“Docket No. 81-0481 SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.PLAINS COOPERATIVE OIL MILL, INC.,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 81-0481DECISIONBefore:\u00a0 ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and COTTINE, Commissioners. BY THE COMMISSION:This case is before the Commission for review under section 12(j), 29 U.S.C.? 661(i), of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651-678(\”the Act\”).\u00a0 Administrative Law Judge Dee C. Blythe found that Respondent,Plains Cooperative Oil Mill, Inc. (\”Plains\”) violated 29 C.F.R. ?1910.212(a)(1)[[1\/]] by failing to adequately guard screw conveyer in its cotton seedmill.Plains petitioned for review of Judge Blythe’s decision and Chairman Rowland directedreview on the following questions:1)\u00a0 Whether the judge erred in concluding that the conveyor in issueconstitutes a \”machine\” within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212,2)\u00a0 Assuming 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212 is applicable, did the judge err in concludingthat Respondent violated the Act by failing to comply with the requirements of thatstandard,3)\u00a0 Assuming the judge did not err in concluding that Respondent knew or couldreasonably have known of the hazardous condition, did he nevertheless erra)\u00a0 in concluding that in the circumstances of this case, Respondent may be heldresponsible for the safety of employees of an independent contractor,b)\u00a0 in finding Respondent in violation on the basis that its own employees wereexposed to a hazard.We have reviewed the record and have considered the parties’ arguments, whichare essentially the same arguments they made to the judge.\u00a0 We conclude that thejudge properly found that Plains failed to comply with the machine guarding standard forthe reasons he assigned and, as modified below, we adopt the judge’s decision.\u00a0 SeeGulf Oil Co., 77 OSAHRC 216\/B10, 6 BNA OSHC 1240, 1978 CCH OSHD ? 22,737 (No. 14281,1977).In particular, we reemphasize our precedent that an employer violates the Actif it fails to comply with a safety or health standard and its own employees or employeesof another are exposed to the resulting hazard.\u00a0 H.B. Zachry Co. (International), 80OSAHRC 69\/A2, 8 BNA OSHC 1669, 1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,588 (No. 76-2617, 1980); HarveyWorkover, Inc., 79 OSAHRC 72\/D5, 7 BNA OSHC 1687, 1979 CCH OSHD ? 23,830 (No. 76-1408,1979).\u00a0 We continue to believe that worker safety and health are best promoted bythis interpretation of the Act.Judge Blythe’s decision is affirmed.\u00a0 SO ORDERED.BY THE COMMISSIONRAY H. DARLING, JR.EXECUTIVE SECRETARYDATED:\u00a0 MAR 31 1983The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this format.\u00a0 To obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our Public InformationOffice by e-mail ( [email protected] ),telephone (202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).\u00a0FOOTNOTES:[[1\/]] The pertinent parts of section 1910.212 provide:? 1910.212\u00a0 General requirements for all machines. (a) Machine guarding — (1) Types of guarding.One or more methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protect the operator andother employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point ofoperation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks.\u00a0 Examples ofguarding methods are — barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safetydevices, etc.\u00a0″