“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 81?1491?S \u00a0 SYNTRON, INC., \u00a0 \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0July 19, 1982ORDER OF REMANDBEFORE ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and COTTINE,Commissioners.BY THE COMMISSION:??????????? TheSecretary of Labor issued to Syntron, Inc. two citations alleging a violationof the machine guarding standard at 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212(a)(1) and violationsof sections 1903.2(a)(1) (OSHA poster) and 1904.2(a) (injury log). JudgeLaVecchia?s decision vacated the first citation because ?an alleged photographof the saw . . . was shown to be a saw other than the one operated by[Syntron], and was apparently photographed in a different machine shop. Thisconstitutes a fatal flaw in the government?s case.? The judge alternativelyheld that ?evidence submitted by [Syntron] with respect to its saw operationindicated that the operator normally has his body or extremities at least onefoot away from the point of operation.? The judge vacated the other citationbecause it was not addressed at the hearing. The Secretary has advanced severalarguments that the judge?s decision was wrong. We decline to resolve theSecretary?s arguments at this time.??????????? Anadministrative law judge?s decision must include findings of fact, conclusionsof law and a statement of the reasons or bases for the decision.[1] The judge?s decision doesnot explain why the introduction of an inapposite exhibit constitutes a ?fatalflaw? in the Secretary?s case or why the fact that the operator normally standsa foot away from the point of operation is dispositive. The decision also lacksspecific findings on whether, under section 1910.212(a)(1), there was point ofoperation hazard and whether a method of machine guarding was not provided toprotect the operator and other employees in the machine area. We thereforeremand this aspect of the case for the filing of a new decision.[2]??????????? Wealso remand for further consideration of the posting and injury log citation.The Secretary has argued to the Commission that the notice of contest did notput these matters in issue. The judge should consider whether the secondcitation was contested.??????????? Accordingly,the judge?s decision is vacated and the case is remanded for furtherproceedings consistent with this opinion.?SO ORDERED.?FOR THE COMMISSION:?RAY H. DARLING, JR.EXECUTIVE SECRETARYDATED: JUL 19, 1982\u00a0\u00a0UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 81?1491?S \u00a0 SYNTRON, INC., \u00a0 \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 February 26, 1982Appearances:For the Government: Ronnie A. Howell,Atty.\u00a0For the Respondent: Henry McCreight, Atty.?DECISION??????????? Therespondent was cited for allegedly violating the machine guarding provisions of29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1). A metal cut-off (band saw) saw was said to be operatedby the respondent without a guarding device. An alleged photograph of the saw(Ex. C?1) was shown to be a saw other than the one operated by the respondent,and was apparently photographed in a different machine shop. This constitutes afatal flaw in the government?s case.??????????? Inthe alternative, evidence submitted by the respondent with respect to its sawoperation indicated that the operator normally has his body or extremities atleast one foot away from the point of operation.??????????? CitationNo. 2 was not addressed.??????????? Inthe circumstances the citations must be vacated.ORDER??????????? CitationsNos. 1 and 2 are vacated.?Louis G. LaVecchia,JudgeDated: February 26, 1982Dallas, Texas.[1] See 29 U.S.C. ? 659(c), section 10(c) of theOccupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651?678 (?the Act?); 5U.S.C. ? 557(c), section 8(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ?551 et seq.; Commission Rules 66(i), 90(a) and 208(a), 29 C.F.R. ?? 2200.66(i),2200.90(a) and 2200.208(a). See generallyP & Z Co., 77 OSAHRC 211\/F5, 6 BNA OSHC 1189, 1192, 1977?78 CCH OSHD?22,413, p. 27,025 (No. 76?413, 1977).[2] On remand, thejudge should resolve two other matters. Exhibits R?1 and R?2 were introduced bySyntron, but are not in the official file. The originals or duplicates of theexhibits should be obtained. In addition, a videotape that was played at thehearing to depict the operation of the cited machine was not identified as anexhibit, introduced into evidence, or included in the official file. The statusof this videotape must be clarified. Judge LaVecchia should determine whetherit is to be considered evidence in this case. If it is evidence, the judgeshould include the videotape in the record, or, if it is not available, includea summary of the matters it depicts in the record.”