the worksite set out in the 

Complaint. (Shao Decl. II.) After receiving this deficient one sentence response, the Secretary 

sought to confer with Respondent by telephone on August 25, 2017. Id. Respondent indicated 

that it would continue to refuse to respond to the Discovery Requests unless the discrepancy 

regarding the worksite was addressed. 

The Secretary’s counsel agreed to address the discrepancy and filed a Motion to Correct 

Inadvertent Error (Motion to Correct) on August 28, 2017. The correction concerns the fact that 

the Citation refers to the worksite as being at Building K at Northern Marianas College. 

However, Respondent clarified that the inspection site was actually located outside of Building J, 

which is adjacent to Building K. Both buildings are part of the Northern Marianas College

campus. Respondent agreed to the correction and the undersigned granted the Motion to Correct 

on August 30, 2017. 

Still, Respondent continued its failure to participate in the discovery process, leading the 

Secretary to file a Motion for Sanctions. In this Motion for Sanctions, the Secretary argued that 

 

8 Again, Miguel Cruz signed for the delivery and dated the certified mail return receipt July 6, 

2017. Delivery was also confirmed using the tracking number and the U.S. Postal Service’s 

website. 
6

his case has been “undisputedly hampered” by Respondent’s failure to produce any discovery. 

(Mot. for Sanctions at 5.) Months after receiving the Notice of Contest, the Secretary is still 

unaware of any claims or defenses Respondent seeks to assert, what evidence there is to support 

any such claim or defense, such as what witnesses might testify. Id. The Secretary also

indicated it was concerned about whether there had been any spoliation of evidence. Id. The 

Motion for Sanctions sought a judgment by default because of the prejudice caused by 

Respondent’s conduct. Id. Respondent did not file a response to the Motion for Sanctions.

While the Motion for Sanctions was pending, the Secretary sought leave to re-serve the 

Discovery Requests with the corrected building reference. Other than clarifying the building 

name, the discovery requests were identical to the ones served months earlier on February 28, 

2017. The undersigned granted the Secretary’s request in a September 8, 2017 Order (September

Order) and gave Respondent until September 28, 2017, to respond to the corrected Discovery 

Requests. As with the prior deadlines, Respondent failed to comply. On October 2, 2017, the 

Secretary’s counsel attempted to confer with Respondent by leaving a message with a secretary 

who answered the phone when the number provided was called. (Shao Decl. III.) Secretary’s 

counsel also called the cell phone number provided and sent an email to Mr. Cruz, in each case 

trying to gain a response to the pending Discovery Requests.9 Id. 

Having been unsuccessful in multiple attempts to reach Respondent, the Secretary filed 

another Motion for Sanctions (Third Motion for Sanctions) on October 3, 2017. After receiving 

the Third Motion for Sanctions, the undersigned tried to reach Respondent to discuss its failure 

 

9 Secretary’s counsel also attempted to confer with Mr. Cruz before the September 28, 2017

deadline by calling both phone numbers provided and sending an email. No one responded to 

these messages either. (Shao Decl. III.) 
7

to comply with the past orders by notifying the parties in writing and directing them to call into a 

conference call on Friday, October 6, 2017.10 Respondent failed to join the call. 

Due to the inability of either Secretary’s counsel or the undersigned to reach Respondent, 

on October 11, 2017, the undersigned issued a second Order to Show Cause (Second Show 

Cause Order) directing the Respondent to show cause as to why the Third Motion for Sanctions 

should not be granted. The Second Show Cause Order, like the First Show Cause Order,

reminded Respondent that a failure to respond appropriately would result in sanctions, which 

could include the issuance of a default judgment affirming all the violations and assessing the 

proposed penalties.11 

On October 16, 2017, Respondent sent an email to the undersigned’s Administrative 

Assistant, acknowledging receipt of the Second Show Cause Order and indicating Respondent 

would participate in a hearing. The email also expressed an interest in settling the matter. In 

light of this email, the undersigned arranged for a conference call held to be held at 8:00 am 

Saipan time on October 24, 2017. 

During the conference call, the undersigned explained that settlement discussions must be 

conducted in good faith and informed the parties they would be given until the end of the week 

to engage in settlement discussions. The undersigned explicitly informed Respondent that it 

 

10 The Notice of Conference Call provided the time of the call across multiple time zones (EST, 

PST, and Saipan). It was sent to the parties by both U.S. mail and email. Neither the U.S. mail 

copy nor the emails were returned as undeliverable.

11 The Second Show Cause Order was sent to the parties by certified mail. Delivery was 

confirmed using the tracking number and the U.S. Postal Service’s website. In addition, courtesy 

copies of the October Order were emailed on October 11, 2017 to Mr. Cruz at the email he 

provided as well as another email included with the Notice of Contest that had been used for 

prior communications. Neither of the emails was returned as undeliverable. 
8

needed to respond to the pending Discovery Requests by October 27, 2017, unless a settlement 

was reached prior to that date. The undersigned re-iterated the need to participate in the process 

in good faith and informed Respondent that failing to comply with the Compel Order would 

result in sanctions, including the potential dismissal of the Notice of Contest. Respondent 

indicated that he understood the directions. Mr. Cruz also indicated that the best way to 

communicate with him was via email.

Following the call, the undersigned issued an Order on October 24, 2017 (October 

Order), which memorialized the instructions to respond to the Discovery Requests by Friday, 

October 27, 2017, unless the parties reached a settlement before then. The October Order was 

sent to the parties by certified mail. In addition, courtesy copies of the October Order were 

emailed on October 24, 2017 to Mr. Cruz at the email he provided as well as another email 

included with the Notice of Contest that had been used for prior communications. Neither of the 

emails was returned as undeliverable. 

Secretary’s counsel notified the undersigned by telephone and in writing that North Pac 

had not engaged in good faith settlement discussions and also failed to provide a response to the 

Discovery Requests by the October 27, 2017 deadline.

12

 (Shao Decl. IV.) Respondent does not 

dispute either of these contentions. (Response to Second Show Cause Order dated October 31,

2017.) Instead, it only alleges that the inspection that led to the Citation was conducted without 

a management level employee present. Id. 

To date, despite multiple orders, Respondent still has not appropriately responded to the 

Discovery Requests. The hearing date has already been repeatedly moved due to Respondent’s 

 

12 As discussed above, this was the fifth deadline for providing a response to the Discovery 

Requests Respondent missed. 
9

tactics. After conferring with the parties, a hearing was scheduled for August 31, 2017.13 The 

February 16, 2017 Scheduling Order (February Scheduling Order) sets forth multiple deadlines 

for the parties, including a requirement to complete all discovery by June 19, 2017. When 

Respondent still had not provided any discovery as required by the February Scheduling Order, 

the undersigned granted the Secretary’s Motion for a Continuance and issued an Amended 

Scheduling Order on June 22, 2017. The Amended Scheduling Order required the parties to 

confer and file a joint pre-hearing statement by October 3, 2017, and moved the hearing date to

October 17, 2017. Respondent failed to confer with the Secretary in a timely manner before this 

deadline, leading the undersigned to grant another continuance and move the hearing until 

December 19, 2017. Despite these multiple extensions, Respondent still has not provided any 

information about its claims, defenses, or witnesses. (Shao Decl. IV.) 

II. Discussion

According to the Secretary, since filing its Answer, Respondent has engaged in a pattern 

of contumacious conduct by failing to participate in good faith in the discovery process as well 

as neglecting to respond appropriately to undersigned’s orders, including the Motion to Compel. 

(Third Mot. for Sanctions at 5-6.) As a result, the Secretary claims it has been unduly prejudiced 

and seeks a judgment of default. Id.

Default judgments may be appropriate when a party fails to comply with an order 

compelling discovery. 29 C.F.R. § 2200.52(f) (sanctions for failing to comply with discovery 

requirements); 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(a) (default appropriate when a party fails to proceed as 

 

13 The matter was initially set for a hearing to commence on July 5, 2017. After subsequent 

discussions, the parties and the undersigned agreed to a hearing date of August 31, 2017. 
10

provided by the Commission Rules or as required by a judge). Judges have very broad discretion 

to impose sanctions for noncompliance with orders or the Commission Rules. See Sealtite 

Corp., 15 BNA OSHC 1130, 1134 (No. 88-1431, 1991) (affirming the sanction of dismissal). 

Still, dismissal is considered too harsh a sanction for failing to comply with certain prehearing 

orders unless the record shows contumacious conduct by the noncomplying party, prejudice to 

the opposing party, or a pattern of disregard for Commission proceedings. Architectural Glass & 

Metal Co., 19 BNA OSHC 1546, 1547 (No. 00-0389, 2001) (re-instating a notice of contest 

when party failed to attend a single meeting when the party did not receive appropriate notice of 

the meeting). Failing to comply with Commission Rules and orders so as to delay proceedings 

may constitute contumacious conduct. Carson Concrete Corp. v. Sec’y of Labor, 21 BNA 

OSHC 1393, 168 Fed. Appx. 543 (3d Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (upholding default judgment for 

OSH Act violations when employer sought to disavow admission provided during discovery 

until a few days before trial). 

Respondent’s conduct is contumacious and evinces a pattern of disregard in that, as set 

out above, multiple USPS mailings were received, the undersigned’s office contacted 

Respondent by the email provided, the undersigned spoke with Respondent about the need to 

proceed with discovery and yet, despite these communications, Respondent still has not 

responded to the Discovery Requests.14 This is not an isolated situation or the excusable failure 

to comply with a deadline. The present matter involves a pattern of disregard for deadlines and

an obstinate refusal to comply with orders. Respondent has failed to fully comply with the 

 

14 The undersigned notes that this matter is not Respondent’s first experience with violations of 

the OSH Act. In 2013, it was cited for nine Serious violations of the OSH Act as well as two 

Repeat violations. These violations were affirmed as a final order on December 23, 2013. 
11

Planning Order, February Scheduling Order, Compel Order, September Order, October Order,

and the Amended Scheduling Order. 

The undersigned provided explicit written warnings to Respondent informing it that the 

failure to appropriately and timely respond may result in Respondent being held in default and 

the dismissal of its Notice of Contest, the affirmance of the allegations set forth in the Complaint,

and imposition of penalties. Respondent has failed to proceed as required by Commission Rules 

and multiple orders, including the Order to Compel. See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.52(f)(4) (authorizing 

judges to issue a judgment of default when a party refuses or obstructs discovery). 

Commission judges have a duty “to assure that the facts are fully elicited, to adjudicate 

all issues, and avoid delay.” 29 C.F.R. § 2200.67. To carry out this duty, Commission Rule 

67(m), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.67(m), authorizes judges to take any action necessary (as long as it 

authorized by the Commission Rules). The Commission’s prehearing procedures aid in the early 

formulation of issues, which benefits all parties during trial preparation as well as resulting in the 

more efficient use of Commission resources at both the hearing and review stages. Architectural 

Glass, 19 BNA OSHC at 1547. The imposition of appropriate sanctions is important to ensure 

compliance with prehearing procedures and to permit the fair and efficient adjudication of cases. 

Id. 

Respondent does not dispute that the Secretary’s ability to prepare for trial has been 

impaired and prejudiced by its failure to respond to the Discovery Requests and comply with the 

Planning Order and other orders. See e.g., Adriana Intern. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 

1412 (9th Cir. 1999) (upholding dismissal as a sanction for discovery abuses); Wanderer v. 

Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding the sanction of default and concluding 

that when defendants fail to produce any evidence, “prejudice is palpable”). 
12

It is noted that Respondent elected not to be represented by counsel.15 Not having 

counsel, does not obviate a party’s obligation to engage in discovery. All litigants, including 

those declining to hire counsel, must obey orders and to permit and respond to discovery as 

required by the Commission Rules. See JGB LLC, 21 BNA OSHC 1402, 1403 (No. 04-2153, 

2006) (vacating direction for review when unrepresented party failed to respond to a briefing 

notice); Swimmer v. IRS, 811 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Ignorance of court rules does not 

constitute excusable neglect, even if the litigant appears pro se”). An unrepresented employer 

must “exercise reasonable diligence in the legal proceedings” and “must follow the rules and file 

responses to a judge's orders, or suffer the consequences, which can include dismissal of the 

notice of contest.” Wentzel d/b/a N.E.E.T. Builders, 16 BNA OSHC 1475, 1476 (No. 92-2696, 

1993) (citations omitted). Still, the undersigned recognizes that sometimes unrepresented 

employers “can fail to grasp exactly what [it] is being asked to do.” Id. Thus, where an 

employer has a substantial reason for having failed to comply with a discovery order, and where 

the employer's conduct also does not indicate disrespect toward the judge, the failure to comply 

may not necessarily be an indication of bad faith or contumacious conduct. Id. 

In this matter, Respondent’s failure to participate in discovery has not been a matter of 

innocent oversight or inadvertence. It has been repeatedly informed both verbally and in orders 

that failing to comply with the Commission Rules regarding discovery will result in the dismissal 

of its Notice of Contest and the affirmance of all citation items and the assessment of penalties. 

This is not a situation involving less then fulsome disclosure or one where the substantive 

 

15 Respondent makes no claim that it cannot afford counsel. Employers of limited means who 

hire counsel and successfully contest a citation can recover attorney fees and other expenses 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504. See 29 C.F.R. § 2204. 
13

response was adequate even if there were procedural errors. Cf. Wentzel, 16 BNA OSHC at 

1476 (re-instating a notice of contest when employer answered each interrogatory and document 

request briefly); Arkansas Abatement Servs. Corp., 17 BNA OSHC 1163 (No. 94-2210, 1995) 

(excusing unrepresented party’s mailings to the wrong location). Here, there has been no 

response to the Discovery Requests. Respondent repeatedly and willfully ignored orders as well 

as other instructions, including those from the undersigned. See Imageries, 15 BNA OSHC 1545 

(No. 90-378, 1992) (affirming a default order when Respondent failed to respond to an order to 

show cause). Respondent’s brief response to the Second Show Cause Order makes no claims 

about not receiving or understanding any of the Discovery Requests or any of the undersigned’s 

prior communications and orders. See Philadelphia Constr. Equip., Inc., 16 BNA OSHC 1128, 

1131 (No. 92-889, 1993) (affirming dismissal when the party did not deny the facts showing a 

pattern of disregard for Commission proceedings). It has been given several extensions of time 

to respond to the Discovery Requests, even without it claiming that it lacked time to respond or 

did not comprehend some aspect of the proceedings. 

The undersigned recognizes that a party has a strong interest in adjudicating its case on 

the merits. See e.g., Nealey v. Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275, 1280 

(9th Cir. 1980). However, the Commission has limited resources and a “strong interest in 

preserving the integrity of its orders as well as deterring future misconduct.” Carson, 21 BNA 

OSHC at 1395-96; Trinity Indus., Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 1579, 1583 (No. 88-1545, 1991) 

(consolidated). The Commission adequately conveyed due notice to Respondent of its 

procedural rights and provided sufficient warning that its failure to comply with orders could

result in the dismissal of its Notice of Contest and it being held in default. Respondent has failed 

to take advantage of multiple opportunities to advise the Commission that it provided discovery 
14

or complied with past orders. Respondent’s contumacious and prejudicial conduct warrants the 

sanction of dismissal under Commission Rule 52(f)(4), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.52(f)(4). 

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the Citation, coupled with the Complaint,

sufficiently describe the violations and the standards violated.16 Respondent is found to be in 

DEFAULT, its Notice of Contest is DISMISSED, and the Citation issued to Respondent on

September 30, 2016, inspection number 1172199 is AFFIRMED in its entirety and penalties of 

$17,102 are ASSESSED.

ORDER

1. Citation 1, Items 1a and 1b, setting forth violations of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.404 are AFFIRMED 

as serious violations and a penalty of $2,850 is ASSESSED.

2. Citation 1, Item 2, setting forth a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(f)(14) is AFFIRMED as 

a serious violation, and a penalty of $2,850 is ASSESSED. 

3. Citation 2, Item 1, setting forth a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.403(b)(2) is AFFIRMED as a 

repeat violation, and a penalty of $5,701 is ASSESSED. 

 

16 In its Response to the Second Show Cause Order, Respondent does not challenge the 

substance of any of the allegations set forth in the Complaint or any of the Secretary’s claims in 

the Third Motion for Sanctions. It only argues that the Third Motion for Sanctions should not be 

granted because the OSHA inspector allegedly failed to notify management before proceeding 

with the inspection. Even if fully credited, this contention would not preclude the affirmation of 

the violations. Technical violations of the OSH Act’s provisions regarding inspections are 

insufficient to justify excluding all evidence of violations witnessed by the inspector. See e.g.,

Hartwell Excavation Co. v. Sec’y of Labor, 537 F.2d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir. 1976).
15

4. Citation 2, Item 2, setting forth a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.405(b)(1) is AFFIRMED as a 

repeat violation, and a penalty of $5,701 is ASSESSED.

SO ORDERED.

___/s/Covette Rooney_________ 

Covette Rooney

Chief Judge, OSHRC

Dated: December 4, 2017

Washington, D.C.