SPRING LAKE, NJ —
OSHA Inspection: JOE RUBIN GENERAL CONTRACTOR
Planned inspection · Safety discipline
At a glance
On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of JOE RUBIN GENERAL CONTRACTOR in 101 MORRIS AVE, SPRING LAKE, NJ 07762 (NAICS 238160). OSHA activity number 335091583.
Where did this inspection happen?
- Establishment
- JOE RUBIN GENERAL CONTRACTOR
- Site address
- 101 MORRIS AVE
- City
- SPRING LAKE
- State
- NJ
- ZIP
- 07762
- Mailing
- 10 NEW FRIENDSHIP RD, HOWELL, NJ 07731
What kind of inspection was it?
- Inspection type
- Planned (H)
- Scope
- Complete (A)
- Discipline
- Safety
- Advance notice
- No
- Union status
- B
When did the case open and close?
- Opened
- Closing conference
- Case closed
- Last modified
- Data loaded
Establishment context
- NAICS code
- 238160
- Employees
- 3
- Ownership type
- A
Citations
2 citations on file for this inspection.
1926.20 B02
- Issued
- Penalty
- Initial $1600.00 · Current $1600.00
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2): Such programs shall provide for frequent and regular inspections of the job sites, materials, andequipment to be made by competent persons designated by the employers. a)Rooftop: The employer did not initiate a program consisting of frequent and regular inspections of the worksite by a competent person. Company employees were exposed to fall hazards and other related injuries when performing roofing and other related activiites at the worksite. Condition noted on or about 06/21/12.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $1600
1926.501 B13
- Issued
- Penalty
- Initial $2800.00 · Current $2800.00
General-duty citation text
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): "Residential construction." Each employee engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet(1.8 m) or more above lower levels shall be protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system unless another provisionin paragraph (b) of this section provides for an alternative fall protection measure. Exception: When the employer can demonstrate that it isinfeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets therequirements of paragraph (k) of 1926.502.Note: There is a presumption that it is feasible and will not create a greater hazard to implement at least one of the above-listed fallprotection systems. Accordingly, the employer has the burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with 1926.502(k) for a particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those systems. a)Rooftop: Employees engaged in residential roofing activities at a height of 14 feet were not protected from falls by any means on or about 6/21/12.
Recent events (1)
- — Z (S) $2800
More inspections in this industry (NAICS 238160)
FAIRVIEW, TN—2026-07-16
MARVIN PINERA
CARSON CITY, NV—2026-07-16
UNKNOWN/INVALID ESTABLISHMENT
BANNOCKBURN, IL—2026-07-16
ROOFING H.P. LLC
LOXLEY, AL—2026-07-16
CARLOS CHE
BALTIMORE, MD—2026-07-16
VAL CONSTRUCTION INC
More inspections in NJ
PERTH AMBOY, NJ—2026-07-16
ENGLERT INC.
RIDGEFIELD, NJ—2026-07-16
COLORITE PLASTICS COMPANY
BERLIN, NJ—2026-07-16
URUS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
GLASSBORO, NJ—2026-07-15
GLASSBORO WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT
FLANDERS, NJ—2026-07-15
TRI-STATE QUIKRETE
Source
This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 335091583.