UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 Secretary of Labor,

 Complainant

 v. OSHRC Docket 16-0858

 Employment 2000 Corp.,

 Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING THE SECRETARY’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

RESPONDENT’S UNTIMELY NOTICE OF CONTEST AND FINDING: 1) THE 

COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO APPROVE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENT AND 2) RELIEF FROM THE CITATION IS NOT WARRANTED 

UNDER RULE 60(b)(1) 

I. BACKGROUND

On November 25, 2015, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) 

Boston South Area Office (BSAO) issued a five-item Serious Citation 1 (the Citation) with 

proposed penalties totaling $25,200 to Employment 2000 (Employment 2000 or Respondent). 

BSAO sent the Citation through certified mail to Employment 2000 Corp., 73 Belmont Street, 

Easton, Massachusetts 02334. On November 30, 2015, Respondent’s Sales Manager, David 

Doyle, signed the certified mailing receipt for the Citation. 

BSAO did not receive any Notice of Contest (NOC) or any payment from Respondent 

before December 21, 2015.

On April 22, 2016, Stephen Lang, Respondent’s President, sent a NOC to BSAO that was 
- 2 - 

received on April 25, 2016.1 In this NOC, Mr. Lang stated he never received the Citation and he 

believed Respondent was not “at fault in this matter.” BSAO responded to the NOC by letter 

dated April 27, 2016 explaining that the Citation was deemed a final order of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) because the 15-day contest period had 

expired and that Employment 2000 could contact the Commission directly to continue pursuing 

the matter.2 

On May 10, 2016, the Commission received another NOC from Respondent, dated May

6, 2016, concerning the Citation.3 Mr. Lang stated one of Respondent’s employees was 

instructed by Pharmasol to go to a machine that did not have a guard on it. He asserted that 

“[t]his was not in his job description.” He stated Pharmasol was at fault, and not Respondent. 

On May 26, 2016, the Commission docketed the instant matter as Docket No. 16-0858 following 

its receipt of the NOC, dated May 6, 2016. 

On June 23, 2016, the Secretary filed his Motion to Dismiss Respondent’s Untimely 

Notice of Contest (Motion to Dismiss). The Secretary seeks the dismissal of Respondent’s 

 

1 Two addresses for Respondent appear atop this NOC. The address at the top left of Mr. Lang’s NOC identified 

Respondent’s address as 73 Belmont Street, Easton, MA 02375. This NOC, dated April 22, 2016, was not received 

by the Commission or Court until June 27, 2016, when it was received as an attachment to the Secretary’s dismissal 

motion.

2 BSAO’s letter was addressed to “Mr. Stephen C. Lang, Employment 2000 Corp., 73 Belmont Street, Easton, MA 

02375.” Without objection, the Court has taken judicial notice that zip code “02375” includes 73 Belmont Street, 

South Easton, Massachusetts. Unless otherwise noted, all other documents filed in this case at the Court or 

Commission by the Secretary, Court and/or Commission prior to July 26, 2016 were addressed to Respondent using 

the address at 73 Belmont Street, Easton, MA 02334. None of the Court filings mailed to this address by the Court 

were returned to the Court as undeliverable. The Court has also taken, without objection, judicial notice that zip 

code “02334” includes Easton, MA. 

3 No return address of Respondent was identified in this NOC that caused the case to be docketed at the 

Commission. The Commission Rule at 29 C.F.R. § 2200.6 Record address states:

Every pleading or document filed by any party or intervenor shall contain the name, current address and 

telephone number of his representative or, if he has no representative, his own name, current address and 

telephone number. Any change in such information shall be communicated promptly in writing to the 

Judge, or the Executive Secretary if no Judge has been assigned, and to all other parties and intervenors. A 

party or intervenor who fails to furnish such information shall be deemed to have waived his right to notice 

and service under these rules.
- 3 - 

untimely NOC because Respondent had not timely filed a NOC by December 21, 2015 and it 

cannot demonstrate “excusable neglect” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). 

Respondent’s response to the Motion to Dismiss was originally due to be filed with the Court by 

July 10, 2016. Respondent did not file a response to the Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss by July 

10, 2016, or thereafter.

On July 26, 2016, the Court granted the Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss.4 

On August 11, 2016, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement regarding the case.5

 

The Settlement Agreement calls for Respondent to accept all of the citation items with the full 

penalty, pursuant to a payment schedule.6

On August 22, 2016, the Secretary filed an unopposed motion requesting that the 

Commission vacate the Court’s decision and approve the Settlement Agreement. 

On September 28, 2016, the Commission issued its Remand Order setting aside the 

Court’s July 26, 2016 decision. The Commission stated that it was not clear whether

Respondent ever received the Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss:

as well as a number of other documents sent to it throughout the course of this case. 

Specifically, the following documents were sent to Respondent using the correct street 

address, city, and state, but not the correct zip code:7 (1) the citation and return receipt 

form; (2) a debt collection letter dated January 26, 2016; (3) the Secretary's motion to 

dismiss; (4) the judge's notice of decision; (5) the Commission's notice of docketing of 

the judge's decision; and (6) the Secretary's motion currently pending before us. As to the 

citation, despite the signature from "Doyle" on the return receipt, Respondent's president 

claims to have "never received" the citation. As to the other documents, there is nothing 

in the record to confirm whether Respondent received them. 

 

4 The Court’s decision was mailed to Respondent and also sent by confirmed facsimile.

5 The Settlement Agreement includes a stipulation that Respondent filed an untimely notice of intent to contest the 

citation and penalties. The Settlement Agreement further states that “[i]t is agreed that jurisdiction of this 

proceeding is conferred upon said Commission by section 10(c) of the Act.”

6 The settlement agreement fails to specify if and when the settlement agreement was posted in accordance with 

Rules 7 and 100 of the Commission Rules of Procedure. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 2200.7 and 2200.100. 7 The zip code used on these documents was 02334 – the correct zip code is 02375, as identified in the return 

address included on Respondent’s April 22, 2016 NOC.
- 4 - 

Nor does it appear that the judge was aware of the mailing address error at the time he 

issued his decision granting the Secretary's motion to dismiss.

In these circumstances, it is not clear whether Respondent received or had an opportunity 

to respond to the Secretary's motion to dismiss or the judge's decision granting the 

motion. We therefore set aside the judge's decision, as requested in the Secretary's motion 

to the Commission, and remand this case for the judge to: (1) provide Respondent with a 

copy of all the documents filed in this case; (2) allow Respondent an opportunity to 

respond to the Secretary's dismissal motion; and (3) reconsider whether relief from a final 

order is warranted under Rule 60(b)(l). 

The Commission’s remand order directed the Court to: “(1) provide Respondent with a 

copy of all the documents filed in this case; (2) allow Respondent an opportunity to respond to 

the Secretary’s dismissal motion; and (3) reconsider whether relief from a final order is 

warranted under Rule 60(b) (1).” 

On September 29, 2016, this case was again assigned to the Court for disposition. 

On October 17, 2016, the Court issued its Order: 1) Providing Respondent with copy of 

all documents filed in the case, and 2) allowing Respondent an opportunity to respond to the 

Secretary’s Dismissal Motion, dated June 23, 2016.8

 The Court ordered Respondent to file “its 

response to the Secretary’s dismissal motion with the Court no later than by November 30, 

2016.” The Court further ordered that “Respondent’s response to the Secretary’s dismissal 

motion shall include a complete discussion as to whether relief from a final order in this case is 

warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 60(b) (1)9 and the basis for it.” Lastly, the Court stated 

that Respondent’s “failure to comply with all parts of this order may result in sanctions, 

including the dismissal of claim(s), notice of contest, or defense(s), as well as the Court’s 

 

8 Copies of all of the documents filed in this case were attached to the Order and served upon Respondent. 

9 Rule 60(b) provides that: 

Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may 

relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 

reasons: 

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; .... (emphasis in the original).
- 5 - 

affirmance of the underlying citation and proposed penalties.” The Court’s Order was sent to 

Respondent by certified first class mail, return receipt requested, on October 17, 2016. The 

order was addressed to: Stephen C. Lang, Employment 2000 Corp., 73 Belmont Street, South

Easton, MA 02375. It was delivered to, and signed by, Respondent’s agent at that address. The 

Domestic Return Receipt, dated November 3, 2016, was received by the Court on November 8, 

2016. 

Neither party filed any objection to the Court taking judicial notice that zip code 02375 

included 73 Belmont Street, South Easton, MA on or before November 7, 2016, or thereafter. 

Respondent did not file a response to the Secretary’s Dismissal Motion, dated June 23, 

2016, by November 30, 2016, or thereafter.10 

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss has Merit and is Granted.

The Court’s Decision and Order Granting the Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss 

Respondent’s Untimely Notice of Contest, issued July 26, 2016, is incorporated by reference in 

its entirety into this Decision and Order and reaffirmed in its entirety. In it, the Court found that 

Respondent’s office received the Citation on November 30, 2015, as is proven by the signed 

certified mailing receipt for the Citation, and that the NOC was due to be filed at BSAO no later 

than December 21, 2015. The Court further found Employment 2000 did not timely file a NOC 

within 15 working days of its receipt of the Citation as section 10(a) of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 659 (the Act) and 29 C.F.R. § 1903.17(a) require. The 

Court also found that Respondent was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). Pursuant to 

section 10(a) of the Act, the Court concluded that the Citation and proposed penalty were 

 

10 The Secretary has not filed anything with the Court on or after September 29, 2016.
- 6 - 

deemed a final order of the Commission. The Court reaffirms these findings and again grants the 

Motion to Dismiss. 

B. The Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Approve the Proposed Settlement Agreement.

The Commission has held that when the facts of a case raise questions about jurisdiction, 

the judge, sua sponte, is required to insure that there is evidence supporting jurisdiction. See Taj 

Mahal Contracting, 20 BNA OSHC 2020, 2023 (No. 03-1088, 2004) (Secretary bears “the 

ultimate burden of proof as to jurisdiction”). Here, the Court is compelled to address whether or 

not it is bound by the provisions in the parties’ settlement agreement that stipulated that 

Respondent filed an untimely notice of intent to contest the citation and penalties, while further 

stating that “[i]t is agreed that jurisdiction of this proceeding is conferred upon said Commission 

by section 10(c) of the Act.”11 One of the Court’s first duties is to determine whether or not it 

has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter before it. Chicot Cty. Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State 

Bank, 308 U.S. 371, 376, reh’g denied, 309 U.S. 695 (1940). It is always incumbent upon a 

court to evaluate its jurisdiction, sua sponte, to ensure that it does not decide controversies 

beyond its authority. Costigan v. NYNEX, Case No. 97B00026, 1997 WL 242199, at *3

(O.C.A.H.O. Mar. 5, 1997). Graven in stone is the maxim that parties cannot confer jurisdiction 

by consent or stipulation. Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 

U.S. 694, 702 (1982); Rodick v. City of Schenectady, 1 F.3d 1341, 1346 (2d Cir. 1993). This 

court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It is empowered to adjudicate only those cases authorized 

by Congress. Parties may not stipulate to, or waive lack of, subject matter jurisdiction. Sosna v. 

Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 398 (1975). A party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission 

 

11 Commission jurisdiction exists under section 10(c) of the Act where the employer notifies the Secretary it intends 

to contest a citation within fifteen working days of the issuance of the citation.
- 7 - 

and its courts must prove that the case is within the court’s subject matter. McNutt v. Gen. 

Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178 (1936); RSR Corp., No. 79-3813, 1981 WL 

95612, at *2 (O.S.H.R.C.A.L.J. Feb. 18, 1981) (consolidated) (“parties cannot confer jurisdiction 

on, or withhold it from, the Commission.”). 

Here, both parties have failed to make a showing of Commission jurisdiction. Instead, 

the Secretary has met his initial burden establishing grounds for dismissal of Respondent’s late 

NOC in its Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Taj Mahal Contracting, 20 BNA 

OSHC at 2022, where the Commission noted:

[W]here an untimely NOC is docketed, under Commission practice it is incumbent upon 

the Secretary to file a motion to dismiss the NOC as untimely, and at the hearing, ... the 

judge places the initial burden on the Secretary to establish the grounds for dismissal of 

the NOC: namely the citation was issued and served upon the respondent, and that the 

Secretary did not receive any NOC from the respondent within 15 working days after 

receipt of the citation.

The Court sees no basis for any notion that, with the facts before it, the parties may 

stipulate to jurisdiction here and earn the Court’s imprimatur on such a stipulation. Under 

section 10(a) of the Act, an employer’s failure to timely file a notice of contest results in the 

citation and proposed penalty becoming a final order of the Commission “not subject to review 

by any court or agency.” 

Under Commission rules, a settlement agreement is not final until approved by the Judge. 

29 C.F.R. § 2200.100 (b) and (c), Commission Rule 100 (b) and (c). These rules set forth 

technical requirements that must be met before the Judge or Commission can approve a 

settlement agreement.12 Rules 100 (b) and (c) also make it clear that a settlement agreement is 

 

12 Rule 100(b) states that a settlement agreement must “specify the terms of settlement for each contested item, 

specify any contested item or issue that remains to be decided (if any remain), and state whether any affected 

employees who have elected party status have raised an objection to the reasonableness of any abatement time.” 

Similarly, Rule 100(c) requires that all settlement agreements contain proof of service on all parties and authorized 
- 8 - 

not final until approved by the judge and an order terminating the litigation is issued by the 

Judge or the Commission.13 The proposed Settlement Agreement has never been approved or 

finalized by the Court or Commission. 

The technical requirements set forth in Commission Rule 100 are not the exclusive 

grounds for refusing to approve a settlement agreement. Although the Commission does not 

have the authority to refuse approval of a settlement agreement because it disapproves of its 

substantive terms (i.e. characterization of the violation, penalty assessment, exculpatory 

language),14 it has made it clear that it will not just “rubber stamp” its approval of settlement 

agreements. Rather, the Commission “must be assured that a proposed settlement represents a 

genuine agreement between the parties and a true meeting of the minds on all provisions 

thereof.” 84 Components Co., 20 BNA OSHC 2063, 2064 (No. 02-0363, 2003); Aerlex Corp., 

12 BNA OSHC 1989 (No. 85-1257, 1986) (same). Under the Commission’s rules and case law, 

Court approval is a condition precedent-to the settlement agreement being final and enforceable. 

See Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 659 F.2d 1228, 

1233 n. 45 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“Approval by a third party is certainly a condition precedent.”). A 

condition precedent is an event which must occur before performance under a contract becomes 

 

employee representatives, and posting of notice to non-party affected employees. Further, the parties “shall also file 

a final consent order for adoption by the Judge.” Finally, Rule 100(c) grants ten days after service on affected 

employees to consider objections to the abatement dates filed by any affected employee or authorized employee 

representative before the Judge or the Commission can issue “an order terminating the litigation before the 

Commission because of the settlement.”

13 The Court takes judicial notice that settlement agreements submitted to it are occasionally returned to the parties 

before court approval to correct errors relating to not specifying the terms of settlement for each contested item, item 

penalty amounts that do not add up to the overall amount to be paid, wrong dates shown for payments, omitted 

posting requirements, and/or missing signatures. Here, the evidence shows that the proposed settlement agreement 

is flawed because it fails to satisfy posting requirements.

14 Regarding substantive matters set forth in a settlement agreement, the Commission may only review the 

reasonableness of the abatement date when challenged by an authorized employee representative. United 

Steelworkers of Am., Local No. 185 v. Herman, 216 F.3d 1095, 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 
- 9 - 

due.15 Psaromatis v. English Holdings I, L.L.C., 944 A.2d 472, 482 (D.C. 2008). Similarly, a 

court has the discretion to decline approval of a settlement agreement when warranted by 

unusual circumstances. Lloyd v. Mukasey, 568 F.Supp.2d 2, 17-18 (D.D.C. 2008). While 

settlement agreements, deliberately entered into by the parties generally bind the parties and 

“ought not to be lightly set aside,” a court may set aside such agreements “wherever justice 

requires.” Id. at 17 (citing Maiatico v. Novick, 108 A.2d 540, 541 (D.C. Mun. App. 1954)).16 

The Court declines to approve the proposed Settlement Agreement for lack of jurisdiction. The 

proposed Settlement Agreement is set aside.

C. Relief from the Citation is Not Warranted Under Rule 60(b)(1). 

The Commission has held that rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be 

used as the basis for setting aside a section 10(a) final order; and the Court turns its attention to 

whether Employment 2000 is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1).

17 The record before the 

Court shows Employment 2000 is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1). There is no 

evidence of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. No clear reason for any delay 

in filing a NOC with BSAO has been shown. Because Respondent has utterly failed to present 

any evidence on the reason for any delay, the Court finds it has not established excusable 

neglect.

The Court renews its prior finding that the delay in filing its NOC was entirely the fault 

 

15 See Moses v. Howard Univ. Hosp., 601 F.Supp.2d 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2009) (denying motion to enforce settlement 

agreement not approved by Bankruptcy Court, a condition precedent to performance), aff’d, 606 F.3d 789 (D.C. Cir. 

2010). 

16 See Rose Steel Inc., No. 12-1899, Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Rescind Settlement Agreement, (Jul. 

31, 2013) (OSHRC agency website), available at www.oshrc.gov/open/SignificantOrders_AdminLawJudge.html

(settlement agreement rescinded based upon mistake). 

17 See Branciforte Builders, Inc., 9 BNA OSHC 2113 (No. 80-1920, 1981) (Commission has jurisdiction to entertain 

a late NOC under Rule 60(b)); but see Chao v. Russell P. Le Frois Builder, 291 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2002) 

(Commission lacks jurisdiction to extend the time for filing a NOC based on excusable neglect).
- 10 - 

of Employment 2000. As seen by the accepting signature, Employment 2000 knew as of 

November 30, 2015 that it had received a Citation. Nishimura Aff. at ¶ 7. The Citation gave 

clear reference to the contest process. Nishimura Aff. at Ex. A. Further, the Citation stated that 

it would become a final order of the commission without a properly filed NOC given within 15 

working days. Id.

18 BSAO also followed standard protocol and sent Employment 2000 an 

OSHA 3000 booklet which outlines its rights and responsibilities. Nishimura Aff. at ¶ 6. 

Despite having all of this information upon receipt of the citation, Employment 2000 failed to 

properly contest the Citation and file a NOC within the requisite time frame. Id. at ¶ 8. 

Respondent has not taken advantage of the opportunity to satisfy its burden of proving 

that it is entitled to equitable relief for a late-filed NOC.19 Instead, it ignored the Court’s Order 

to file a response to the Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss by November 30, 2016. The Court finds 

that there is no additional need for further evidence to be presented by the parties on this issue.20 

For the aforementioned reason, the Court reaffirms its earlier finding that Employment 2000 is 

responsible for its failure to act upon the received Citation and its failure to file a NOC. See

Toby Bell d/b/a S. Tex. Pigeon Removal, 24 BNA OSHC 1936, 1938 (No. 13-0487, 2013)21 (“An 

employer that has filed a late notice of contest ‘must bear the burden of its own lack of diligence 

 

18 Specific language from the citation notes that it “will become a final order of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Review Commission and may not be reviewed by any court or agency.” (emphasis in original).

19 See Burrows Paper Corp., 23 BNA OSHC 1131, 1132 (No. 09-1559, 2010) (Respondent bears burden to establish 

basis for requested relief).

20 It serves no purpose for the Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to further address Respondent’s receipt and 

handling of the Citation or hearing on the merits of the citation as Respondent has agreed to accept all of the citation 

items with full penalty; subject only to a payment schedule that could otherwise be agreed to by the parties. 

Compare Rheem Mfg. Co., 25 BNA OSHC 1838, 1839 (No. 15-1248, 2016) (remanding for evidentiary hearing 

because “Order denying [Rule 60(b)(1)] relief is premature based on limited record” where Respondent detailed “the 

company’s mail procedures in an affidavit from its human resource manager and claims that its failure to timely file 

the notice of contest was due to excusable neglect.”). Here, Respondent has not even alleged its failure to timely file 

its NOC was due to excusable neglect and has proffered no details of its internal communication procedures. 21 In Toby Bell, the court found the employer should have contested the Citation timely, and that the late filing was 

not a result of excusable neglect. Toby Bell, 24 BNA OSHC at 1938. 
- 11 - 

in failing to carefully read and act upon the information contained in the citations.’ ”) (quoting 

Acrom Constr. Serv., 15 BNA OSHC 1123, 1126 (No. 88-2291, 1991)). 

The Court finds Employment 2000 has completely failed to explain its procedures for the 

processing and handling of important documents received in the office. Mr. Doyle is on record 

for signing for the Citation on November 30, 2015, and yet, the company has no explanation for 

how the Citation was overlooked. Mr. Lang’s statement “I never received it” asserted in his 

April 22, 2016 NOC, without more, is insufficient to override Respondent’s actual receipt of the 

Citation on November 30, 2015 by one of its managers. Although given the opportunity, 

Respondent has failed to advance any details sufficient to show excusable neglect based upon 

any internal miscommunication.22 Furthermore, Employment 2000 has also not offered an 

explanation as to its failure to respond to the debt collection letter, dated January 26, 2016. The 

Court finds that Employment 2000 has offered no basis for Rule 60(b) relief. On the basis of the 

factors and considerations discussed herein and in the Court’s prior July 26, 2016 Decision and 

Order, the Court finds Employment 2000’s failure to file a timely NOC was not due to excusable 

neglect. 

III. CONCLUSION

The Court cannot approve the proposed settlement agreement for lack of jurisdiction and 

a basis for relief under Rule 60(b). Respondent has failed to proceed as provided by the 

requirements set forth in the Act and in the Citation and has not demonstrated that the delay in 

filing the NOC was excusable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act, the classification of all five of the Citation items as 

 

22 See Nw. Conduit Corp., 18 BNA OSHC 1948, 1949 (No. 97-851, 1999) (Misunderstanding between company’s 

president and its counsel excusable neglect where president testified he thought he told counsel to file a timely NOC 

that was actually filed a day late). 
- 12 - 

serious and underlying proposed penalties totaling $25,200 are deemed a final order of the 

Commission.23 

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

All finding of fact and conclusions of law relevant and necessary to a determination of 

the contested issues have been found and appear in the decision above. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).

V. ORDER

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Respondent failed to file a timely NOC and no relief 

under Rule 60(b) is justified; and it is ORDERED that 

1) Complainant’s Motion to Dismiss Respondent’s Untimely Notice of Contest is 

GRANTED, 

2) Respondent’s Notice of Contest is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice as untimely 

filed, 

3) the proposed Settlement Agreement dated August 11, 2016 is not approved by the 

Court for lack of jurisdiction and is set aside, and 

4) all five of the Citation serious items and proposed penalties totaling $25,200 are 

deemed a final order of the Commission. 

SO ORDERED.

 

23 This breaks down to $6,300 for Citation 1, Item 1; $5,400 for Citation 1, Item 2a; $6,300 for Citation 1, Item 3; 

$3,600 for Citation 1, Item 4; and $3,600 for Citation 1, Item 5. 
- 13 - 

 /s/ 

The Honorable Dennis L. Phillips

 U.S. OSHRC Judge

Dated: January 10, 2017 

Washington, D.C.