UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 7869
ALPHA POSTER SERVICE, INC.
Respondent.
DECISION
Before Barnako, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.
BY THE COMMISSION:
A decision of Review Commission Judge Ben D. Worcester, dated May 15, 1975, which
1
is attached hereto as Appendix A, is before the Commission for review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
661(i). Review was directed on whether the Judge erred:
‘(1) In concluding that respondent contested the citation in its notice of contest?
(2) In vacating items 6 and 14 of the [notification of additional proposed
penalties] for failure to abate previous violations?
(3) In vacating items 3, 4, and 5 of the citation for willful violation, and reducing
items 1 and 2 of the citation for willful violation to nonserious violations?
(4) In the assessment of all penalties?’
The first directed issue is answered in the negative. As the Judge notes in his decision,
respondent’s notice of contest is somewhat ambiguous. Subsequent to the filing of its notice of
contest, however, respondent indicated that its intention had been to contest the alleged
violations. In Secretary v. Turnbull Millwork Company, OSAHRC Docket No. 7413, December
15, 1975, a divided Commission held that it would permit amendment of notices of contest,
which by their words are limited solely to the penalty, to include a contest of the citation, if a
1
Chairman Barnako does not agree to this attachment.
respondent subsequently indicates that he intended to also contest the citation when he filed his
notice of contest. That decision is dispositive of this issue.
Complainant has not briefed the issue concerning the propriety of the Judge’s vacation of
item of the notification of additional proposed penalties for failure to abate previous violations.
Chairman Barnako and Commissioner Cleary consider this to be an abandonment of the
assertion, which complainant made in his petition for review, that the Judge erred in vacating
that item. Consequently, they affirm the Judge on this issue. Commissioner Moran also affirms
the Judge on this issue because he agrees with the Judge’s finding that complainant failed to
establish that respondent’s employees were exposed to the alleged hazard.
Item 14 of the notification of additional proposed penalties for failure to abate previous
violations, pertains to the dispensing of Class I liquids into containers for which no provision had
been made for electrically interconnecting the nozzle and container in contravention of 29 C.F.R.
§ 1910.106(e)(6)(ii). Item 4 of the citation for willful violation avers that respondent failed to
comply with 29 C.F.R. § 1910.106(e)(2)(iv)(d) in that flammable and combustible liquids were
being transferred into containers without the use of safety cans or other approved methods. Item
5 of this citation alleges noncompliance with 29 C.F.R. § 1910.106(e)(2)(iv)(a) in that flammable
liquids were not kept in covered containers. The Judge vacated all three items because the labels
on the containers in question were insufficient evidence of the type of liquids contained therein.
Chairman Barnako and Commissioner Cleary find that the Judge erred. In their view, it is
presumed that the label on a container accurately describes the contents. In the absence of
sufficient contradictory evidence, such a presumption alone is enough to establish the contents of
the container. Fed. R. Evid. 301; see Secretary v. Western Waterproofing Company, 9 OSAHRC
979, 988–990 (1974) (Administrative Law Judge). Commissioner Moran agrees with the Judge’s
decision.
Chairman Barnako finds, however, that items 4 and 5 were not willful violations as the
evidence fails to establish that respondent either intentionally disregarded the standards or
demonstrated plain indifference to the Act. Secretary v. Graven Brothers and Company,
OSAHRC Docket No. 2538, March 26, 1976. Since both items involve substantially the same
violative conduct and because the question of whether the alleged violations were serious was
not tried by the express or implied consent of the parties, he finds that the two items merge into
one nonserious violation. See Secretary v. Environmental Utilities Corporation, OSAHRC
Docket No. 3141, February 6, 1976. Commissioner Cleary agrees with Chairman Barnako in this
respect, but he would go further and hold that the nonserious violation is also willful because the
cited items were identical to those in a citation issued in the previous month; i.e. March 1974.
Item 3 of the citation for willful violation alleges that respondent violated 29 C.F.R.
§ 1910.106(e)(2)(ii)(b)(2) in that the quantity of combustible liquids located outside of an inside
storage cabinet exceeded 120 gallons. The Judge vacated this item because complainant did not
prove that the quantity of the liquid so stored exceeded 120 gallons. Chairman Barnako and
Commissioner Cleary agree to vacate because the evidence does not indicate that the liquid
2
stored was a Class IB, IC, II, or III liquid. Commissioner Moran agrees with the Judge’s
finding.
All Commission members agree with the Judge’s finding as to items 1 and 2 of the
citation for willful violation. They also agree that the amounts of all penalties assessed by the
3
Judge are appropriate.
Chairman Barnako and Commissioner Cleary agree that a penalty of $45 is appropriate
for item 14 of the notification for failure to abate. Chairman Barnako finds that a penalty of $115
is appropriate for items 4 and 5 of the citation for willful violation, and Commissioner Cleary
agrees that a penalty of at least that amount should be assessed.
Accordingly, item 14 of the notification for failure to abate is affirmed, items 4 and 5 of
the citation for willful violation are affirmed as one nonserious violation, and penalties of $45
and $115 are assessed therefor, respectively. The remaining findings of the Judge are affirmed:
FOR THE COMMISSION:
William S. McLaughlin
Executive Secretary
DATED: NOV 30, 1976
2
They also note that complainant has not briefed this issue.
3
All penalty determinations herein are based on consideration of the entire record in conjunction
with the statutory criteria contained in 29 U.S.C. § 661(i).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 7869
ALPHA POSTER SERVICE, INC.
Respondent.
Alan J. Davis, Esq., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
for the Secretary
Larrick B. Stapleton, Esq., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
for the Respondent
Ben D. Worcester, Judge, OSAHRC
THE CASE
This proceeding arises pursuant to a notice of contest filed by the respondent, Alpha
Poster Service, Inc., under the provisions of section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1590 et seq., 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) hereinafter called the Act. An
inspection of Alpha Poster Service’s place of business in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
on February 20, 1974, by one of the Secretary’s compliance officers resulted in the issuance of a
citation charging Alpha with 21 violations of the standards promulgated by the Secretary. This
citation became a final order not subject to review by operation of law since no timely notice of
contest was filed by Alpha.
On April 11, 1974, the Secretary conducted a second inspection at the same location.
This resulted in two new citations being issued on April 22, 1974. One alleged failure to abate
some of the original 21 violations, and one alleged that there were 5 willful violations. The
Secretary, in its Notification of Proposed Penalty, recommended that Alpha be assessed penalties
for failure to correct violations as follows:
Citation No. 1
Item #2 135.00
Item #3 135.00
Item #4 135.00
Item #5 135.00
Item #6 450.00
Item #8 135.00
Item #9 450.00
Item #14 450.00
Item #18 135.00
Item #19 450.00
Item #20 450.00
Item #21 450.00
Total $3,510.00
For the alleged willful violations the Secretary recommended that the following penalties be
assessed:
Item No. Proposed Penalty
Item #1 $310.00
Item #2 310.00
Item #3 405.00
Item #4 405.00
Item #5 405.00
Total $1835.00
The total proposed penalty is $5,345.00.
THE FACTS
The respondent operates a small silk screen poster printing business at 1922 West
Brandywine Street in the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The company has a total of 12
employees and, as of March 31, 1973, had net assets of slightly more than $39,000. There was a
net profit of a little over $7,000 during its more recent tax year. The business is conducted in 3
buildings in the 1900 block of West Brandywine Street. Two of the buildings are leased from a
member of the family who founded the business; the third building is leased from a non-related
landlord. In this building only the ground floor is occupied. The upper two floors are occupied by
tenants of the owner of the building.
THE ISSUES
The Secretary averred in his complaint that the citation for failure to abate for willful
violations has become a final order on the basis of a contention that the respondent did not
contest the citations; that only the reasonableness of the penalties is in issue. Alpha denies this
allegation.
On May 6, 1974, when the Notice of Proposed Penalty to which the citations were
attached was received by Alpha, and before retaining counsel, Richard Golub, Alpha’s chief
official, dispatched the following letter to the Secretary.
‘This letter constitutes notice of intention to contest your notification of penalties
dated April 22, 1974 for the alleged violations of a willful nature in connection
with the premises of Alpha Poster Service, Inc., such proposed penalties totaling
the sum of $5345.00.
‘You have informed me that receipt of this notice initiates the appeal process and
that your people will send us the appropriate material necessary to continue the
resolution of this matter.’
It is self-evident that this letter admits nothing and specifically mentions violations as
well as penalties. In Secretary v. Philadelphia Coke Division, OSAHRC Docket No. 6448–P
(September 5, 1974), para. 18,572 CCH Employment Safety and Health Guide, a unanimous
Commission concluded that a letter which said only:
‘An extension of time to complete the necessary work for compliance is
respectfully requested for the following items:’
was a notice of contest saying that
‘The rule is that writings filed with complainant during this period (the 15-
working-day period prescribed in section 10(c)) are to be given a liberal
interpretation.’
No reference was made to violations, yet this document was held to be a notice of contest of all
issues. Accordingly, I hold that Richard Golub’s letter of May 6, 1974 was a timely notice of
contest of citation for failure to correct violations, not just the proposed penalties.
The same could be said for the citation for willful violations. However, there is a
distinction which must not be overlooked. The citation for alleged failure to correct relates to
acts or omissions observed on February 20. No new citations were served. The citation for
willful violation, on the other hand, alleges that there were 5 separate willful violations on April
11, 1974. The citation was not issued until April 22, 1974. If the respondent’s letter of May 6,
1974 was a notice of contest, it was timely. For that reason the citation never became a final
order leaving both the fact of violation and the penalty in issue. I so find.
At the conclusion of the hearing and after both parties had rested so much of citation
number 1 dated April 22, 1974, which alleged the 5 alleged violations were willful was vacated
sua sponte. Upon consideration of the record as a whole, I reaffirm this conclusion. The
Secretary relies chiefly upon an assertion that Alpha has been previously cited for the same
alleged violations. This alone would not show that there was willfulness. There must be a
conscious, intentional, deliberate, voluntary decision to disregard the statute and the regulations.
See F. X. Messina Construction Corporation v. Secretary of Labor, 505 F.2d 701, 702 (1st Cir.
1974).
CITATION FOR FAILURE TO ABATE
This citation was based upon allegations of violation contained in 12 separate items in a
previous citation dated March 7, 1974. The alleged violations were described as follows:
Item No.
2 29 CFR 1910.23(b)(1) A wall opening in the following location, from which
there was a drop of more than four feet, was not guarded
by one of the methods specified by this subparagraph:
a) Rear door opening of 2nd floor of 1919
Brandywine Street.
3 29 CFR 1910.23(d)(1) Flight of stairs, in the following location, was not
equipped with standard railings, on the open sides, or
standard handrails on the enclosed sides:
a) Front stairway from 2nd floor to 3rd floor of 1922 W.
Brandywine Street.
4 29 CFR 1910.23(a)(1) Stairway floor opening, in the following location was
not guarded by standard railings on all open sides
(except at the stairway entrance):
a) Rear stairway from 2nd to 3rd floors of 1922 W.
Brandywine Street—an intermediate rail was not
provided
5 29 CFR 1910.24(f) Fixed industrial stairs, in the following location, did not
have nonslip finish on tread nosings:
a) Front stairs from 2nd to 3rd floors of 1922
Brandywine Street—seupral tread noses were
worn and slippery
6 29 CFR 1910.25(d)(1)(x) Portable wooden ladders, in the following location, were
noted to be defective and had not been withdrawn from
service and tagged or marked, ‘Dangerous, Do Not
Use’:
a) Rear of 1920 Brandywine Street—two portable
wooden ladders
8 29 CFR 1910.37(j) Difference in elevation at the following means of egress
was not negotiated by stairs of ramp:
a) Exit from rear of 2nd floor at 1922 W.
Brandywine Street—stairs or ramp not provided
to ground level
9 29 CFR 1910.37(q)(1) Exits, in the following location, were not marked by
readily visible signs:
a) All exits in Buildings at 1919, 1920, and 1922
W. Brandywine Street
14 29 CFR 1910.106(e)(6)(ii) Class I liquids, in the following location, was dispensed
into containers for which no provision was made for
electrically interconnecting the nozzle and the container:
a) Solvent storage room on 1st floor of Building at
1922 W. Brandywine Street—xylene and lacquer
thinner.
18 29 CFR 1910.219(e)(3) The mechanical power-transmission apparatus, belt
drive, of the following machinery, was not enclosed by
guards:
a) Paper cutter located on 1st floor of 1919 W.
Brandywine Street
19 National Electric Code, Live parts of the following electrical equipment were
NFPA 70–71, Art. 110– not guarded against accidental contact by approved
17(a), as adopted by 29 cabinets or other forms of approved enclosures, or by
CFR 1910.309(a) any other method listed in this subparagraph:
a) Junction box on side of dryer on 2nd floor of 1919
W. Brandywine Street—exposed connections
leading to conduit
b) Light switch on wall of toilet room on 2nd floor of
1919 W. Brandywine Street
c) Bare wires on east wall of lounge area, first floor
of 1920 W. Brandywine Street
20 National Electric Code, The exposed noncurrent-carrying metal parts of the
NFPA 70–1971, Art. 250– following cord and plug connected equipment, likely to
45(d), as adopted by 29 become energized, were not electrically grounded:
CFR 1910.309(a) a) Water cooler on 2nd floor of 1919 W. Brandywine
Street
b) Refrigerator in 1920 W. Brandywine Street
National Electric Code Flexible cords attached to the following equipment,
NFPA 70–1971, Art. 400- contained splice which was not of the approved type:
5 as adopted by 29 CFR a) Extension cords from two fans, located on floor at
1910.309(a) rear of 1920 W. Brandywine Street
b) Cord from refrigerator at rear of 1920 W.
Brandywine Street
Willful Violations
The following allegations were related to items 1, 7, 11, 12 and 13 of the March 7
citation:
1 29 CFR 1910.22(a)(1) Place of employment, in the following areas, was not
kept clean and orderly, and in a sanitary condition:
a) Stencil Cutting Room, 3rd floor of 1922 W.
Brandywine Street—accumulation of paper
b) Oil Tank Area at rear of 1st floor of 1922 W.
Brandywine Street—wood and cardboard
accumulation
(Items 1(a) and (c) of March 7 citation)
2 29 CFR 1910.36(d)(1) Exits, in the following locations, were not maintained
free from all obstructions or impediments to full instant
use:
a) rear exit from 1st floor at 1922 W. Brandywine
Street—obstructed by accumulation of trash
b) west exit from 2nd floor at 1922 W. Brandywine
Street—obstructed by accumulation of trash
(Item 7(c) and (d) of March 7 citation)
3 29 CFR The quantity of combustible liquids located outside of
1910.106(e)(2)(ii)(b)(2) an inside storage cabinet, in the following area,
exceeded 120 gallons:
a) first floor of building at 1919 W. Brandywine
Street
(Item 11 of March 7 citation)
4 29 CFR Flammable and combustible liquids were being
1910.106(e)(2)(iv)(d) transferred into containers without the use of safety
cans or other approved methods, in the following
location:
a) Solvent Storage Room of building at 1922 W.
Brandywine Street—xylene, lacquer thinner and
mineral spirits
(Item 12 of March 7 citation)
5 29 CFR Flammable liquids, in the following locations, were not
1910.106(e)(2)(iv)(a) kept in covered containers when not in use:
a) two Silk Screening Areas, 1st floor of 1920 W.
Brandywine Street—xylene
b) Silk Screening Area, 2nd floor of 1919 W.
Brandywine Street—xylene
(Item 13 of March 7 citation)
Alpha’s chief officer, Richard Golub, did not dispute the allegation of fact in the
1
citations. For that reason, the belated and unsolicited appearance of Area Director Sachkar for
the purpose of attacking Golub’s credibility as a witness is of no significance. However, even
though Golub did not dispute the testimony of the Secretary’s inspectors, Knox and Crenshaw, as
1
The Court: Did you call him [Sachkar].
Mr. Davis: No I didn’t call him. [Tr. 249]
Mr. Sachkar: I came in here of my own volition…[Tr. 250]
to what they observed with the naked eye, the evidence in behalf of the Secretary was of
questionable weight and probative value.
The Secretary, throughout the whole course of this proceeding from citation to trial, has
appeared to be laboring under the misapprehension that accusation creates a presumption of guilt
and that the allegations of a citation are presumed to establish a prima facie case which the
accused employer must overcome. This is not the law. This burden of proof is upon the Secretary
(Commission Rule 73(a)).
This case is another example of the Secretary’s erroneous assumption that because the
proceeding is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act he need not produce the best
evidence. This is not so. The purpose of the APA was to free administrative hearings from the
strict rules of procedure and admissibility of evidence applicable in jury trials, but that does not
mean that the burden of proof can be sustained without reliable, probative and relevant evidence.
Before the Administrative Procedure Act was enacted it was the rule in Federal
Administrative Proceedings that mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor was not substantial
2
evidence. Hearsay may not be used as a basis for an order to support findings of an
administrative agency. Findings cannot be based upon hearsay alone. The declarant of proffered
3
admissions against interest must be available for cross-examination.
Hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing subject to the Administrative Procedure Act
but an Administrative Law Judge is empowered to exclude evidence which is not of the ‘kind on
4
which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in serious affairs.’ The ultimate test of
admissibility must be whether the proffered evidence is reliable, probative and relevant. Senator
McCarran explained on the floor of the Senate what this means. He said:
‘You may go outside and get what would be secondary evidence, or hearsay; . . .
but when you write your decision it must be based upon probative evidence and
nothing else. If in the formation of your decision you consider other than
probative evidence, your decision will be subject to being set aside by a court of
5
review.’
2 Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 59 S.Ct. 206, 217 (1938).
3 Williamsport Oysters, Inc. v. Ewing, 174 F.2d 676, 691 (9th Cir. 1949).
4 Final Report of the Attorney General’s Committee, page 50, Senate Document No. 8, 77th
Cong. 1st sess. 1941: NLRB v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F.2d 862 (2d Cir. 1938, cert. den. 304
U.S. 576, 585 (1938).
5 Senate Document No. 248, 79th Cong., 2nd sess. 320 (1946).
The respondent admitted the violations as described in items 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 19, 20
and 21 of the citation for failure to abate. However, Golub said that the defective ladders
described in item 6 were in the building when they acquired it and that his employees neither
needed nor used them. Diligent inquiry by the Secretary’s inspectors, Crenshaw and Knox,
would have produced either a witness or other evidence which would have either verified this
assertion or shown that it was false. Since the Secretary allowed this statement to stand
unrebutted, the burden of proof was not met and item 6 must be vacated. Knox admitted that he
did not know whether the ladders were used.
In item 14, Alpha was charged with failing to electrically interconnect a nozzle to a
container where Class I liquids were being dispensed into containers. The liquids were said to be
xylene and lacquer thinner. Golub admitted that the containers were not grounded, however, the
Secretary failed to adduce any proof that Class I liquids were present. Knox made no test of the
contents. He said that he relied upon labels on the cans and that one contained ‘some type of
cleaning solvent’ and another contained ‘some type of lacquer.’ Mrs. Crenshaw, who testified
that she has a degree in chemistry, said she also relied solely upon labels, what she was told by a
chemist from the suppliers of the liquids, and what she read in a reference book. It is elemental
that the components of any compound can be ascertained by chemical analysis. This was not
done. However, if either Knox or Crenshaw had produced the chemist from the supplier or one
or more of Alpha’s employees as a witness, it is possible that the identity of the liquids in the
containers might have been established. If, after interrogation of these witnesses, it was not clear
that xylene or lacquer thinner was in the containers, samples should have been secured for
testing. Any individual with no more than a grammar school education could have done what
Knox and Crenshaw did. They failed to identify the contents of the containers. Item 14 and the
proposed penalty must be vacated.
The Secretary’s witness, Allendorf, in contrast to the Secretary’s other witnesses, was a
very helpful witness. He explained lucidly and in great detail the methods the Secretary requires
in determining the amount of a proposed penalty. He also revealed that he very carefully
considered the statutory mandate that the amount of penalty should be based upon size, gravity,
good faith and history. If it were not for the fact that the Secretary’s procedures, which are
binding upon Allendorf, bring about inequities (such as a proposed penalty of only $135 for an
unguarded belt on a piece of machinery and $450 for an improper splice on an electric cord), his
recommendation would be accepted without question. It is not disputed that Alpha did nothing to
abate the violations from February 20 until after the citation was served on March 7. Golub says
that all deficiencies were corrected by mid May pursuant to orders placed in mid March. This
establishes failure to abate as a fact, but no proof was adduced to justify the imposition of
penalties as much as 10 times the usual penalty.
The respondent is not entitled to any special consideration for good faith, but when size
and gravity are considered it is clear that a penalty of $45 each for items 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 19,
20 and 21 for $450 for failure to abate is appropriate.
Willful Violations
The sole basis for compliance officer Knox’s recommendation that a citation for willful
violation be issued was that Alpha had knowledge of the requirements of sections 1910.22(a)(1),
1910.36(d)(1), 1910.106(e)(2)(ii)(b)(2), 1910.106(e)(2)(iv)(d) and 1910.106(e)(2)(iv)(a) from the
citations issued after the Crenshaw inspection on February 20. As had already been noted
(Messina Construction Corporation v. Secretary, supra), mere knowledge is not enough to show
willfulness. However, the 5 items remain in issue as simple allegations of a non-serious violation
of the Act.
Golub did not deny knowledge of the requirements of the OSHA standards. According to
him, it took some time for him to arrange for carpenters and other craftsmen to correct some of
the violations. This is understandable, but it is also clear that until Golub received notice of the
citation for willful violation dated April 22, 1974, proposing a penalty of $3,510, he had done
nothing. He attempted to justify his procrastination on a trash hauler’s strike which had caused
an unusually large accumulation of waste matter. It is quite plain that the prospect of paying a
substantial penalty animated him much more rapidly than the hazards to his employees which
had been called to his attention three weeks earlier.
It is common knowledge that the floors in this type of business cannot be kept free of
debris, but the photographs in evidence reveal that housekeeping was generally lax and untidy.
For example, how would the trash strike have prevented Alpha from lifting the wood and
cardboard off the fuel tank? What would have prevented Alpha from moving the trash
obstructing the exits? It could have been moved outside. Conceding that there was a strike and
that this would have violated city ordinances, it is extremely unlikely that the ordinance would be
strictly enforced under those circumstances. Even if it were enforced, the risk of being penalized
monetarily for the commission of a misdemeanor is insignificant when compared to the value of
the lives and safety of employees or the lose of a business due to a fire. The evidence adduced in
behalf of the Secretary conclusively supports a finding and conclusion that Alpha violated the
standards as alleged in items 1 and 2 of the citation for willful violation.
The other 3 items must be vacated. In item 3, an essential element of proof is that there
were at least 120 gallons of liquid in the containers. On cross-examination Knox was asked:
‘Q. Could it have been less than 120 gallons?
A. Yes, it could have been less.
Q. How do you know if it was more than 120 gallons?
A. No, I do not know.’
With regard to items 4 and 5, an essential element of proof is that there were flammable
or combustible liquids in the containers. Considering Knox’s testimony in its most favorable
light, he only knew what was printed or written upon the labels on the containers. He did not
know what was in them. His only attempt to identify them was by a question to an employee
who used the liquid to clean silk screens. All she knew was that the liquid came from a storage
room. In view of the fact that Golub did not take issue with these allegations when testifying, it
might be inferred that the particular liquids mentioned were present, but the burden of proof
requires the moving party to adduce evidence which is reliable, probative and relevant. Mere
uncorroborated hearsay is not substantial evidence. Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB
(supra). An administrative law decision ‘must be based upon probative evidence and nothing
6
else.’ The Secretary has not adduced probative evidence to support the allegations of items 3, 4
and 5 of the willful citation.
Having been impressed with the witness Allendorf’s evaluation on the four elements to
be considered in determining a penalty specified by the Act, I accept his conclusion that the sum
of $115 each for a non-serious violation as described in items 1 and 2 is appropriate.
ORDER
It is accordingly hereby ordered that:
6 Senator McCarran, Senate Doc. No. 248, 79th Cong., 2d sess. 320 (1946).
1. Items 4 and 14 and the proposed penalties of $135 and $450 respectively for failure to
correct violations be vacated.
2. Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the citation dated April 22, 1974 for failure
to correct violations be affirmed and that a penalty of $45.00 be assessed for each violation.
3. Items 3, 4 and 5 of the citation for willful violation and the proposed penalties thereon
of $450 each be vacated.
4. So much of the citation of April 22, 1974, as describes items 1, and 2 thereof as willful
be vacated; that so much of the allegations of the complaint as allege a non-serious violation as
described in items 1 and 2 be affirmed; and that a penalty of $115 each be assessed for these
violations.
5. That Alpha Poster Service, Inc. shall pay a total sum of $680 to the Secretary as a
penalty for the violations.
BEN D. WORCESTER
Judge, OSAHRC
Dated: MAY 15, 1975
Hyattsville, Maryland