“Docket No. 86-0973 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. GREEN DUCK CORPORATION, Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 86-0973ORDERThe parties’ stipulation and settlement agreement isapproved.\u00a0 This order is issued pursuant to a delegation of authority to theExecutive Secretary.\u00a0 41 Fed. Reg. 37173 (1976), amended at 44 Fed. Reg. 7255 (1979).FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Dated:\u00a0 August 18, 1987WILLIAM E. BROCK, SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. GREEN DUCK CORPORATION Respondent,OSHRC Docket No. 86-0973STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTIThe parties have reached agreement on a full andcomplete settlement of the instant matter which is presently pending before theCommission.IIThe parties stipulate as follows:(a) The Occupational Safety and Health ReviewCommission (hereafter \”the Commission\”) has jurisdiction of this matter pursuantto Section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (84 Sat. 1590; 29U.S.C. 651 et seq.)(hereafter \”the Act\”).(b) Respondent, Green Duck Corporation is acorporation with its principal place of business in Hernando, Mississippi.It is engaged in producing novelty items and during the course of its business respondentuses materials and equipment which it receives from places located outside Hernando,Mississippi.\u00a0 Respondent, as a result of the aforesaid activities, is an employerengaged in a business affecting commerce as defined by Section 3(3) and 3(5) of the Actand is subject to the requirements of the Act.(c) As a result of an inspection conducted on June 5and June 6, 1986 at respondent’s workplace at 255 S. Elm Street in Hernando, Mississippi,a citation for two serious violations, a citation for one repeated violation and acitation for two other-than-serious violations were issued to respondent on June 18, 1986pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act. A total penalty of $1,730.00 was proposed for theviolations.(d) Respondent contested the citations and proposedpenalties for all the citations except for serious citation item 2 wherein it contestedonly the penalty, other-than-serious citation item 1 wherein it contested only the penaltyand other-than-serious citation item 2 wherein it contested only the abatement date.On February 11, 1987, Commission Administrative LawJudge Joe D. Sparks issued his Decision and Order in which he affirmed both the seriouscitations alleging violations of 29 C.F.R. 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) and 29 C.F.R.1910.217(c)(1)(i), and the other-than-serious violations of 29 C.F.R. 1903.2(a)(1) and 29C.F.R. 1910.1200(e)(1).\u00a0 The judge also assessed a total penalty of $1,600.00 for theviolations.\u00a0 Thereafter, respondent filed a timely Petition for Review on the seriousand repeat violations which was granted by the Commission on March 25, 1987. IIINow, the Secretary of Labor and Green DuckCorporation in order to conclude this matter without the necessity of further litigationor review, stipulate and agree as follows:(a) The Secretary hereby agrees to reduce theclassification in serious citation Item 1(a) for violation of 20 C.F.R. 1910.212(a)(3)(ii)from serious to other-than-serious with no penalty.\u00a0 The parties agree that for theviolation of serious citation Item 1(b) respondent will pay $90.00.(b) The Secretary hereby agrees to reduce the penaltyfor violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.219(e)(3)(i) in serious citation Item 2 to $20.00.(c) The Secretary hereby agrees to reduce the penaltyfor repeat violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.217(c)(1)(i) in citation 2 to $450.00.(d) The Secretary hereby agrees to reduce the penaltyfor other-than-serious violation of 29 C.F.R. 1903.2(a)(1) in citation 3 to $50.00 and forother-than-serious violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200(f), (g) and (h) in citation 3 to$50.00. (e) Respondent hereby withdraws its Notice of Contestto the citations and to the Notification of Proposed Penalty as amended in subparagraphs(c) through (d) above.\u00a0 Respondent states that the violations have been abated andshall remain abated.(f) Respondent and Complainant agree that each partyshall bear its won costs.(g) Respondent agrees to pay a penalty of $660 within(20) days after the signing of the settlement agreement, by mailing a check to theComplainant as full and complete payment of the penalty.Antony F. GilAttorney for the Secretary of LaborBob WhitesellPresident Green Duck CorporationSECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. GREEN DUCK CORPORATION, Respondent, and RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, LOCAL 772, Authorized Employee Representative.OSHRC Docket No. 86-0973APPEARANCES: Cynthia W. Brown, Esquire, Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department of Labor, Birmingham, Alabama, on behalf of complainant.Bob Whitesell, President, Green Duck Corporation, Hernando, Mississippi, on behalf of respondent.Eugene Newbern, Business Agent, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 772, Memphis, Tennessee, on behalf of authorized employee representative.DECISION AND ORDERSPARKS, Judge:\u00a0 Green Duck Corporation isengaged in producing novelty items at its plant in Hernando, Mississippi.\u00a0 In June1986, Compliance Officer Linda Campbell conducted an inspection of the facility todetermine compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the\”Act\”).\u00a0 She concluded that employees were exposed to injury because ofunguarded machine presses and a belt drive and that a required hazardous communicationprogram had not been written and an OSHA poster was not displayed.\u00a0 Citations forserious, repeat and other violations were issued and penalties of $1,730 were proposed.\u00a0 Respondent contested portions of each citation as follows (Tr. 10-12):Citation 1, Item 1(a) Violation, penalty andabatement dateCitation 1, Item 1(b) Violation and penaltyCitation 2 Violation, penalty and abatement date Citation 3, Item 1 Penalty onlyCitation 3, Item 2 Penalty and abatement date I. In answers to request for admissions, respondentacknowledged that it used equipment and materials shipped from outside the State ofMississippi and used interstate communications.\u00a0 The company admitted that it was anemployer engaged in a business affecting commerce.\u00a0 It also acknowledged that it hadbeen issued a citation for serious violations in January 1985 which had become a finalorder.\u00a0 Respondent contends, however, that new management has corrected the priorviolations and was determined to operate a safe plant in compliance with safetyregulations.In Astra Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 81OSAHRC 79\/D9, 9 BNA OSHC 2126, 1981 CCH OSHD ? 25,578 (No. 78-6247, 1979), the ReviewCommission stated that the following elements are necessary to establish a violation of anOSHA standard:In order to prove a violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. ? 654(a)(2), theSecretary must show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the cited standardapplies, (2) there was a failure to comply with the cited standard, (3) employees hadaccess to the violative condition, and (4) the cited employer either knew or could haveknown of the condition with the exercise of reasonable diligence.\u00a0 DanielInternational Corp., Wansley Project, OSHRC Docket No. 76-181, (June 30, 1981).II.SERIOUS CITATION ONEItem one alleges two instances of violations of 29C.F.R. ? 1910.212(a)(3)(ii)[[1\/]] in that machine no. C-11, a hole puncher, and the GMNumbering Stamping Machine, no. C-14, were operated without guards at their points ofoperation.A. Machine C-11 punches holes in coins.\u00a0 The coinsare placed in a stripper plate by the operator who maintains a finger on the coin whiledepressing a foot pedal which causes a punch to make a hole in the coin (Tr. 19-21,70).\u00a0 The Secretary acknowledges that the stripper plate constitutes an adequateguard if the end of the punch remains at or below the level of the stripper plate (Tr.55). On the day of the inspection, the machine was out of adjustment so that the point ofthe punch was one-eighth of an inch above the stripper plate (Tr. 21-22, 55, 70, 74).\u00a0 The Secretary contends that the operator is exposed to the danger of a finger orhand coming into contact with the punch causing severe lacerations or amputation (Tr. 22,24).\u00a0 Respondent disputes the assertion that the small aperture will allow injury andpoints out that the OSHA standard relating to mechanical power presses permits a maximumopening of one-fourth of an inch at the point of operation[[2\/]] (Tr. 71, 75, 93). \u00a0It acknowledges, however, that the punch press in question was not a mechanical powerpress (Tr. 92) and the standard alleged to have been violated does not permit an unguardedopening at the point of operation.In Rockwell International Corp., 80 OSAHRC118\/A2, ___ BNA OSHC ___, 1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,979 (No. 12470, 1980), the Review Commissionwas concerned with the machine guarding standard at 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212(a)(3)(ii).\u00a0The Commission interpreted the standard as follows (1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,979 at p. 30,846):By its terms the standard’s guarding requirementsapply only when the point of operation exposes an employee to injury. \u00a0 In theinstant case there has been no showing that Rockwell’s machines exposed the operators toinjury.\u00a0 The mere fact that it was not impossible for an employee to insert his handsunder the ram of a machine does not itself prove that the point of operation exposes himto injury.\u00a0 Whether the point of operation exposes an employee to injury must bedetermined based on the manner in which the machine functions and how it is operated bythe employees.After noting that the operator did not hold the piece at the point of operation, the ramdescended slowly and would begin ascending when the operator ceased pressing on the footpedal, the Commission held as follows:The Secretary’s contention that the major concern ofthe standard is to require guarding so as to make it impossible for employees to placetheir hands in the point of operation begs the question.\u00a0 Before guarding isrequired, the point of operation must expose an employee to injury.\u00a0 As no suchshowing has been made, we hold that Rockwell did not violate the standard and affirm theJudge’s vacation of the citation.\u00a0 (Footnote omitted.)See also Stacey Manufacturing, Inc., 82 OSAHRC14\/B1, 10 BNA OSHC 1534, 1982 CCH OSHD ? 25,965 (No. 76-1656, 1982); Skydyne, Inc.,84 OSAHRC 1B\/2, 11 BNA OSHC 1753, 1984 CCH OSHD ? 26,761 (No. 80-5422, 1984); Syntron,Inc., 83 OSAHRC 1\/B1, 11 BNA OSHC 1158, 1984 CCH OSHD ? 26,840 (No. 84-1491S, 1984).In the instant circumstances, the fingers of theoperator remained at the unguarded point of operation.\u00a0 The compliance officer’stestimony is entirely reasonable that the unguarded gap of one-eighth inch between thepunch and stripper plate at the point of operation presented a hazard of serious injury tothe operator whose finger was on the coin at the point of operation (Tr. 22, 24). The OSHA200 for 1984 reflects that there was an injury on the hole punch machine (Ex. C-2; Tr.23).\u00a0 It is concluded that the facts establish that the employees were exposed toinjury.Respondent’s operations manager, J. R. Girten,testified that the punch had to be removed from the machine periodically for sharpeningand is adjusted when it is replaced by the set up man.\u00a0 It is unknown how long themachine had been operated while out of adjustment.\u00a0 Girten admitted it wasmanagement’s responsibility to correct any incorrect adjustment (Tr. 94-96).\u00a0 Withproper diligence, the employer would have known of the violative conditions.\u00a0 Theevidence establishes a violation as charged.Respondent also contests the 30-day abatement datestated in the citation but has offered no reasons why that abatement period isunreasonable.\u00a0 In view of the Secretary’s position that the condition can be abatedby properly adjusting the stripper plate which was already on the machine, there wouldappear to be no reason why that could not be accomplished in less than one day.\u00a0 Asneither party argued the issue of whether the abatement period should be shortened, theSecretary’s proposed 30-day period is affirmed.B.The second incident of a violation of 29 C.F.R. ?1910.212(a)(3)(ii) as alleged in item 1(b) of the citation one charges that the GMNumbering Machine, no. C-14, did not have a guard at the point of operation.To operate the machine, the operator was required toinsert a tag into the point of operation and push a foot pedal.\u00a0 The tags were smalland the fingers were near the unguarded point of operation when the machine was activated(Tr. 25-28, 30).\u00a0 The operator was thereby exposed to injury.\u00a0 On the day of theinspection, the machine was not in operation, but it had been used the previous day orweek (Tr. 29, 76-77, 96-98).\u00a0 An employee had received a severe cut on the thumbwhich was recorded on the form OSHA 200 for 1985 (Ex. C-4; Tr. 30).\u00a0 Management hadrecognized the hazard presented by the machine and had removed it from service pendinginstallation of palm buttons which corrected the problem (Ex. R-2; Tr. 96).\u00a0 A severeinjury of laceration or amputation would result from an accident.\u00a0 The evidenceestablishes a serious violation as cited.The Secretary proposed a penalty of $450 for theviolations described in incidents (a) and (b) of item one.\u00a0 The Act in section 17(b)requires that consideration be given to the gravity of the violation as well as the size,good faith and history of the employer.\u00a0 In connection with the gravity, it is notedthat the machine in item 1(a) is operated regularly and the machine in item 1(b) isoperated about 60 to 70 percent of the time the facility is in operation (Tr. 69). \u00a0There are two shifts at the plant and a total of five to seven persons may be called uponto operate the machines who would be exposed to the hazard.\u00a0 Although serious injurycould result from an accident, it is highly unlikely that death would result.\u00a0 Theprobability of an accident, while not considered in determining whether there was aviolation, is a relevant factor when considering an appropriate penalty. \u00a0 To applythe mitigating factors of size, good faith and history, the compliance officer gave creditfor the size of the employer.\u00a0 She estimated there were about 125 employees while thecompany placed the number at about 85 (Tr. 91).\u00a0 In addition, the company offeredsubstantial evidence of its good faith efforts to provide a safe work environment.\u00a0New management was installed after the citations were issued in January 1985 and hasworked diligently to correct the numerous past deficiencies as well as to discover any newhazards (Tr. 89-90). Respondent has expressed a willingness to comply with the Act and hastaken actions to further that policy (Tr. 63-66).\u00a0 It is noted that Green Duckvoluntarily removed from service machine no. C-14 to have safety equipment attached.\u00a0Considering the facts described above, a penalty of $400 is reasonable.CITATION ONE, ITEM TWOCitation one, item two, alleges a serious violationof 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.219(e)(3)(i)[[3\/]] in that the horizontal drive belt going to thesoldering oven was not guarded.\u00a0 Respondent contests only the proposed penalty of$180.The evidence shows that the belt drive to thesoldering oven was not guarded subjecting the operator and bypassers to the danger ofhaving their clothing caught in the mechanism and receiving cuts (Tr. 33-34).\u00a0 It wasnoted in the minutes of the safety meeting of May 30 that a guard was needed for the motorof the soldering oven (Ex. R-1; Tr. 59-60, 80).\u00a0 Manager Girten testified the ovenwas used only 20–30 times a year and had not been used between the day of the safetymeeting until the guard was installed (Tr. 79-80).\u00a0 The compliance officer testifiedthat she was told by an employee, who was not identified, that the oven had been used theday before the inspection.\u00a0 Such hearsay testimony will not be afforded any weight.\u00a0 However, there is no indication that the soldering oven was effectively removedfrom service by disconnecting and tagging out or locking it out of service.\u00a0 It,therefore, had been used earlier and remained available for use.\u00a0 Considering theforegoing factors, a penalty of $100 is warranted and reasonable.Ill.REPEAT CITATION TWOCitation number two charges a repeat violation of 29C.F.R. ? 1910.217(c)(1)(i)[[4\/]] for the operation of Bliss power press, no. B-7, whichblanks out circles and buttons, without a guard at the point of operation. The material ishand fed into the point of danger and thus presents a substantial risk of harm to theoperator.\u00a0 The machine was not in use on the day of the inspection but had been usedthe previous week (Tr. 36-42).\u00a0 The company contended the machine was difficult toguard and argued that it was unlikely that an operator would get hurt (Tr. 82-84).\u00a0On cross-examination, Manager Girten acknowledged the point of operation could be guardedby wing guard and plexiglass guarding (Tr. 84).The Bliss power press, B-7, had been cited as lackinga point of operation guard under the identical standard in a serious citation issuedJanuary 16, 1985, and had become a final order of the Commission on October 17, 1985(Request for Admission 4 and answer thereto).The Review Commission in Potlatch Corp., 79 OSAHRC 6\/A2, 7 BNA OSHC 1061, 1979 CCHOSHD ? 23,294 (No. 16183, 1979), defined a repeated violation as follows:A violation is repeated under section 17(a) of theAct if, at the time of the alleged repeated violation, there was a Commission final orderagainst the same employer for a substantially similar violation.The Secretary may establish substantial similarity inseveral ways.\u00a0 In cases arising under section 5(a)(2) of the Act, which states thateach employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards, the Secretarymay establish a prima facie case of similarity by showing that the prior and presentviolations are for failure to comply with the same standard.\u00a0 (Footnote omitted.)See also New England Container Co.,___ OSAHRC ___, 12 BNA OSHC 1368, 1369, 1985 CCH OSHD ? 27,148 at p. 35,044 (No. 78-1539,1984).The same standard and the same hazard were thesubject of the final order and the present violation.\u00a0 In both instances there wereno guards which prevented access to the point of operation.\u00a0 A repeat violation of 29C.F.R. ? 1910.217(c)(1)(i) has been established.The Secretary proposed a penalty of $900. \u00a0There had been an injury in 1985, and three fingers of an employee had been amputated asthe result of an accident several years ago (Ex. C-4; Tr. 43-44, 62). \u00a0 The risk ofinjury was, therefore, clear and well known.\u00a0 Two employees were exposed to thedanger for up to eight hours daily.\u00a0 No reduction of the penalty for good faith orhistory is warranted for the repeat violation although consideration must be given to thesize of the employer.\u00a0 Under the foregoing circumstances, the penalty of $900 isreasonable.Respondent also contests the reasonableness of the abatement date which was July 23, 1986;more than a month after the date of the citation of June 18, 1986.\u00a0 The dates andmethods of abatement were discussed with Manager Ron Girten.\u00a0 The compliance officerfelt she had Girten’s agreement that the abatement time was reasonable but advised himthat, if more time was needed, he should contact the Area Office (Tr. 45-56). \u00a0Respondent does not state specifically why the time provided was inadequate (Tr.82-83).\u00a0 As shown in the video exhibit, Green Duck has provided plexiglass guards onthe machine and wing guards on the dies (Ex. R-2; Tr. 82).\u00a0 The period to abate thecondition was reasonable.IV.OTHER THAN SERIOUS CITATION THREECitation number three charges respondent with another than serious violation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1903.2(a)(1)[[5\/]] for the failure to have anOSHA notice posted and of 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1200(e)(1)[[6\/]] for the failure to have awritten hazard communication program (HCP) in effect.\u00a0 Penalties of $100 wereproposed for each violation.A.No poster could be located (Tr. 47). \u00a0 Althoughthe company contended an OSHA notice had been displayed at one time, it was not there atthe time of the inspection (Tr. 84-85).\u00a0 The violation was abated by placing a copyof the notice under glass.The company contested the penalty only (Tr. 12).\u00a0 The Act makes the assessment of a penalty mandatory.\u00a0 Section 17(i) of the Actstates as follows:(i) Any employer who violates any of the postingrequirements, as prescribed under the provisions of this Act, shall be assessed a civilpenalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.The Secretary proposed a penalty of $100 or one-tenththe amount authorized.\u00a0 The notice provides important information to employees aboutsafety and health at the workplace.\u00a0 Considering the fact that respondent had posteda copy at one time, there is no indication that the employer was trying to preventemployees from having access to the information but was careless in monitoringconditions.\u00a0 Under such circumstances, the proposed penalty of $100 is reasonable andwarranted. The employer acknowledges that it did not have awritten hazard communication program on May 25, 1986, and, therefore, did not contest thealleged violation (Tr. 85).\u00a0 It did contest the proposed penalty of $100 and theabatement date of July 14, 1986.The Secretary points out that respondent was advisedof its obligation to have a written HCP by May 25, 1986, during the prior inspection in1985 (Tr. 50, 67).Manager Girten testified that the company recognizedit did not have the required HCP and contacted the Mississippi Manufacturing Associationfor assistance.\u00a0 The first available seminar after contacting the MMA was June 18,1986, and the HCP was prepared within 30 days following the meeting (Tr. 85-86). \u00a0The record shows that respondent did not take timely action to have the HCP in place bythe required date and thus was in violation of the standard.\u00a0 The company offers noreason for its lack of diligence (Tr. 85-89).\u00a0 The proposed penalty of $100 for itstardiness is a reasonable and appropriate penalty.\u00a0 As the HCP was completed within30 days of the seminar on June 18, 1986, there is no evidence it was not or could not becompleted by July 14, 1986, so the abatement date is affirmed.The record demonstrates that respondent has made goodfaith efforts to comply with the Act and safety standards, but its tardiness in correctingsome violations suggests that compliance is sometimes not made a first priority of thecompany.FINDINGS OF FACT1.\u00a0 Respondent is an employer with facilities inHernando, Mississippi, where it is engaged in producing novelty items.2.\u00a0 A hole punch machine, no. C-11, was operatedwithout an adequate and effective guard so that the fingers of the operator were exposedto the hazard of serious injury because the punch extended above the stripper plate guard.3.\u00a0 The guard became adequate by properadjustment of the stripper plate so that the proposed abatement date of July 14, 1986, wasreasonable.4.\u00a0 Operators were exposed to serious injury bythe GM numbering machine, no. C-14, because they were required to place the small tags onwhich the numbers were imprinted into the point of operation with their fingers withoutguards in place.5.\u00a0 A penalty of $400 is reasonable for citationone, items 1(a) and 1(b), and the proposed abatement date of July 14, 1986, for item 1(a)is appropriate.6.\u00a0 Operators and bypassers were exposed to thehazard of serious injury by the unguarded belt drive of the soldering oven.7.\u00a0 A penalty of $100 is reasonable.8.\u00a0 Operators of the Bliss power press, no. B-7,were exposed to serious injury because they were required to insert material by hand intothe unguarded point of operation.9.\u00a0 The violation was a repeated one because aprior citation of the same machine had become a final order of the Commission.10.\u00a0 A penalty of $900 and an abatement date of July 23, 1986, are reasonable.11.\u00a0 Respondent failed to have an OSHA poster ondisplay under other than serious conditions.12.\u00a0 A penalty of $100 is reasonable.13.\u00a0 Respondent failed to prepare and have awritten hazard communication program for its facility by May 25, 1986.14.\u00a0 A penalty of $100 and the proposedabatement date for the other than serious violation are reasonable.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1.\u00a0 Respondent is subject to the Act and thisproceeding.2.\u00a0 Respondent violated 29 C.F.R. ?1910.212(a)(3)(ii) under conditions constituting serious violations as alleged in citationone, items 1(a) and 1(b).3.\u00a0 A penalty of $400 and abatement date of July14, 1986, are reasonable and appropriate for the violations described in paragraph two.4.\u00a0 Respondent violated 29 C.F.R. ?1910.219(e)(3)(i) under conditions constituting a serious violation of the Act as allegedin citation one, item two.5.\u00a0 A penalty of $100 and an abatement date ofJune 30, 1986, are reasonable and appropriate for the violation described in paragraphfour.6.\u00a0 Respondent violated 29 C.F.R. ?1910.217(c)(1)(i) under conditions constituting a repeated violation as alleged incitation two, item one.7.\u00a0 A penalty of $900 and abatement date of July 23, 1986, are reasonable andappropriate for the violation described in paragraph six.8.\u00a0 Respondent violated 29 C.F.R. ? 1903.2(a)and 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1200(e)(1) under conditions constituting other than seriousviolations as described in citation three, items one and two.9.\u00a0 Penalties of $100 for each violation and anabatement date of June 23, 1986, for the violation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1903.2(a)(1) and July14, 1986, for the violation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1200(e)(1) are reasonable and appropriatefor the violations described in paragraph eight.ORDERIt is ORDERED:1.\u00a0 The following citations are affirmed: a.\u00a0 Citation 1, Items 1(a) and 1(b) b.\u00a0 Citation 2c.\u00a0 Citation 3, Items 1 and 22.\u00a0 The following penalties are assessed:a.\u00a0 Citation 1, Items 1(a) and 1(b) $400 b.\u00a0 Citation 1, Item 2 $100 c.\u00a0 Citation 2 $900 d.\u00a0 Citation 3, Item 1 $100e.\u00a0 Citation 3, Item 2 $100 $1,6003.\u00a0 The following abatement dates are established:a.\u00a0 Citation 1, Item 1a July 14, 1986 b.\u00a0 Citation 2, Item 1 July 23, 1986c.\u00a0 Citation 3, Item 1 June 23, 1986d.\u00a0 Citation 3, Item 2 July 14, 1986Or no later than five days after this Order becomes afinal order of the Commission.Dated this 3rd day of March, 1987.JOE D. SPARKS JudgeFOOTNOTES: [[1\/]] Section 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) of 29 C.F.R. provides as follows:The point of operation of machines whose operation exposes an employee to injury, shall beguarded.\u00a0 The guarding device shall be in conformity with any appropriate standardstherefor, or, in the absence of applicable specific standards, shall be so designed andconstructed as to prevent the operator from having any part of his body in the danger zoneduring the operating cycle.[[2\/]] Section 1910.217(c)(1)(ii) states as follows:The requirement of subdivision (i) of thissubparagraph shall not apply when the point of operation opening is one-fourth inch orless.\u00a0 See Table 0-10.[[3\/]] Section 1910.219(e)(3)(i) of 29 C.F.R.provides as follows:(3) Vertical and inclined belts. \u00a0 (i)Vertical and inclined belts shall be enclosed by a guard conforming to standards inparagraphs (m) and (o) of this section.[[4\/]] Section 1910.217(c)(1)(i) of 29 C.F.R. statesas follows:(c) Safeguarding the point of operation–(1) Generalrequirements.\u00a0 It shall be the responsibility of the employer to provide andinsure the usage of \”point of operation guards\” or properly applied and adjustedpoint of operation devices on every operation performed on a mechanical power press.\u00a0See Table 0-10.[[5\/]] Section 1903.2(a)(1) of 29 C.F.R. reads asfollows:Each employer shall post and keep posted a notice ornotices, to be furnished by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.Department of Labor, informing employees of the protections and obligations provided forin the Act, and that for assistance and information, including copies of the Act and ofspecific safety and health standards, employees should contact the employer or the nearestoffice of the Department of Labor.\u00a0 Such notice or notices shall be posted by theemployer in each establishment in a conspicuous place or places where notices to employeesare customarily posted.\u00a0 Each employer shall take steps to insure that such noticesare not altered, defaced, or covered by other material.[[6\/]] Section 1910.1200(e)(1) of 29 C.F.R. providesas follows:(e) Written hazard communication program.\u00a0 (1) Employers shall develop and implement a written hazard communication programfor their workplaces which at least describes how the criteria specified in paragraphs(f), (g), and (h) of this section for labels and other forms of warning, material safetydata sheets, and employee information and training will be met, and which also includesthe following:”