“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.GREEN DUCK CORPORATION,Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. 86-0973_ORDER_The parties’ stipulation and settlement agreement is approved. Thisorder is issued pursuant to a delegation of authority to the ExecutiveSecretary. 41 Fed. Reg. 37173 (1976), amended at 44 Fed. Reg. 7255 (1979).FOR THE COMMISSIONRay H. Darling, Jr.EXECUTIVE SECRETARYDated: August 18, 1987————————————————————————WILLIAM E. BROCK, SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.GREEN DUCK CORPORATIONRespondent,OSHRC Docket No. 86-0973_STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT_IThe parties have reached agreement on a full and complete settlement ofthe instant matter which is presently pending before the Commission.IIThe parties stipulate as follows:(a) The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (hereafter \”theCommission\”) has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 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 a corporation with itsprincipal place of business in Hernando, Mississippi.It is engaged in producing novelty items and during the course of itsbusiness respondent uses materials and equipment which it receives fromplaces located outside Hernando, Mississippi. Respondent, as a resultof the aforesaid activities, is an employer engaged in a businessaffecting commerce as defined by Section 3(3) and 3(5) of the Act and issubject to the requirements of the Act.(c) As a result of an inspection conducted on June 5 and June 6, 1986 atrespondent’s workplace at 255 S. Elm Street in Hernando, Mississippi, acitation for two serious violations, a citation for one repeatedviolation and a citation for two other-than-serious violations wereissued to respondent on June 18, 1986 pursuant to Section 9(a) of theAct. A total penalty of $1,730.00 was proposed for the violations.(d) Respondent contested the citations and proposed penalties for allthe citations except for serious citation item 2 wherein it contestedonly the penalty, other-than-serious citation item 1 wherein itcontested only the penalty and other-than-serious citation item 2wherein it contested only the abatement date.On February 11, 1987, Commission Administrative Law Judge Joe D. Sparksissued his Decision and Order in which he affirmed both the seriouscitations alleging violations of 29 C.F.R. 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) and 29C.F.R. 1910.217(c)(1)(i), and the other-than-serious violations of 29C.F.R. 1903.2(a)(1) and 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200(e)(1). The judge alsoassessed a total penalty of $1,600.00 for the violations. Thereafter,respondent filed a timely Petition for Review on the serious and repeatviolations which was granted by the Commission on March 25, 1987.IIINow, the Secretary of Labor and Green Duck Corporation in order toconclude this matter without the necessity of further litigation orreview, stipulate and agree as follows:(a) The Secretary hereby agrees to reduce the classification in seriouscitation Item 1(a) for violation of 20 C.F.R. 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) fromserious to other-than-serious with no penalty. The parties agree thatfor the violation of serious citation Item 1(b) respondent will pay $90.00.(b) The Secretary hereby agrees to reduce the penalty for violation of29 C.F.R. 1910.219(e)(3)(i) in serious citation Item 2 to $20.00.(c) The Secretary hereby agrees to reduce the penalty for repeatviolation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.217(c)(1)(i) in citation 2 to $450.00.(d) The Secretary hereby agrees to reduce the penalty forother-than-serious violation of 29 C.F.R. 1903.2(a)(1) in citation 3 to$50.00 and for other-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 Contest to the citationsand to the Notification of Proposed Penalty as amended in subparagraphs(c) through (d) above. Respondent states that the violations have beenabated and shall remain abated.(f) Respondent and Complainant agree that each party shall bear its woncosts.(g) Respondent agrees to pay a penalty of $660 within (20) days afterthe signing of the settlement agreement, by mailing a check to theComplainant as full and complete payment of the penalty.Antony F. GilAttorney for the Secretaryof LaborBob WhitesellPresidentGreen Duck Corporation————————————————————————SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.GREEN DUCK CORPORATION,Respondent,andRETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENTSTORE UNION, LOCAL 772,Authorized EmployeeRepresentative.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 authorizedemployee representative._DECISION AND ORDER_SPARKS, Judge: Green Duck Corporation is engaged in producing noveltyitems at its plant in Hernando, Mississippi. In June 1986, ComplianceOfficer Linda Campbell conducted an inspection of the facility todetermine compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970(the \”Act\”). She concluded that employees were exposed to injurybecause of unguarded machine presses and a belt drive and that arequired hazardous communication program had not been written and anOSHA poster was not displayed. Citations for serious, repeat and otherviolations were issued and penalties of $1,730 were proposed. Respondent contested portions of each citation as follows (Tr. 10-12):Citation 1, Item 1(a) Violation, penalty and abatement dateCitation 1, Item 1(b) Violation and penaltyCitation 2 Violation, penalty and abatement dateCitation 3, Item 1 Penalty onlyCitation 3, Item 2 Penalty and abatement dateI.In answers to request for admissions, respondent acknowledged that itused equipment and materials shipped from outside the State ofMississippi and used interstate communications. The company admittedthat it was an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce. Italso acknowledged that it had been issued a citation for seriousviolations in January 1985 which had become a final order. Respondentcontends, however, that new management has corrected the priorviolations and was determined to operate a safe plant in compliance withsafety regulations.In _Astra Pharmaceutical Products, Inc_., 81 OSAHRC 79\/D9, 9 BNA OSHC2126, 1981 CCH OSHD ? 25,578 (No. 78-6247, 1979), the Review Commissionstated that the following elements are necessary to establish aviolation of an OSHA standard:In order to prove a violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Act, 29 U. S. C.? 654(a)(2), the Secretary must show by a preponderance of the evidencethat (1) the cited standard applies, (2) there was a failure to complywith the cited standard, (3) employees had access to the violativecondition, and (4) the cited employer either knew or could have known ofthe condition with the exercise of reasonable diligence. _DanielInternational Corp., Wansley Project_, OSHRC Docket No. 76-181, (June30, 1981).II._SERIOUS CITATION ONE_Item one alleges two instances of violations of 29 C.F.R. ?1910.212(a)(3)(ii)[[1\/]] in that machine no. C-11, a hole puncher, andthe GM Numbering Stamping Machine, no. C-14, were operated withoutguards at their points of operation.A.Machine C-11 punches holes in coins. The coins are placed in a stripperplate 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). The Secretary acknowledges that the stripper plateconstitutes an adequate guard if the end of the punch remains at orbelow the level of the stripper plate (Tr. 55). On the day of theinspection, the machine was out of adjustment so that the point of thepunch was one-eighth of an inch above the stripper plate (Tr. 21-22, 55,70, 74). The Secretary contends that the operator is exposed to thedanger of a finger or hand coming into contact with the punch causingsevere lacerations or amputation (Tr. 22, 24). Respondent disputes theassertion that the small aperture will allow injury and points out thatthe 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). It acknowledges, however, that the punch press inquestion was not a mechanical power press (Tr. 92) and the standardalleged to have been violated does not permit an unguarded opening atthe point of operation.In _Rockwell International Corp_., 80 OSAHRC 118\/A2, ___ BNA OSHC ___,1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,979 (No. 12470, 1980), the Review Commission wasconcerned with the machine guarding standard at 29 C.F.R. ?1910.212(a)(3)(ii). The Commission interpreted the standard as follows(1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,979 at p. 30,846):By its terms the standard’s guarding requirements apply only when thepoint of operation exposes an employee to injury. In the instant casethere has been no showing that Rockwell’s machines exposed the operatorsto injury. The mere fact that it was not impossible for an employee toinsert his hands under the ram of a machine does not itself prove thatthe point of operation exposes him to injury. Whether the point ofoperation exposes an employee to injury must be determined based on themanner in which the machine functions and how it is operated by theemployees.After noting that the operator did not hold the piece at the point ofoperation, the ram descended slowly and would begin ascending when theoperator ceased pressing on the foot pedal, the Commission held as follows:The Secretary’s contention that the major concern of the standard is torequire guarding so as to make it impossible for employees to placetheir hands in the point of operation begs the question. Beforeguarding is required, the point of operation must expose an employee toinjury. As no such showing has been made, we hold that Rockwell did notviolate the standard and affirm the Judge’s vacation of the citation. (Footnote omitted.)_See also Stacey Manufacturing, Inc_., 82 OSAHRC 14\/B1, 10 BNA OSHC1534, 1982 CCH OSHD ? 25,965 (No. 76-1656, 1982); _Skydyne, Inc_., 84OSAHRC 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 the operator remained atthe unguarded point of operation. The compliance officer’s testimony isentirely reasonable that the unguarded gap of one-eighth inch betweenthe punch and stripper plate at the point of operation presented ahazard of serious injury to the operator whose finger was on the coin atthe point of operation (Tr. 22, 24). The OSHA 200 for 1984 reflects thatthere was an injury on the hole punch machine (Ex. C-2; Tr. 23). It isconcluded that the facts establish that the employees were exposed toinjury.Respondent’s operations manager, J. R. Girten, testified that the punchhad to be removed from the machine periodically for sharpening and isadjusted when it is replaced by the set up man. It is unknown how longthe machine had been operated while out of adjustment. Girten admittedit was management’s responsibility to correct any incorrect adjustment(Tr. 94-96). With proper diligence, the employer would have known ofthe violative conditions. The evidence establishes a violation as charged.Respondent also contests the 30-day abatement date stated in thecitation but has offered no reasons why that abatement period isunreasonable. In view of the Secretary’s position that the conditioncan be abated by properly adjusting the stripper plate which was alreadyon the machine, there would appear to be no reason why that could not beaccomplished in less than one day. As neither party argued the issue ofwhether the abatement period should be shortened, the Secretary’sproposed 30-day period is affirmed.B.The second incident of a violation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) asalleged in item 1(b) of the citation one charges that the GM NumberingMachine, no. C-14, did not have a guard at the point of operation.To operate the machine, the operator was required to insert a tag intothe point of operation and push a foot pedal. The tags were small andthe fingers were near the unguarded point of operation when the machinewas activated (Tr. 25-28, 30). The operator was thereby exposed toinjury. On the day of the inspection, the machine was not in operation,but it had been used the previous day or week (Tr. 29, 76-77, 96-98). An employee had received a severe cut on the thumb which was recorded onthe form OSHA 200 for 1985 (Ex. C-4; Tr. 30). Management had recognizedthe hazard presented by the machine and had removed it from servicepending installation of palm buttons which corrected the problem (Ex.R-2; Tr. 96). A severe injury of laceration or amputation would resultfrom an accident. The evidence establishes a serious violation as cited.The Secretary proposed a penalty of $450 for the violations described inincidents (a) and (b) of item one. The Act in section 17(b) requiresthat consideration be given to the gravity of the violation as well asthe size, good faith and history of the employer. In connection withthe gravity, it is noted that the machine in item 1(a) is operatedregularly and the machine in item 1(b) is operated about 60 to 70percent of the time the facility is in operation (Tr. 69). There aretwo shifts at the plant and a total of five to seven persons may becalled upon to operate the machines who would be exposed to the hazard. Although serious injury could result from an accident, it is highlyunlikely that death would result. The probability of an accident, whilenot considered in determining whether there was a violation, is arelevant factor when considering an appropriate penalty. To apply themitigating factors of size, good faith and history, the complianceofficer gave credit for the size of the employer. She estimated therewere about 125 employees while the company placed the number at about 85(Tr. 91). In addition, the company offered substantial evidence of itsgood faith efforts to provide a safe work environment. New managementwas installed after the citations were issued in January 1985 and hasworked diligently to correct the numerous past deficiencies as well asto discover any new hazards (Tr. 89-90). Respondent has expressed awillingness to comply with the Act and has taken actions to further thatpolicy (Tr. 63-66). It is noted that Green Duck voluntarily removedfrom service machine no. C-14 to have safety equipment attached. Considering the facts described above, a penalty of $400 is reasonable._CITATION ONE, ITEM TWO_Citation one, item two, alleges a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. ?1910.219(e)(3)(i)[[3\/]] in that the horizontal drive belt going to thesoldering oven was not guarded. Respondent contests only the proposedpenalty of $180.The evidence shows that the belt drive to the soldering oven was notguarded subjecting the operator and bypassers to the danger of havingtheir clothing caught in the mechanism and receiving cuts (Tr. 33-34). It was noted in the minutes of the safety meeting of May 30 that a guardwas needed for the motor of the soldering oven (Ex. R-1; Tr. 59-60,80). Manager Girten testified the oven was used only 20–30 times ayear and had not been used between the day of the safety meeting untilthe guard was installed (Tr. 79-80). The compliance officer testifiedthat she was told by an employee, who was not identified, that the ovenhad been used the day before the inspection. Such hearsay testimonywill not be afforded any weight. However, there is no indication thatthe soldering oven was effectively removed from service by disconnectingand tagging out or locking it out of service. It, therefore, had beenused earlier and remained available for use. Considering the foregoingfactors, a penalty of $100 is warranted and reasonable.Ill._REPEAT CITATION TWO_Citation number two charges a repeat violation of 29 C.F.R. ?1910.217(c)(1)(i)[[4\/]] for the operation of Bliss power press, no. B-7,which blanks out circles and buttons, without a guard at the point ofoperation. The material is hand fed into the point of danger and thuspresents a substantial risk of harm to the operator. The machine wasnot in use on the day of the inspection but had been used the previousweek (Tr. 36-42). The company contended the machine was difficult toguard and argued that it was unlikely that an operator would get hurt(Tr. 82-84). On cross-examination, Manager Girten acknowledged thepoint of operation could be guarded by wing guard and plexiglassguarding (Tr. 84).The Bliss power press, B-7, had been cited as lacking a point ofoperation guard under the identical standard in a serious citationissued January 16, 1985, and had become a final order of the Commissionon October 17, 1985 (Request for Admission 4 and answer thereto).The Review Commission in _Potlatch Corp_., 79 OSAHRC 6\/A2, 7 BNA OSHC1061, 1979 CCH OSHD ? 23,294 (No. 16183, 1979), defined a repeatedviolation as follows:A violation is repeated under section 17(a) of the Act if, at the timeof the alleged repeated violation, there was a Commission final orderagainst the same employer for a substantially similar violation.The Secretary may establish substantial similarity in several ways. Incases arising under section 5(a)(2) of the Act, which states that eachemployer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards, theSecretary may establish a prima facie case of similarity by showing thatthe prior and present violations are for failure to comply with the samestandard. (Footnote omitted.)_See_ _also_ _New England Container Co_., ___ OSAHRC ___, 12 BNA OSHC1368, 1369, 1985 CCH OSHD ? 27,148 at p. 35,044 (No. 78-1539, 1984).The same standard and the same hazard were the subject of the finalorder and the present violation. In both instances there were no guardswhich prevented access to the point of operation. A repeat violation of29 C.F.R. ? 1910.217(c)(1)(i) has been established.The Secretary proposed a penalty of $900. There had been an injury in1985, and three fingers of an employee had been amputated as the resultof an accident several years ago (Ex. C-4; Tr. 43-44, 62). The risk ofinjury was, therefore, clear and well known. Two employees were exposedto the danger for up to eight hours daily. No reduction of the penaltyfor good faith or history is warranted for the repeat violation althoughconsideration must be given to the size of the employer. Under theforegoing circumstances, the penalty of $900 is reasonable.Respondent also contests the reasonableness of the abatement date whichwas July 23, 1986; more than a month after the date of the citation ofJune 18, 1986. The dates and methods of abatement were discussed withManager Ron Girten. The compliance officer felt she had Girten’sagreement that the abatement time was reasonable but advised him that,if more time was needed, he should contact the Area Office (Tr. 45-56). Respondent does not state specifically why the time provided wasinadequate (Tr. 82-83). As shown in the video exhibit, Green Duck hasprovided plexiglass guards on the machine and wing guards on the dies(Ex. R-2; Tr. 82). The period to abate the condition was reasonable.IV._OTHER THAN SERIOUS CITATION THREE_Citation number three charges respondent with an other than seriousviolation 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 thefailure to have a written hazard communication program (HCP) in effect. Penalties of $100 were proposed for each violation.A.No poster could be located (Tr. 47). Although the company contended anOSHA notice had been displayed at one time, it was not there at the timeof the inspection (Tr. 84-85). The violation was abated by placing acopy of the notice under glass.The company contested the penalty only (Tr. 12). The Act makes theassessment of a penalty mandatory. Section 17(i) of the Act states asfollows:(i) Any employer who violates any of the posting requirements, asprescribed 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-tenth the amountauthorized. The notice provides important information to employeesabout safety and health at the workplace. Considering the fact thatrespondent had posted a copy at one time, there is no indication thatthe employer was trying to prevent employees from having access to theinformation but was careless in monitoring conditions. Under suchcircumstances, the proposed penalty of $100 is reasonable and warranted.The employer acknowledges that it did not have a written hazardcommunication program on May 25, 1986, and, therefore, did not contestthe alleged violation (Tr. 85). It did contest the proposed penalty of$100 and the abatement date of July 14, 1986.The Secretary points out that respondent was advised of its obligationto have a written HCP by May 25, 1986, during the prior inspection in1985 (Tr. 50, 67).Manager Girten testified that the company recognized it did not have therequired HCP and contacted the Mississippi Manufacturing Association forassistance. The first available seminar after contacting the MMA wasJune 18, 1986, and the HCP was prepared within 30 days following themeeting (Tr. 85-86). The record shows that respondent did not taketimely action to have the HCP in place by the required date and thus wasin violation of the standard. The company offers no reason for its lackof diligence (Tr. 85-89). The proposed penalty of $100 for itstardiness is a reasonable and appropriate penalty. As the HCP wascompleted within 30 days of the seminar on June 18, 1986, there is noevidence it was not or could not be completed by July 14, 1986, so theabatement date is affirmed.The record demonstrates that respondent has made good faith efforts tocomply with the Act and safety standards, but its tardiness incorrecting some violations suggests that compliance is sometimes notmade a first priority of the company._FINDINGS OF FACT_1. Respondent is an employer with facilities in Hernando, Mississippi,where it is engaged in producing novelty items.2. A hole punch machine, no. C-11, was operated without an adequate andeffective guard so that the fingers of the operator were exposed to thehazard of serious injury because the punch extended above the stripperplate guard.3. The guard became adequate by proper adjustment of the stripper plateso that the proposed abatement date of July 14, 1986, was reasonable.4. Operators were exposed to serious injury by the GM numberingmachine, no. C-14, because they were required to place the small tags onwhich the numbers were imprinted into the point of operation with theirfingers without guards in place.5. A penalty of $400 is reasonable for citation one, items 1(a) and1(b), and the proposed abatement date of July 14, 1986, for item 1(a) isappropriate.6. Operators and bypassers were exposed to the hazard of serious injuryby the unguarded belt drive of the soldering oven.7. A penalty of $100 is reasonable.8. Operators of the Bliss power press, no. B-7, were exposed to seriousinjury because they were required to insert material by hand into theunguarded point of operation.9. The violation was a repeated one because a prior citation of thesame machine had become a final order of the Commission.10. A penalty of $900 and an abatement date of July 23, 1986, arereasonable.11. Respondent failed to have an OSHA poster on display under otherthan serious conditions.12. A penalty of $100 is reasonable.13. Respondent failed to prepare and have a written hazardcommunication program for its facility by May 25, 1986.14. A penalty of $100 and the proposed abatement date for the otherthan serious violation are reasonable._CONCLUSIONS OF LAW_1. Respondent is subject to the Act and this proceeding.2. Respondent violated 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) under conditionsconstituting serious violations as alleged in citation one, items 1(a)and 1(b).3. A penalty of $400 and abatement date of July 14, 1986, arereasonable and appropriate for the violations described in paragraph two.4. Respondent violated 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.219(e)(3)(i) under conditionsconstituting a serious violation of the Act as alleged in citation one,item two.5. A penalty of $100 and an abatement date of June 30, 1986, arereasonable and appropriate for the violation described in paragraph four.6. Respondent violated 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.217(c)(1)(i) under conditionsconstituting a repeated violation as alleged in citation two, item one.7. A penalty of $900 and abatement date of July 23, 1986, arereasonable and appropriate for the violation described in paragraph six.8. 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. Penalties of $100 for each violation and an abatement date of June23, 1986, for the violation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1903.2(a)(1) and July 14,1986, for the violation of 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.1200(e)(1) are reasonableand appropriate for the violations described in paragraph eight._ORDER_It is ORDERED:1. The following citations are affirmed:a. Citation 1, Items 1(a) and 1(b)b. Citation 2c. Citation 3, Items 1 and 22. The following penalties are assessed:a. Citation 1, Items 1(a) and 1(b) $400b. Citation 1, Item 2 $100c. Citation 2 $900d. Citation 3, Item 1 $100e. Citation 3, Item 2 $100$1,6003. The following abatement dates are established:a. Citation 1, Item 1a July 14, 1986b. Citation 2, Item 1 July 23, 1986c. Citation 3, Item 1 June 23, 1986d. Citation 3, Item 2 July 14, 1986Or no later than five days after this Order becomes a final order of theCommission.Dated this 3rd day of March, 1987.JOE D. SPARKSJudgeFOOTNOTES:[[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 employeeto injury, shall be guarded. The guarding device shall be in conformitywith any appropriate standards therefor, or, in the absence ofapplicable specific standards, shall be so designed and constructed asto prevent the operator from having any part of his body in the dangerzone during the operating cycle.[[2\/]] Section 1910.217(c)(1)(ii) states as follows:The requirement of subdivision (i) of this subparagraph shall not applywhen the point of operation opening is one-fourth inch or less. SeeTable 0-10.[[3\/]] Section 1910.219(e)(3)(i) of 29 C.F.R. provides as follows:(3) _Vertical and inclined belts_. (i) Vertical and inclined beltsshall be enclosed by a guard conforming to standards in paragraphs (m)and (o) of this section.[[4\/]] Section 1910.217(c)(1)(i) of 29 C.F.R. states as follows:(c) _Safeguarding the point of operation_–(1) _General requirements_. It shall be the responsibility of the employer to provide and insure theusage of \”point of operation guards\” or properly applied and adjustedpoint of operation devices on every operation performed on a mechanicalpower press. See Table 0-10.[[5\/]] Section 1903.2(a)(1) of 29 C.F.R. reads as follows:Each employer shall post and keep posted a notice or notices, to befurnished by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.Department of Labor, informing employees of the protections andobligations provided for in the Act, and that for assistance andinformation, including copies of the Act and of specific safety andhealth standards, employees should contact the employer or the nearestoffice of the Department of Labor. Such notice or notices shall beposted by the employer in each establishment in a conspicuous place orplaces where notices to employees are customarily posted. Each employershall take steps to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced,or covered by other material.[[6\/]] Section 1910.1200(e)(1) of 29 C.F.R. provides as follows:(e) _Written hazard communication program_. (1) Employers shalldevelop and implement a written hazard communication program for theirworkplaces which at least describes how the criteria specified inparagraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section for labels and other formsof warning, material safety data sheets, and employee information andtraining will be met, and which also includes the following:”