United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

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

Washington, D.C. 20036-3457 

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant, 

v. OSHRC Docket No. 18-1261 

HOURAN USA CONSTRUCTION, LLC, 

Respondent. 

Appearances: David J. Rutenberg, Esq. 

 Office of the Regional Solicitor

 United States Department of Labor

 201 Varick Street, Room 983 

 New York, N.Y. 10014 

 For the Complainant 

 Steve J. Houran, Pro Se

 Houran USA Construction, LLC 

 10 Stuyvesant Ave., 2nd Floor 

 Lyndhurst, N.J. 07071 

 

 For the Respondent 

Before: Keith E. Bell

 Administrative Law Judge

 
2 

DECISION AND ORDER

This proceeding is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the 

Commission) pursuant to section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 

U.S.C. § 451 (the Act). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted 

an inspection of a worksite located at 193 Palisade Ave. in Jersey City, N.J. 07306 on or about 

May 9, 2018. As a result, on July 13, 2018, OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty 

(Citation) to Houran USA Construction, LLC (Respondent or Houran), alleging multiple

violations of the Act. Citation 1 includes three (3) items and is classified as “serious”. This case 

is a simplified proceeding under the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Rules 

of Procedure Rule 202. 29 C.F.R. § 2200.202. Therefore, no complaint or answer was filed. 

Respondent did not assert an affirmative defense during the pre-hearing conference. 29 C.F.R. 

§ 2200.207(b). A hearing was held on June 11, 2019. For the reasons that follow, Citation 1, 

Items 1, 2, and 3 are AFFIRMED. 

Jurisdiction

The parties have stipulated to the Commission’s jurisdiction over this proceeding and 

coverage under the Act. (JX-1, no. 1).

1

 The parties have also stipulated that Houran is a New 

Jersey company with its principal place of business in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. (JX-1, no. 2). The 

evidence adduced at the hearing established that Houran was an “employer” engaged in a “business 

affecting commerce” within the meaning of section 3(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 652(5). The 

evidence supports a finding that the Act applies, and the Commission has jurisdiction over this 

proceeding pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 659(c). 

1 JX denotes “Joint Exhibit”; CX denotes “Complainant Exhibit”; and RX denotes “Respondent 

Exhibit”. 
3 

Stipulated Facts2

1. Jurisdiction of this action, OSHRC Docket No. 18-1261, is conferred upon the 

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission by section 10(c) of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590, 29 U.S.C. § 651, et seq.).

 

2. Respondent, Houran USA Construction, LLC, a limited liability company organized under 

the laws of the State of New Jersey, maintaining its principal office and place of business 

at 10 Stuyvesant Ave., 2nd Floor, Lyndhurst, N.J. 07071, and doing business in the State of 

New Jersey, is and at all times hereinafter mentioned was engaged in residential and 

commercial construction and related activities. 

3. Steve J. Houran is and at all relevant times was the owner and president of Respondent. 

4. Respondent performed work at 193 Palisade Ave., Jersey City, N.J. 07306 (worksite) on, 

among other dates, May 9, 2018.3

Background 

Respondent, Houran USA Construction, LLC, is a New Jersey limited liability corporation 

engaged in residential and commercial construction and related activities. JX-1, no. 2. Steve J. 

Houran is the owner and president of the company. JX-1, no. 3. Respondent performed work at 

193 Palisade Ave. in Jersey City, New Jersey on May 9, 2018. JX-1, no. 4. The worksite was a 

small renovation job on a 100-year-old historic building that involved fixing the gutters, soffits, 

corbels, and the installation of siding. Tr. 287-88. The building consisted of three stories. Tr. 

131, 197-198; GX-2. On the outside of the building was a four-tier tubular scaffold that was 

wrapped around the front and right side (facing the building) of the building. Tr. 31. 

OSHA Inspection 

On May 9, 2018, OSHA Compliance Officer (CO) Idalia Rosa Venkatraman was assigned 

to perform local targeting inspections for fall hazards in Jersey City. Tr. 25. In the course of 

2 At the start of the hearing, the parties identified stipulated facts which the undersigned admitted 

into the record as Joint Exhibit no. 1 that included Stipulated Facts 1-4. Tr. 10. 

3 The parties’ Joint Exhibit 1 erroneously references “Jersey City, N.Y.” in Stipulated Fact no. 4. 

The undersigned correctly references the worksite as located in “Jersey City, N.J.”.
4 

performing her duties, CO Venkatraman happened upon a worksite located at 193 Palisade Ave. 

Id. Initially, CO Venkatraman parked across the street from the worksite and made observations 

of the workers and the work being done. Tr. 26. Then, the CO took some pictures of the worksite. 

Id. At the front of the building, the CO observed a sign that read, “Houran USA Construction”. 

Id. CO Venkatraman approached an employee working outside and asked to speak to the project 

manager. Tr. 26. The employee went inside the building and returned with the project manager 

whose name was Jerry Podczerwnski (Jerry). Tr. 26-27, 31. Jerry confirmed that he was the 

project manager. Tr. 32, 34. The CO conducted an opening conference with Jerry. Tr. 31. 

Additionally, she conducted interviews with other Houran employees on the worksite including 

Neil Sonnick, Jose Castro, Angel Diaz, and John Massey. Tr. 34, 37. 

Discussion

To prove a violation of an OSHA standard, the Secretary must show by a preponderance 

of the evidence that (1) the cited standard applies; (2) the employer failed to comply with the terms 

of the cited standard; (3) employees had access to the violative condition; and (4) the employer 

either knew or could have known with the exercise of reasonable diligence of the violative 

condition. JPC Grp., Inc., 22 BNA OSHC 1859, 1861 (No. 05-1907, 2009). A preponderance of 

the evidence is “that quantum of evidence which is sufficient to convince the trier of fact that the 

facts asserted by a proponent are more probably true than false.” Astra Pharma. Prods., 9 BNA 

OSHC 2126, 2131, n. 17 (No. 78-6247, 1981) aff’d in relevant part, 681 F.2d 69 (1st Cir. 1982). 

Alleged Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.100(a)

Citation 1, Item 1 alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.100(a) which states: 

[e]mployees working in areas where there is a possible danger of head injury from 

impact, or from falling, or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, shall 

be protected by protective helmets.
5 

Specifically, Citation 1, Item 1 alleges that on or about May 9, 2018, an employee working 

on the ground floor of the worksite was not wearing a hard hat and was exposed to a potential head 

injury while working below employees performing carpentry work on a scaffold. CO 

Venkatraman observed an employee working in front of the building picking up garbage. Tr. 49. 

CO Venkatraman observed, and the photographic evidence purports to show the employee walking 

underneath the scaffold without a hard hat. Tr. 52; CX-2. The cited standard applies. 

CO Venkatraman testified that she observed Jose Castro working on the ground floor 

picking up garbage in front of the building. Tr. 49. She further testified that Mr. Castro was not 

wearing a hard hat. Tr. 52. Instead, Mr. Castro was wearing a baseball cap while walking 

underneath the scaffold. Tr. 58. There were employees above Mr. Castro working from the 

scaffold (approx. 24 feet high) using tools such as a caulking gun, hammer, and other materials. 

Id. Additionally, the scaffold was not completely planked. Id. CO Venkatraman testified that 

there was a danger of Mr. Castro being struck in the head by falling objects. Id. Finally, CO 

Venkatraman testified that there were no nets or toe boards to catch falling objects. Tr. 59. Jose 

Castro testified that he didn’t have his hard hat on because he had just returned from a break. Tr. 

243. Owner Steve Houran admitted that his employees don’t like to wear hard hats because it 

makes them sweat. Tr. 293. Notwithstanding this defense, the standard requires employees 

working under these conditions to wear protective head gear. The cited standard was violated. 

Employee Exposure

 Employees may come within the zone of danger “while in the course of assigned working 

duties, personal comfort activities while on the job or their normal means of ingress-egress to their 

assigned workplaces.” Gilles & Cotting, Inc., 3 BNA OSHC 2002, 2003 (No. 504, 1976). The 

Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an employee is exposed to a hazard if he/she has 
6 

access to the zone of danger. Donovan v. Adams Steel Erection, Inc., 766 F.2d 804, 812 (3d Cir. 

1985) (“ ‘access,’ not exposure to danger is the proper test”). 

CO Venkatraman observed that employee Jose Castro was not wearing a hard hat even 

though he was walking underneath the scaffolding. Tr. 52. The CO expressed concern that an 

employee working on the ground below the scaffolding could be struck in the head by a falling 

object. Tr. 58. Mr. Castro testified that he was working 10-15 feet away from the scaffold. Tr. 

238. Moreover, he initially claimed that he never passed under the scaffold. Tr. 239. However, 

Mr. Castro then conceded that he must have been under the scaffold at some point during the day. 

Tr. 240. Employee exposure to the falling/flying object hazard is established.

Employer Knowledge

The Commission has held that an employer is chargeable with knowledge of conditions 

which are plainly visible to its supervisory personnel. A.L. Baumgartner Constr. Inc., 16 BNA 

OSHC 1995, 1998 (No. 92-1022, 1994). “An employee who has been delegated authority over 

other employees, even if only temporarily, is considered to be a supervisor for the purposes of 

imputing knowledge to an employer.” Tampa Shipyards Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 1533, 1537 (No. 86-

630, 1992) (consolidated). Dover Elevator Co., 16 BNA OSHC 1281, 1286 (No. 91-862, 1993) 

(noting that “It is the substance of the delegation of authority that is controlling, not the formal 

title of the employee having this authority; an employee who is empowered to direct that corrective 

measures be taken is a supervisory employee.”). In Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. v. OSHRC, 

737 F.2d 350, 352, 355 (3d Cir. 1984), the Third Circuit considered the crew leader of a threeperson electrical utility crew at a remote worksite to be a supervisor for purposes of determining 

the employer's knowledge of the violative conditions. 

Owner, Steve Houran was not at the worksite on the day of the inspection. Tr. 45. Instead, 
7 

Jerry identified himself to CO Venkatraman as the project manager on site. Tr. 32, 34. Other 

employees interviewed also referred to Jerry as their supervisor. Tr. 34. In rebuttal, Steve Houran 

testified that Jerry was just a “consultant” who happened to be on-site on the day of the inspection. 

Tr. 302-03. Mr. Houran further testified that Jerry was not the project manager. Tr. 304. According 

to Mr. Houran, the project manager was a man named Scott Adkins who was absent on the day of 

the inspection and he was the person in charge. Tr. 304-05. Finally, Mr. Houran testified, “to the 

best of my knowledge, I can’t pinpoint who was really took in (sic) charge.” Tr. 307. Mr. Houran’s 

statements denying that Jerry was the supervisor on May 9, 2018, are undermined by the fact that, 

during the inspection, Jerry instructed Angel Diaz to close the gap in the guardrail and Angel 

responded, “ok boss”. Tr. 82-83. In any case, Respondent’s assertions regarding the absence of a 

person in charge during the inspection do not negate the Secretary’s theory that Respondent had 

“constructive” if not “actual” knowledge of this and other violative conditions cited. Sec’y Br. 2-

3, 20. To establish constructive knowledge, the Secretary must show that the employer, with the 

exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known of a hazardous condition. Kerns Bros. Tree 

Serv., 18 BNA OSHC 2064, 2067 (No. 96-1719, 2000). Based on CO Venkatraman’s testimony, 

Mr. Castro was observed working in plain sight near or underneath the scaffold without a hard hat. 

CO Venkatraman also testified that Mr. Castro had to go inside the building to get the Jerry the 

project manager. So, it is possible that Jerry was unaware that Jose Castro was not wearing his 

hard hat. However, with reasonable diligence, he could have discovered this violative condition. 

It is noteworthy that Jerry still did not instruct Mr. Castro to put on his hard had when the CO 

brought it up during the closing conference. Tr. 60. In fact, CO Venkatraman only observed Jose 

Castro put on his hard hat as she was exiting the worksite. Tr. 62-63. It has been held that an 

employer has a duty “to take reasonably diligent measures to inspect its worksite and discover 
8 

hazardous conditions; so long as the employer does so, it is not in violation simply because it has 

not detected or become aware of every instance of a hazard.” Texas A.C.A., Inc., 17 BNA OSHC 

1048, 1051 (No. 91-3467, 1995) (citations omitted). The Commission has held that an employer 

is chargeable with knowledge of conditions which are plainly visible to its supervisory personnel. 

A.L. Baumgartner Constr. Inc., 16 BNA OSHC at 1998. Assuming arguendo, that the undersigned 

accepts Mr. Houran’s contention that there was no on-site supervisor at the time of the inspection, 

the evidence still establishes a finding of constructive knowledge of this violation. Mr. Houran 

admitted that his employees don’t like to wear hard hats and sometimes work without them because 

the hats make them sweat. Tr. 293. With that knowledge, Jerry or Steve Houran should have been 

diligent about checking to make sure that all employees were wearing hard hats on the day of the 

inspection. Steve testified that he was nearby the worksite. 287. So, it was possible for him to 

return to the worksite before or during the inspection to observe Jose Castro working near and 

under the scaffold without a hard hat in plain sight. Whether the undersigned believes that Jerry 

was the site supervisor or that the supervisor was absent, the Secretary has established constructive 

knowledge in that a reasonably diligent employer would have inspected the worksite and observed 

this employee working in plain sight without a hard hat. However, the evidence of record clearly 

establishes that Jerry was the on-site supervisor on the day of the inspection. 

The Secretary has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent violated 

29 C.F.R. § 1926.100(a).

Serious Classification

To prove a violation was “serious” under section 17(d) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 666(d), the 

Secretary must show there was a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could 

have resulted from the cited condition and that the employer knew or should have known of the 
9 

condition; the likelihood of an accident occurring is not required. Spancrete Ne., Inc., 15 BNA 

OSHC 1020, 1024 (No. 86-521, 1991). Based on her experience, CO Venkatraman testified that 

the injury that could have resulted from Jose Castro’s failure to wear a hard hat while working near 

or under a scaffold could have ranged from a bump on the head to a severe laceration, concussion, 

or other serious injury. Tr. 58-59. The testimony regarding the serious nature of this violation is 

unrebutted. The Secretary has met his burden of proving that the violation alleged in Citation 1, 

Item 1 is properly classified as serious.

Alleged Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(g)(4)(i)

Citation 1, Item 2 alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(g)(4)(i) which states: 

[g]uardrail systems shall be installed along all open sides and ends of platforms. 

Guardrail systems shall be installed before the scaffold is released for use by 

employees other than erection dismantling crews. 

Specifically, Citation 1, Item 2 alleges that on or about May 9, 2018, employees working 

on the fourth tier of a scaffold were exposed to a fall of approximately 24 feet because the scaffold 

was missing a guardrail. CO Venkatraman observed, and the photographic evidence shows a gap 

in the guardrail on the top (fourth) tier of the scaffold. Tr. 27; CX-4, 5. The cited standard applies.

Upon arrival at the worksite, CO Venkatraman observed guardrails missing from the 

scaffold that framed the building and an employee working on the scaffold exposed to a fall hazard 

of about 24 feet. Tr. 25. The CO testified that there appeared to be two rails missing from the top 

tier of the scaffold. Tr. 142, 165. The gap in the guardrail was approximately seven (7) feet wide.4

 

Tr. 69. The CO noticed an employee working on the scaffold on the right side (facing the building)

on the fourth tier which was missing guardrails. Tr. 49; GX-4. CO Venkatraman interviewed the 

4 The CO did not take actual measurements of the gap in the guardrail; instead, she based her 

calculation on standard measurements. Tr. 69. 
10 

employee seen working on the scaffold, Angel Diaz, who informed her that he was performing 

soffit repair. Tr. 54. When the CO inquired about the missing guardrails, Jerry informed her that 

they were removed the day before because they were hoisting up materials. Tr. 61. Steve Houran’s 

testimony supports Jerry’s explanation regarding the missing guardrails. Tr. 298. Respondent 

argues that the scaffold was to be dismantled. Tr. 288. Yet, Jerry never mentioned anything about 

dismantling the scaffold. Tr. 298. According to Jose Castro, they finished the job on the morning 

of the inspection and were in the process of breaking down the scaffold to get it out of the way. 

Tr. 216. If true, Respondent’s claim would negate a violation of this standard because dismantling 

a scaffold is an exception to the requirement to have guardrails. However, Respondent’s argument 

is rejected as inconsistent with CO Venkatraman’s observations and the statement of Angel Diaz 

regarding the work he was performing. The cited standard was violated. 

Employee Exposure 

CO Venkatraman testified that she observed and employee working atop the scaffold on 

the fourth tier with missing guard rails. Tr. 49. She confirmed her observations with an interview 

of the employee seen working on the scaffold. Tr. 54. Another employee, John Massey, was 

performing soffit repair on the left-side of the building. Tr. 40-41. He was doing his work from 

the roof of the adjacent building; however, he admitted that he had to access the scaffold to get to 

and from the other building. Tr. 41. CO Venkatraman testified that she observed an employee 

enter the building from the top/fourth tier of the scaffold. Tr. 49. Presumably, all employees on 

the scaffold were within the zone of danger which was the gap created by the missing guardrail. 

However, the Secretary need not show it was certain that employees would be in the zone of 

danger, but he must show that exposure was more than theoretically possible. Fabricated Metal 

Prods., Inc. 18 BNA OSHC 1072, 1074 (No. 93-1853, 1997); Phoenix Roofing, 17 BNA OSHC 
11

1076 1079 (No. 90-2148, 1995) aff’d, 79 F.3d 1146 (5th Cir. 1996); Kaspar Wire Works, Inc., 18 

BNA OSHC 2178, 2195 (No. 90-2775, 2000) (finding that it was “ ‘reasonably predictable’ that 

an employee would come into contact with the unguarded belt and pulley either while attempting 

to reposition the fan, or inadvertently while passing nearby”), aff'd, 268 F.3d 1123 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 

Given the CO’s observations of employees working on and accessing the top tier of the scaffold 

where the guardrail was missing, it was reasonably predictable that those employees would be in 

the zone of danger. Employee exposure is established. 

Employer Knowledge

The evidence is clear that both Jerry and Steve Houran were aware that the guardrails had 

been removed before the inspection. Tr. 61, 298. Employer knowledge is established. 

The Secretary has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent violated 

29 C.F.R. §1926.451(g)(4)(i). 

Serious Characterization 

CO Venkatraman testified that the employee working from the scaffold was exposed to a 

fall of approximately 24 feet. Tr. 25.5

 She also testified that the opening in the scaffold constituted 

an “imminent danger”. Tr. 177. CO Venkatraman further testified that a fall from a height of 

approximately 24 feet to the concrete below could been deadly, or at least resulted in broken bones. 

Tr. 107. The Secretary’s characterization of this violation as “serious” is established. 

Alleged Violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1053(b)(1) 

Citation 1, Item 3 alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1053(b)(1) which states: 

[w]hen portable ladders are used for access to an upper landing surface, the ladder 

side rails shall extend at least 3 feet (.9 m) above the upper landing surface to which 

5 CO Venkatraman did not take measurements, but rather based her estimate of the height of the 

scaffold on her knowledge of standard scaffold sizes/measurements and the fact that the scaffold 

on this worksite had four tiers. Tr. 53. 
12 

the ladder is used to gain access, or, when such an extension is not possible because 

of the ladder’s length, then the ladder shall be secured at its top to a rigid support 

that will not deflect, and a grasping device, such as a grabrail, shall be provided to 

assist employees in mounting and dismounting the ladder. In no case shall the 

extension be such that ladder deflection under a load would, by itself, cause the 

ladder to slip off its support. 

Specifically, Citation 1, Item 3 alleges that, on or about May 9, 2018, employees were 

exposed to a ladder that extended onto the 1st floor of the house but did not extend three (3) feet 

over the landing.6 The photographic evidence clearly shows a ladder on the worksite that does not 

extend three feet above the upper landing. Tr. 28-29; CX-6, 7 & 87. The cited standard applies. 

CO Venkatraman testified that there was an extension ladder inside the building extending 

from the ground floor to the second floor. Tr. 83. The CO recognized the ladder as a Werner 

extension ladder. Tr. 85. The ladder was missing the extension part that would have made it a full 

20 feet in length. Id. Without the missing part, the ladder was approximately 13 feet in length. 

Tr. 171. CO Venkatraman counted the rungs of the ladder to determine its length as used at the 

worksite. Tr. 85. The ladder extended approximately 1 foot over the landing. Tr. 86. The height 

of the second floor over the ground floor was 10 feet. Id. According to CO Venkatraman, the 

ladder only extended one (1) foot over the landing because it was placed at an angle rather than 

perpendicular. Tr. 87. Additionally, CO Venkatraman testified that the ladder was just leaning 

against the landing and was not secured to anything. Tr. 86. Respondent’s defense is that the 

ladder didn’t belong to it. Tr. 227, 299. To that end, Jose Castro testified that there were 

subcontractors on site doing plumbing and electrical work on the day of the inspection. Tr. 210. 

However, CO Venkatraman did not observe any subcontractors on site during her inspection. Tr. 

6 Testimony adduced at the hearing reveal that the ladder extended from the ground floor (or first 

floor) to the second floor of this three-story building. 

7 CX-8 was also designated as RX-1. 
13 

173. Also, even if there were subcontractors, Respondent Steve Houran confirmed that his 

company was the general contractor in charge on site. Tr. 300. Moreover, his testimony that 

employees understand that the ladder must be held by another helper down below supports the 

CO’s testimony that the ladder was not secured as required by the standard. Tr. 292. The cited 

standard was violated. 

Employee Exposure 

CO Venkatraman testified that she observed an employee access the ladder during her 

inspection. Tr. 89. Her observation is supported by a photograph taken during the inspection. 

GX-6. The man observed using the ladder was an employee of Respondent as confirmed by a 

conversation the CO had with him and others. Tr. 90-91. Employee exposure is established. 

Employer Knowledge

The project manager, Jerry, told the CO that the cited ladder was the easiest way from the 

first floor to the second floor. Tr. 91.8

 Steve Houran’s testimony that employees knew they had 

to have a helper down below holding the ladder when using it, indicates his knowledge that the 

ladder was not secure. Assuming that neither Jerry nor Steve Houran (who was elsewhere at the 

time of the inspection) saw employees using the ladder as depicted in GX-6, both are charged with 

constructive knowledge because reasonable diligence would have revealed this violation in plain 

sight. Employer knowledge is established. 

The Secretary has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent 

violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1053(b)(1). 

8CO Venkatraman actually testified that Jerry told her the ladder was the easiest way for employees 

to get from the “basement” to the first floor. However, her description of the building was clarified 

on cross examination to reflect that there was no basement since it was at ground level and not 

underground thereby making this a three-story building. Tr. 197-98. Accordingly, references to a 

“basement” are meant to refer to the first floor.
14 

Serious Characterization 

CO Venkatraman testified that an employee on the cited ladder could have lost 

balance/footing and fallen approximately 10 feet to the ground below thereby suffering an injury 

ranging from fractures to paralysis or death. Tr. 108. The Secretary’s characterization of this 

violation as “serious” is established. 

Penalty Determination

The Commission, as the final arbiter of penalties, must give due consideration to the gravity 

of the violation and to the employer's size, history and good faith. J.A. Jones Constr. Co., 15 BNA 

OSHC 2201, 2213-14 (No. 87-2059, 1993). These factors are not necessarily accorded equal 

weight, and gravity is generally the most important factor. Trinity Indus., Inc., 15 BNA OSHC 

1481, 1483 (No. 88-2691, 1992). The gravity of a violation depends upon such matters as the 

number of employees exposed, duration of exposure, precautions taken against injury, and the 

likelihood that an injury would result. J.A. Jones, 15 BNA OSHC at 2213-14. Respondent 

provides no argument regarding the proposed penalties, but rather makes an unsupported and 

oblique reference to the penalties as an “unwarranted financial hardship”. Resp’t Br. 7. CO 

Venkatraman determined the penalty factors for each of the violations affirmed as follows: 

• Citation 1, Item 1: gravity9

 (low); employer’s size (60% reduction); history (no reduction 

because employer had not been inspected in the past five years); and good faith (no 

reduction because employer did not provide copies of written safety and health plan). Tr. 

111-14. The proposed penalty for this violation is $2,217.00. Tr. 111. 

• Citation 1, Item 2: gravity (high); employer’s size (60% reduction); history (no reduction 

9 During her testimony, CO Venkatraman referenced “severity” instead of “gravity”. The 

undersigned takes the two to be one in the same. 
15 

because employer had not been inspected in the past five years); and good faith (no 

reduction because employer did not provide copies of written safety and health plan). Tr. 

114. The proposed penalty for this violation is $3,696.00. Id. 

• Citation 1, Item 3: gravity (low); employer’s size (60% reduction); history (no reduction 

because employer had not been inspected in the past five years); and good faith (no 

reduction because employer did not provide copies of written safety and health plan). Tr. 

115-16. The proposed penalty for this violation is $2,956.00. Tr. 114. 

The evidence supports a finding that the penalties proposed are appropriate. 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The foregoing constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with 

Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that:

1. Citation 1, Item 1 alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.100(a) is AFFIRMED as issued 

and a penalty in the amount of $2,217.00 is imposed. 

2. Citation 1, Item 2 alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. §1926.451(g)(4)(i) is AFFIRMED as 

issued and a penalty in the amount of $3,696.00 is imposed. 

3. Citation 1, Item 3 alleging a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1053(b)(1) is AFFIRMED as 

issued and a penalty in the amount of $2,956.00 is imposed. 

/s/__________ 

 KEITH E. BELL

 Judge, OSHRC 

Dated: February 7, 2020 

Washington, D.C. 
16 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the Notice/Order was sent to the parties listed below 

electronically using the Commission’s E-Filing System on January 27, 2020. 

Jeffrey Rogoff, Regional Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor 

Office of the Solicitor

201 Varick Street, Room 983 

New York, New York 10014

Attention: David J. Rutenberg, Esquire 

Email: Rutenberg.david.j@dol.gov 

SERVED VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL

Steve J. Houran, Pro Se 

HOURAN USA CONSTRUCTION, LLC

10 Stuyvesant Avenue, 2nd Floor 

Lyndhurst, NJ 07071 

 T.B. Dillard 

T.B. Dillard, Administrative Asst.

Post Office Address:

Judge Keith Bell 

OSHRC

One Lafayette Center

1120 20th Str., N.W. - 9th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20036-3419 

(202) 606-5405 FAX (202) 606-5409