<DOC>
[DOCID: f:yk200065.wais]

 
VT UNFADING GREEN SLATE COMPANY, INCORPORATED
YORK 2000-65-M
March 21, 2001

        FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

               OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
                      2 Skyline, Suite 1000
                       5203 Leesburg Pike
                  Falls Church, Virginia 22041

                         March 21, 2001

SECRETARY OF LABOR,             : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
     MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH     :
     ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),     : Docket No. YORK 2000-65-M
               Petitioner       : A. C. No. 43-00196-05521
          v.                    :
                                : Docket No. YORK 2000-66-M
VT UNFADING GREEN SLATE COMPANY,: A.C. No. 43-00196-05522
   INCORPORATED,                :
               Respondent       :
                                : Blissville Quarry & Mill

                             DECISION

Appearances: David L. Baskin, Esq., Office of the Solicitor,
             U.S. Department of Labor, Boston, Massachusetts,
             for Petitioner;
             Shawn Camara, pro se, Vermont Unfading Green 
             Slate Co., Inc., Poultney, Vermont, for 
             Respondent.

Before: Judge Hodgdon

     These  consolidated  cases  are  before me on Petitions  for
Assessment of Civil Penalty brought by  the  Secretary  of Labor,
acting through her Mine Safety and Health Administration  (MSHA),
against Vermont Unfading Green Slate Company, pursuant to section
105  of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
 815.   The  petitions  allege  11 violations of the Secretary's
mandatory  health  and safety standards  and  seek  penalties  of
$904.00.  A hearing  was  held  in  Rutland,  Vermont.   For  the
reasons  set  forth  below,  I  vacate four citations, modify and
affirm two citations, affirm the  five  remaining  citations  and
assess a penalty of $470.00.

                            Background

     The  Vermont  Unfading  Green  Slate  Company  operates  the
Blissville Quarry and Mill in Rutland  County,  Vermont.   On  
January 19, 2000, MSHA Inspector Bret Budd and MSHA Inspector-
trainee  Robert Tango arrived at the Blissville  Mill  to conduct 
a required semi-annual  inspection. They contacted Shawn Camara, 
the supervisor at the mill, to have someone accompany them on the 
inspection.  Camara  said that he was  busy  and  requested  that 
the inspection be conducted at  a later date. When the inspectors 
informed him that that could not be done, he told them to conduct  
the  inspection without him and if they found any violations the 
three of them could go over them when Camara was free.

     It was apparent from the testimony  at the hearing that once
the  inspectors  began  showing  the violations  to  Mr.  Camara,
relations  between  the  parties  became  contentious.   It  also
appears  that  both  sides overreacted.   The  inspectors  issued
numerous citations that  day.   Eleven  of them were contested at
the hearing and will be discussed in order.

             Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Citation No. 7720767

     This citation alleges a violation of  section  56.4201(a)(2)
of the regulations, 30 C.F.R.  56.4201(a)(2), because:

               The  12  month maintenance inspection of
          the fire extinguisher  located  in the garage
          building  adjacent to the entrance  door  and
          mounted near the electrical switch panels was
          not done.   The  inspection  is to assure the
          proper   function  of  the  extinguisher   if
          needed.  The last dated annual inspection was
          done in 1997.[1]

(Govt. Ex. 1.)  Section 56.4201(a)(2) requires that:

          (a) Firefighting equipment shall be inspected
          according to the following schedules:

          . . . .

             (2) At least  once  every  twelve  months,
          maintenance   checks   shall   be   made   of
          mechanical parts, the amount and condition of
          extinguishing  agent  and  expellant, and the
          condition of the hose, nozzle,  and vessel to
          determine  that  the fire extinguishers  will
          operate effectively.

     There is no dispute that  the  fire extinguisher in question
was found sitting, not "mounted," on  top  of some panel boxes by
the garage door.  Nor is there any dispute that  the extinguisher
had not been inspected within the past twelve months.  Mr. Camara
testified that it had been discovered the day before,  noted that
it  needed  to be inspected, and had been placed were it was  for
one of the men to take to be inspected.

     In view  of  the  fact  that the evidence indicates that the
rest of the company's fire extinguishers  were properly "mounted"
and had been inspected, I conclude that the  fire extinguisher in
question had been removed from use so that it  could  be taken to
be  inspected.   Since  the  company appears to have been in  the
process  of complying with the  regulation,  I  will  vacate  the
citation.

Citation No. 7720768

     This  citation  charges  a violation of section 56.17001, 30
C.F.R.  56.17001, because:  "An  area in the garage, adjacent to
the entrance door, consisting of electrical  switch panels, first
aid kit, and other equipment had insufficient  lighting.   Proper
lighting  is  necessary  for  a  safe work area."  (Govt. Ex. 2.)
Section  56.17001  adjures  that:   "Illumination  sufficient  to
provide safe working conditions shall  be  provided in and on all
surface  structures, paths, walkways, stairways,  switch  panels,
loading and dumping sites, and work areas."

     The  evidence   on  this  citation  is  that  there  was  no
artificial lighting provided  in  the area at all, the only light
being natural light that came in through  the  garage  door.  The
inspector  testified  that the switch boxes were hard to see  and
that  the area got darker  as  one  went  into  it.   Mr.  Camara
testified that he did not have any trouble seeing in the area.

     The  regulation  specifically  provides that "switch panels"
must be sufficiently illuminated.  The evidence is that there was
no artificial lighting at all in the  area  and  that the natural
lighting  was meager.  Accordingly, I conclude that  the  company
violated this regulation.

Citation No. 7720769

     This citation  asserts  a  violation of section 56.12008, 30
C.F.R.  56.12008, because:  "The  insulated wires providing 180V
power  to the trimmer in the garage building  were  not  properly
bushed where  the[y] pass through the switch box.  This condition
is 5 feet above ground level located at the main electrical panel
area adjacent to  the  entrance door.  This exposes a person to a
possible  shock  hazard."    (Govt.  Ex.  3.)   Section  56.12008
provides, in pertinent part, that:  "Power wires and cables shall
be insulated adequately where they pass into or out of electrical
compartments. . . . When insulated wires, other than cables, pass
through metal frames, the holes  shall  be  substantially  bushed
with insulated bushings."

     The  inspector  testified  that a wire that he believed went
from an electrical box to a trimming machine was not bushed where
it came out of the electrical box.  Mr. Camara testified that the
wire in question had at one time  gone  to  a push table, but now
did  not go anywhere.  He said that the fuses  had  been  removed
from the  electrical  box  and  the wire coming out of it was not
energized.  He further related that the trimmer was operated from
a plug on the wall by the trimmer.   He agreed, however, that the
wire was not bushed.

     Based on this evidence, I find that  the  electrical box and
wire  were  not  being  used, and could not be used.   Since  the
system was inoperable, I  conclude  that  the  Respondent did not
violate this regulation and will vacate the citation.

Citation No. 7720770

     This  citation alleges a violation of section  56.12034,  30
C.F.R.  56.12034,  in  that:   "Two florescent [sic] lights were
found to be unguarded in a light  fixture mounted approximately 3
feet  over a work bench in the garage  building.   This  location
presents  a possible cut, shock or burn hazard to a person if the
lights are  broken."   (Govt.  Ex. 4.)  Section 56.12034 provides
that:  "Portable extension lights, and other lights that by their
location present a shock or burn hazard, shall be guarded."

     The inspector testified:  "I don't know if it actually was a
workbench.  I just assumed since  they  had parts lying on top of
there, they do perform some kind of work  at  that  spot."   (Tr.
61.)  Mr. Camara testified that the area was not a workbench, but
a counter with a telephone on it and that he put the light up  so
he  could  see  to  use the telephone when the main lights in the
garage  were  out.   Clearly,  if  this  were  a  workbench,  the
unguarded light over it would present a shock or burn hazard.  On
the other hand, if this were just an area for using the telephone
then it would not appear to come within the regulation.

     Based on the evidence,  I find that the Secretary has failed
to prove that the light in question,  by its location presented a
shock  or  burn  hazard  and,  therefore,  had   to  be  guarded.
Accordingly, I conclude that the regulation was not  violated and
will vacate the citation.

Citation No. 7720771

     This  citation  ascribes a violation of section 56.14107(a),
30 C.F.R.  56.14107(a),  because:   "A  machine  guard  was  not
provided  to  prevent  accidental  contact  with the V-belt drive
system,  exposing  the pinch points that are about  5  feet  from
ground level, located  on  the  left side of the slate trimmer in
the  garage building and was not in  use  at  the  time  of  this
inspection,   but  is  used  daily."   (Govt.  Ex.  5.)   Section
56.14107(a) states  that:  "Moving machine parts shall be guarded
to  protect persons from  contacting  gears,  sprockets,  chains,
drive,  head,  tail,  and  takeup  pulleys,  flywheels, coupling,
shafts,  fan  blades  and  similar  moving parts that  can  cause
injury."

     The slate trimmer was standing on  a  stack of pallets about
five  feet high.  The trimmer blade is operated  by  an  electric
motor through a wheel and pulley system.  The inspector testified
that the  small  pulley  was located down by the motor about even
with the machine operator's  ankle and that the wheel was located
between the waist and shoulder  of  the operator.  He stated that
neither the pinch point on the wheel  nor  the pinch point on the
pulley were guarded to prevent the operator's  clothes  or  limbs
from becoming caught in them.

     The  evidence  presented  by  Mr.  Camara  on  this citation
addressed  only whether someone standing on the ground  would  be
susceptible  to the pinch points.  Since that was not at issue in
this citation, I find the evidence irrelevant.

     Hence, I  find  that  the  pinch  points  were  not properly
guarded and that the company violated the regulation.

     Significant and Substantial

     The  Inspector  found this violation to be "significant  and
substantial."  A "significant and substantial" (S&S) violation is
described in Section 104(d)(1) of the Act, 30 U.S.C.  814(d)(1),
as  a  violation  "of such  nature  as  could  significantly  and
substantially contribute  to  the  cause  and effect of a coal or
other  mine  safety or health hazard."  A violation  is  properly
designated S&S  "if,  based upon the particular facts surrounding
that violation, there exists  a  reasonable  likelihood  that the
hazard  contributed to will result in an injury or illness  of  a
reasonably  serious  nature."   Cement  Division, National Gypsum
Co., 3 FMSHRC 822, 825 (April 1981).

     In  Mathies Coal Co., 6 FMSHRC 1, 3-4  (January  1984),  the
Commission  set  out  four  criteria  that  have  to be met for a
violation to be S&S.  See also Buck Creek Coal, Inc.  v.  FMSHRC,
52  F.3d  133,  135  (7th  Cir.  1995);  Austin  Power,  Inc.  v.
Secretary,  861  F.2d  99,  103-04  (5th Cir. 1988), aff'g Austin
Power,  Inc.,  9  FMSHRC  2015,  2021  (December  1987)(approving
Mathies criteria).  Evaluation of the criteria  is  made in terms
of "continued normal mining operations."  U.S. Steel  Mining Co.,
Inc., 6 FMSHRC 1573, 1574 (July 1984).  The question of whether a
particular violation is significant and substantial must be based
on  the  particular  facts surrounding the violation.  Texasgulf,
Inc., 10 FMSHRC 498 (April 1988); Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co., 9
FMSHRC 2007 (December 1987).

     In order to prove  that  a  violation  is S&S, the Secretary
must  establish:   (1)  the  underlying  violation  of  a  safety
standard; (2) a distinct safety hazard, a  measure  of  danger to
safety,  contributed  to  by  the  violation;  (3)  a  reasonable
likelihood  that  the  hazard  contributed  to will result in  an
injury; and (4) a reasonable likelihood that  the  injury will be
of a reasonably serious nature.  Mathies, 6 FMSHRC at 3-4.

     In Citation No. 7720772, which will be taken up  next,  MSHA
charged  that  safe  access  was  not provided to the trimmer and
originally held that the violation  was  "S&S."  The citation was
subsequently modified to non-S&S because "the  amount of exposure
to  the  trimmer  is  minimal."   (Govt  Ex. 6A.)  The  inspector
testified  that the citation was modified because,  "this  was  a
temporary set-up,  that  really it wasn't being used every single
day.  So you know, for someone  to be up there would be just once
in a - whenever they needed that product, the exposure would be a
lesser degree than someone being there every single day operating
it."  (Tr. 81-81.)

     While it is not apparent how  this  rationale  fits into the
Mathies  criteria,  I  find  that if the failure to provide  safe
access to the trimmer was not  a  "significant  and  substantial"
violation of the regulations because the amount exposure  to  the
trimmer  was  minimal, then the failure to guard the pinch points
should also not  be  "significant  and  substantial" for the same
reason.  In this connection, it is apparent that the statement in
the citation that the trimmer "is used daily"  is  inaccurate.  I
will modify the citation accordingly.

Citation No. 7720772

     This  citation  alleges a violation of section 56.11001,  30
C.F.R.  56.11001, because:  "Safe access was not provided to the
working place on the slate  trimmer  located  in the garage.  The
worker must climb up and over wooden pallets approximately 5 feet
high  that  support the trimmer in order to access  the  trimming
work station."   (Govt  Ex.  6.)  Section 56.11001 requires that:
"Safe means of access shall be  provided  and  maintained  to all
working places."

     Inspector Budd testified that when the inspectors asked  Mr.
Camara  how the trimmer operator got up on the pallets to operate
the trimmer,  he  told  them  that  the  operator  climbed up the
pallets.  No steps, handholds or railings were provided  for  the
ascent.   Mr.  Camara  did not dispute, at the hearing, that this
was how the trimmer was accessed.

     Based on this, I find  that  a  safe means of access was not
provided  to  the  trimmer.  Accordingly,  I  conclude  that  the
company violated the regulation as alleged.

Citation No. 7720773

     This citation cites  a  violation  of  section  56.15004, 30
C.F.R.   56.15004, because:  "It was observed that the  operator
of the #2  slate  saw in the mill was not wearing eye protection.
This is an area of the mill where a hazard exists which can cause
injury to unprotected  eyes."   (Govt.  Ex. 7.)  Section 56.15004
provides that:  "All persons shall wear safety  glasses, goggles,
or face shields or other suitable protective devices  when  in or
around  an  area  of  a mine or plant where a hazard exists which
could cause injury to unprotected eyes."

     There is no dispute  that  the  sawyer  was  not wearing eye
protection.  The issue with this citation is whether  there was a
hazard  to  unprotected  eyes.   Inspector  Budd stated that  the
sawyer works at a control station with the saw  in  front of him.
The  slate is brought into the mill, placed between the  sawyer's
station  and  the  saw  and  positioned  for the cut.  The saw, a
circular saw about 28 inches in diameter,  has  a  half hood over
it,  and  cuts  down into the slate and moves toward the  sawyer.
Water sprays onto the saw and slate to keep the dust down.

     The inspector  testified that eye protection was needed from
chips coming from the  saw,  from slippage in adjusting the slate
and from pieces of slate being  thrown  into dumpsters behind the
sawyer.  Mr. Camara said that sawyers never  wear  safety glasses
and  that "[y]ou would have a better chance of your hand  getting
caught  in  that fan [in the courtroom] than something coming off
there."  (Tr. 179.)  In response to my question as to whether any
chips were caused by the sawing, he stated:  "How is a chip going
to - if you ever  looked  at it, what's a chip going to be - what
is going to be chipped of the block?" (Id.)

     Based on this evidence,  I  find that the sawyer should have
been  wearing eye protection.  Therefore,  I  conclude  that  the
company violated section 56.15004 in this instance.

     Significant and Substantial

     The  inspector  found  this violation to be "significant and
substantial."  However, I find  his  evidence on this issue to be
insufficient.   While  his  testimony  was   barely  adequate  to
establish  that  a  hazard existed, he did not describe  what  he
actually observed, speculating  only  as to what the hazard could
be.  Thus, there is no evidence that he  actually  observed chips
flying, how frequently that occurred, the proximity  of the chips
to  the  sawyer or any of the other hazards that he opined  could
occur.  I  find his speculation too tenuous to establish that the
violation was  "significant  and substantial" and will modify the
citation accordingly.

Citation No. 7720774

     A violation of section 56.12019,  30  C.F.R.   56.12019, is
charged  in  this citation, which relates that:  "In the  storage
shed, a tire,  cardboard boxes and wooden pallets were stacked in
front of the electrical  panel boxes.  Service areas must be kept
neat and orderly."  (Govt.  Ex.  8.)   Section  56.12019 requires
that:   "Where access is necessary, suitable clearance  shall  be
provided at stationary electrical equipment or switchgear."

     The inspector testified that he observed a Euclid truck size
tire, cardboard  boxes  and  pallets  which  prevented  access to
electrical  panel  boxes  located at the rear of the mill storage
shed.  Mr. Camara testified  with  regard  to  this citation:  "I
don't think there was a tire in that mill.  There might have been
a tire in that mill.  Was it near the electrical boxes?  It could
have  been,  I  don't  know.  I can't even argue this  citation."
(Tr. 183.)

     Based  on this evidence,  I  conclude  that  the  Respondent
violated the regulation as alleged.

Citation No. 7720775

     This citation  asserts  a  violation of section 56.13021, 30
C.F.R.  56.13021, in that:

               A   3/4  inch  inside   diameter,   high
          pressure air  hose  used to supply air to the
          jack hammer located in the slate packing shed
          was not provided with  safety chains or other
          suitable locking devices at the connection of
          the  jack hammer.  This presents  a  possible
          "whipping"  hazard  that could cause injuries
          from  an  uncontrollable   air  hose  if  the
          connections break.  The air  line was charged
          indicating the jackhammer has  currently been
          used.

(Govt. Exs. 9 & 9A.)[2]  Section 56.13021 stipulates that:

               Except  where  automatic shutoff  valves
          are  used, safety chains  or  other  suitable
          locking  devices shall be used at connections
          to machines  of  high-pressure  hose lines of
          3/4-inch  inside  diameter  or  larger,   and
          between  high-pressure hose lines of 3/4-inch
          inside diameter or larger, where a connection
          failure would create a hazard.

     Inspector Budd  testified  that the jack hammer was observed
lying in the door-way of the packing  shed.   While  no  one  was
operating  the jack hammer at that time, it appeared that the air
hose was pressurized  so that it could be operated.  Budd further
testified that activities  were being conducted at the mill which
would  have  necessitated  the  use  of  the  jack  hammer.   The
inspector stated that, "at the jack hammer connections there were
no safety pins and/or like a  whip  check  device, to prevent the
connection at the jack hammer to the hose from  coming  apart and
causing a whipping action of a pressurized air hose."  (Tr. 104.)

     Based on this evidence, I conclude that the company  was  in
violation of section 56.13021.

     Significant and Substantial

     This  violation  is  alleged  to  have been "significant and
substantial."  Inspector Budd testified  that  the jack hammer is
used to break up pieces of slate which are too large to take into
the mill.  Therefore, although the jack hammer was  not  actually
being  used  at  the  time  the  citation  was  issued,  it could
reasonably be expected to be used during continued normal milling
operations.   Accordingly,  I  conclude  that  it  was reasonably
likely  that  someone  would  use  the  jack  hammer,  that   the
pressurized  air  hose  would  become disconnected resulting in a
whipping  action  which  would result  in  a  reasonably  serious
injury.  Thus, I conclude that the violation was "significant and
substantial."

Citation No. 7720776

     This  citation  charges  a  violation  of  section  56.12008
because:  "Exposed and  energized  110V  wires  with  uninsulated
[sic]  ends  were  observed extending from the roof of the  slate
packing shed, to approximately 8 feet from the floor level.  This
presents a possible  shock  hazard to a person."  (Govt. Ex. 10.)
For  the  purposes of this violation,  the  regulation  specifies
that:  "Power  wires  and  cables  shall  be insulated adequately
where they pass into or out of electrical compartments."[3]

     The  inspector  testified  that  the wires  came  out  of  a
junction box on the ceiling, about 15 feet off of the ground, and
that the ends of the wires, which were  about  eight  feet off of
the ground, were not insulated.  The only issue contested  at the
hearing was whether the wires were electrified or not.

     Since there is no evidence concerning whether the wires were
adequately  insulated  where  they  passed  into  or  out  of the
junction box, it is not necessary to determine whether or not the
wires  were "live."  Section 56.12008 clearly does not cover  the
facts alleged in this citation.  Consequently, I will vacate it.

Citation No. 7720778

     This final citation alleges a violation of section 56.18010,
30 C.F.R.    56.18010,  because:   "A  person was not trained in
first aid, to be able to provide medical  assistance in the event
a person is injured at the mine site.  At least  one  such person
is  to  be  available  on  all shifts."  (Govt. Ex. 11.)  Section
56.18010  requires that:  "An  individual  capable  of  providing
first aid shall be available on all shifts.  The individual shall
be currently  trained  and  have  the  skills  to perform patient
assessment  and  artificial  respiration;  control bleeding;  and
treat shock, wounds, burns, and musculo-skeletal injuries."

     The evidence on this citation is undisputed.  The individual
capable  of providing first aid had been sent  to  another  site.
Mr. Camara  argued  that this did not make any difference because
the medical center was  only  1.3  miles  from  the  mill.  That,
however,  misses the point.  The purpose of first aid is  exactly
what it says  -  "first"  aid,  performed  before trained medical
personnel  arrive.  Accordingly, I conclude that  the  Respondent
violated section 56.18010.

                     Civil Penalty Assessment

     The Secretary  has  proposed  penalties  of  $684.00 for the
seven violations being affirmed in this decision.  However, it is
the   judge's   independent   responsibility  to  determine   the
appropriate amount of penalty in  accordance with the six penalty
criteria  set out in section 110(i)  of  the  Act,  30  U.S.C.  
820(i).  Sellersburg  Stone  Co.  v.  FMSHRC, 736 F.2d 1147, 1151
(7th Cir. 1984); Wallace Brothers, Inc.,  18  FMSHRC  481, 483-84
(April 1996).

     In  connection  with  the  penalty  criteria,  the  Assessed
Violation  History  Report  shows that the Blissville Quarry  and
Mill  was  assessed  only  11 violations  during  the  two  years
preceding these violations.   (Govt.  Ex.  12.)  Based on this, I
find that the operator has a relatively good  history of previous
violations.

     The information furnished by the Secretary  in the pleadings
indicates  that  the  Blissville  Quarry  and  Mill  is  a  small
operation and the slate company is a small company.  Accordingly,
I will consider that this is a small business in arriving  at  an
appropriate penalty.

     The inspector found the operator's negligence with regard to
these  violations  to be either "low" or "moderate."  I concur in
those findings.

     The Respondent  did  not  claim that payment of the assessed
penalties in these cases would adversely  affect  its  ability to
remain  in  business.   Nor  is  there any evidence in the record
which would support such a claim.   Therefore,  I  find  that the
company's ability to continue in business will not be affected by
the penalties assessed.

     With  the  exception  of  Citation  No. 7720775, none of the
violations in these cases were serious violations.   I  find that
the violation in Citation No. 7720775 was moderately serious.

     The Secretary did not present any evidence that the operator
failed  to demonstrate good faith in attempting to achieve  rapid
compliance  after notification of the violations.  Accordingly, I
find that the Respondent did demonstrate good faith.

     Taking all of these factors into consideration, I assess the
following penalties for the violations in these cases:

                    Docket No. YORK 2000-65-M

          Citation No.                       Penalty

             7720767                         Vacated
             7720768                         $ 55.00
             7720770                         Vacated
             7720774                         $ 55.00
             7720776                         Vacated

                    Docket No. YORK 2000-66-M

             7720769                         Vacated
             7720771                         $ 55.00
             7720772                         $ 55.00
             7720773                         $ 55.00
             7720775                         $140.00
             7720778                         $ 55.00
                                       Total $470.00

**FOOTNOTES**

     [1]: The  citation  was subsequently modified to replace the
words "and mounted near" with  the  words  "standing  on top of."
(Govt. Ex. 1A.)

     [2]: The narrative is the language of the citation  after it
was modified.  (Govt. Ex. 9A.)

     [3]:   For  the  full  text  of  section  56.12008  see  the
discussion under Citation No. 7720769, supra.
                              Order

     Citation  Nos.  7720767,  7720770  and 7720776 in Docket No.
YORK 2000-65-M and Citation No. 7720769 in  Docket No. YORK 2000-
66-M are VACATED.  Citation Nos. 7720771 and  7720773  in  Docket
No. YORK 2000-66-M are MODIFIED by deleting the "significant  and
substantial" designations and are AFFIRMED as modified.  Citation
Nos.  7720768  and  7720774  in  Docket  No.  YORK  2000-65-M and
Citation  Nos.  7720772, 7720775 and 7720778 in Docket  No.  YORK
2000-66-M are AFFIRMED.

     Vermont Unfading  Green Slate Co., Inc., is ORDERED TO PAY a
civil penalty of $470.00  within  30  days  of  the  date of this
decision.

                              T. Todd Hodgdon
                              Administrative Law Judge

Distribution: (Certified Mail)

David  L.  Baskin, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department
of Labor, E-375, John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg., Boston, MA  02203

Shawn Camara, Vermont Unfading Green Slate Company, P.O. Box 210,
Poultney, VT  05764

nt