“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.PLAINS COOPERATIVE OIL MILL, INC.,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 81-0481_DECISION_Before: ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and COTTINE, Commissioners.BY THE COMMISSION:This case is before the Commission for review under section 12(j), 29U.S.C. ? 661(i), of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29U.S.C. ?? 651-678 (\”the Act\”). Administrative Law Judge Dee C. Blythefound that Respondent, Plains Cooperative Oil Mill, Inc. (\”Plains\”)violated 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212(a)(1)[[1\/]] by failing to adequately guardscrew conveyer in its cotton seed mill.Plains petitioned for review of Judge Blythe’s decision and ChairmanRowland directed review on the following questions:1) Whether the judge erred in concluding that the conveyor in issueconstitutes a \”machine\” within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212,2) Assuming 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212 is applicable, did the judge err inconcluding that Respondent violated the Act by failing to comply withthe requirements of that standard,3) Assuming the judge did not err in concluding that Respondent knew orcould reasonably have known of the hazardous condition, did henevertheless erra) in concluding that in the circumstances of this case, Respondent maybe held responsible for the safety of employees of an independentcontractor,b) in finding Respondent in violation on the basis that its ownemployees were exposed to a hazard.We have reviewed the record and have considered the parties’ arguments,which are essentially the same arguments they made to the judge. Weconclude that the judge properly found that Plains failed to comply withthe machine guarding standard for the reasons he assigned and, asmodified below, we adopt the judge’s decision. See Gulf Oil Co., 77OSAHRC 216\/B10, 6 BNA OSHC 1240, 1978 CCH OSHD ? 22,737 (No. 14281, 1977).In particular, we reemphasize our precedent that an employer violatesthe Act if it fails to comply with a safety or health standard and itsown employees or employees of another are exposed to the resultinghazard. H.B. Zachry Co. (International), 80 OSAHRC 69\/A2, 8 BNA OSHC1669, 1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,588 (No. 76-2617, 1980); Harvey Workover, Inc.,79 OSAHRC 72\/D5, 7 BNA OSHC 1687, 1979 CCH OSHD ? 23,830 (No. 76-1408,1979). We continue to believe that worker safety and health are bestpromoted by this interpretation of the Act.Judge Blythe’s decision is affirmed. SO ORDERED.BY THE COMMISSIONRAY H. DARLING, JR.EXECUTIVE SECRETARYDATED: MAR 31 1983————————————————————————The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable inthis format. To obtain a copy of this document, please request onefrom our Public Information Office by e-mail ( [email protected] ), telephone (202-606-5398), fax(202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386). FOOTNOTES:[[1\/]] The pertinent parts of section 1910.212 provide:? 1910.212 General requirements for all machines.(a) Machine guarding — (1) Types of guarding.One or more methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protect theoperator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such asthose created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts,flying chips and sparks. Examples of guarding methods are — barrierguards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safety devices, etc. “