<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
		<title>Document</title>
		<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8"/>
		<style type="text/css">
 p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } 
 p { widows:0; orphans:0; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; widows:0; orphans:0; margin-top:0; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; color:WindowText; } 
 p { font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman;  }  p.style_Normal { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_Normal span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 p.style_Heading1 { outline-width:1; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:5.667px; text-align:center; margin-left:.667px; text-indent:-.018cm; margin-right:4.467px; font-size:13pt; font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000; } 
.style_Heading1 span { font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000; } 
 span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } 
 table.style_TableNormal { } 
 span.style_Heading1Char { font-size:13pt; font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000; } 
.style_Heading1Char span { font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000; } 
 p.style_NormalWeb { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-top:6.667px; margin-bottom:6.667px; widows:2; orphans:2; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_NormalWeb span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 p.style_FootnoteText { font-size:10pt; } 
.style_FootnoteText span { } 
 span.style_FootnoteTextChar { font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_FootnoteTextChar span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 span.style_FootnoteReference { position:relative; top:0pt;position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
.style_FootnoteReference span { position:relative; top:0pt;position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
 span.style_Emphasis { font-style:italic; } 
.style_Emphasis span { font-style:italic; } 
 p.style_Header { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; } 
 span.style_HeaderChar { font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_HeaderChar span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 p.style_Footer { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; } 
 span.style_FooterChar { font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_FooterChar span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 span.style_apple-style-span { } 
 span.style_apple-converted-space { } 
 p.style_BalloonText { font-size:8pt; font-family:Tahoma; } 
.style_BalloonText span { font-family:Tahoma; } 
 span.style_BalloonTextChar { font-size:8pt; font-family:Tahoma; } 
.style_BalloonTextChar span { font-family:Tahoma; } 
 span.style_Hyperlink { color:#0563C1; text-decoration:underline ;} 
.style_Hyperlink span { color:#0563C1; text-decoration:underline ;} 
 p.style_ListParagraph { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_ListParagraph span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 span.style_Strong { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_Strong span { font-weight:bold; } 
 span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } 
 p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } 
 span.BulletSymbol { font-family:'Symbol'; } 
 body { margin-left:96px;margin-top:96px;margin-bottom:96px;margin-right:96px;} 
div.basic { width:16.51cm;height:22.86cm;} 
 p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } 
</style>
		<script type="text/javascript">
							var useragent = navigator.userAgent;
							var navigatorname;
							if (useragent.indexOf('MSIE')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="MSIE";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Gecko')!= -1)
							{
							if (useragent.indexOf('Chrome')!= -1)
							navigatorname="Google Chrome";
							else
							navigatorname="Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Mozilla')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="old Netscape or Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Opera')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="Opera";
							}
							
							function symbol(code1,code2)
							{
							if (navigatorname == 'MSIE')
								document.write(code1);
							else
								document.write(code2);
							}
							</script>
	</head>
	<body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="basic"><div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; "></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; "></span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; ">United States of America</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; ">1924 Building - Room 2R90, 100 Alabama Street, S.W.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; ">Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<table style="border-collapse:collapse; width:16.32cm; align:left; margin-left:.173cm; margin-bottom:0cm">
				<tr style="margin:0;border:0;padding:0;visibility:hidden;">
					<th style="width:310.8px;"/>
					<th style="width:306px;"/>
				</tr>
				<tr style="height:.958cm; ">
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-bottom:0cm; padding-left:.191cm; padding-right:.191cm; padding-top:0cm; background-color:; border-right:solid .018cm #000000; border-top:solid .026cm #000000; width:8.223cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Secretary of Labor,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-bottom:0cm; padding-left:.191cm; padding-right:.191cm; padding-top:0cm; background-color:; border-left:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.096cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="line-height:1.5; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr style="height:1.08cm; ">
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-bottom:0cm; padding-left:.191cm; padding-right:.191cm; padding-top:0cm; background-color:; border-right:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.223cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="line-height:1.5; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">
								</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Complainant,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-bottom:0cm; padding-left:.191cm; padding-right:.191cm; padding-top:0cm; background-color:; border-left:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.096cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="line-height:1.5; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr style="height:.921cm; ">
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-bottom:0cm; padding-left:.191cm; padding-right:.191cm; padding-top:0cm; background-color:; border-right:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.223cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="line-height:1.5; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">
								</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
									</span>v.</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-bottom:0cm; padding-left:.191cm; padding-right:.191cm; padding-top:0cm; background-color:; border-left:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.096cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">OSHRC Docket No.<span>
									</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">21-</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">0718</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
									</span></span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr style="height:1.27cm; ">
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-bottom:0cm; padding-left:.191cm; padding-right:.191cm; padding-top:0cm; background-color:; border-right:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.223cm;">
						<div>
							<p><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
									</span>Partners, LP, dba Home Rubber</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Company</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">,</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-bottom:0cm; padding-left:.191cm; padding-right:.191cm; padding-top:0cm; background-color:; border-left:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.096cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="line-height:1.5; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr style="height:.984cm; ">
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-bottom:0cm; padding-left:.191cm; padding-right:.191cm; padding-top:0cm; background-color:; border-right:solid .018cm #000000; border-bottom:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.223cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="line-height:1.5; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">
								</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Respondent.</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-bottom:0cm; padding-left:.191cm; padding-right:.191cm; padding-top:0cm; background-color:; border-left:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.096cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="line-height:1.5; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Appearances:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Terrence Duncan, Esq.</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, New York, NY<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:10.667px; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>For Complainant</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Randall C. Schauer, Esq.</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Fox Rothschild LLP, Exton, PA</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:10.667px; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>For Respondent</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">BEFORE:</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Administrative Law Judge<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Sharon D. Calhoun</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Heading1 style_Heading1 " style="outline-width:1; " xmlns:text="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0" text:is-list-header="true"><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:13pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">
				</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:13pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">DECISION AND ORDER</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:13pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>Partners, LP, d/b/a Home Rubber Co. (Denaka),<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; "><a name="ftnref1" href="#ftn1">1</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>manufactures rubber products, such as hoses and belts, at its Trenton, New Jersey, facility.<span>
					</span>On December 18, 2020, an employee was adjusting blade depth on an operating Slitter mill when he lost his balance, and his shirt sleeve caught in the mill, pulling his arm into the mill, and resulting in its amputation.<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>notified the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the accident.<span>
					</span>OSHA assigned Compliance Safety and Health Officer (CSHO) Tracy Townsend to inspect the worksite and, based on her investigation, issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty (Citation) to<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>on June 14, 2021, alleging serious and willful<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678 (Act)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>timely contested the Citation on July 2, 2021.<span>
					</span>T<span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">he Secretary filed a Complaint on September 2, 2021, and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>filed its Answer on September 23, 2021</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Secretary filed an Unopposed Motion to Amend the Complaint and Citation on November 7, 2022, to withdraw Citation 1, Item 1, a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.219(c)(2)(</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">i</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">), alleging<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>did not guard the Slitter mill to protect the operator from being caught in the rotating shaft while utilizing the on/off buttons.</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; "><a name="ftnref2" href="#ftn2">2</a></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Am.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Compl</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">., 6.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Secretary also amended Citation 2, Item 1, which alleges a willful-serious violation of the machine guarding standard at § 1910.212(a)(1), to include the withdrawn serious allegation</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Citation 2, Item 1, also alleges<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>did not guard the Slitter mill’s rotating parts while employees adjusted material on spools and adjusted the depth of knife blades</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">In Citation 2, Items 2, and 3, the Secretary alleges<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>violated § 1910.1030(f)(2)(1), by failing to timely offer the Hepatitis B vaccination series to first aid responders, and § 1910.1030(g)(2)(</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">i</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">), for failing to provide an occupational exposure training program to employees assigned to conduct cleanup operations</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">In the Amended Complaint, the Secretary proposed a penalty of $247,705 reduced to $236,000 in the post-hearing brief</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Am.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Compl</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">., 11; Sec’y Post-</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Hr’g</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Br. at 25.)</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">For the reasons set forth herein, the Court affirms Citation 2, Items 1 and 2, and recharacterizes them as serious, affirms Citation 2, Item 3, as willful, and assesses a total penalty of $87,963.10.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; ">
					<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">JURISDICTION AND COVERAGE</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Court held a hearing on December 1 and 2, 2022, in Trenton, New Jersey.<span>
					</span>Both parties filed post-hearing briefs on February 13, 2023.<span>
					</span>The parties stipulated Commission jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">section 10(c) of the Act</span>.<span>
					</span>(Exh. J-1, Facts 1; Law 1.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The parties also stipulated<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>was engaged in business affecting commerce under<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">§</span><span><span></span>
					</span>3(3) and<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">§<span>
						</span></span>3(5) of the Act, because materials and supplies used by<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>originated outside New Jersey and products manufactured by<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>were shipped outside New Jersey.<span>
					</span>(Exh. J-1, Facts 3 and 4; Law 2.)<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Therefore, the Court finds it has jurisdiction under § 10(c) of the Act and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is a covered employer under § 3(5) of the Act.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">STIPULATIONS</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:13.333px; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The parties submitted the following stipulations as a joint exhibit:</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has jurisdiction over this matter.</p>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; margin-right:48px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">2.</span>Respondent,<span>
				</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
				</span>partners dba Home Rubber Co., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey and doing business in the State of New Jersey, maintaining its principal office and place of business at 31 Woolverton Road, Trenton, New Jersey, 08605,<span>
				</span>is and at all times<span><span></span>
				</span>hereinafter mentioned was engaged in the manufacture of Rubber (sic) products.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">3.</span>The materials and supplies used and / or manufactured by Respondent corporation originated and / or were shipped from outside the State of New Jersey.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">4.</span>Respondent for all relevant times, engaged in business affecting commerce by handling goods and or materials which had been moved in commerce.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">5.</span>Beginning on or about December 18, 2021, OSHA’s Marlton, New Jersey field office began an investigation of Respondent’s manufacturing facility at the above address.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">6.</span>The investigation began after Respondent reported the occurrence of an incident at its facility in which one of its employees (sic) left hand and arm were amputated while he was working on its Slitter / Rewind machine.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">7.</span>At the conclusion of its investigation, OSHA issued the citations and penalties that are at issue in this case.<span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">8.</span>Respondent timely contested the citations and penalties.</p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Exh</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">. J-1.)</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; margin-left:-48px; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">BACKGROUND</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>manufactures mechanical and industrial rubber products, such as hoses, belts, tubes, gaskets, and sheet rubber, in small volumes upon request, rather than mass-producing items.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 258-59.) After<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>receives a design order from a customer, employees begin the manufacturing process by mixing and compounding rubber specifically for that order.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 258-59.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Employees then use<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>mills and machines to create the finished product. (Tr. 259.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Its products, which range from tiny rubber gaskets to hoses which convey oil from a ship to shore, are “in virtually every industry in the U[nited] S[tates] and Canada.” (Tr. 259.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka, at the time of the accident and currently, employees approximately 35 employees.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 260.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>mill room is roughly 120 feet long by 50 to 60 feet wide and contains a variety of colanders, hoists, vents, and mills, including a Slitter mill.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref3" href="#ftn3">3</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 262;<span>
					</span>Exh. R-32.)<span><span></span>
					</span>To operate the Slitter mill, a roll of material starts at a cardboard core and is fed underneath a small roller called a counter, then over the steel roller at the top of the mill.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 278.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The bar above the steel roller holds knife blades in place, which can be spaced and removed depending on a specific job’s requirements.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 278;<span>
					</span>Exh. C-2 at 7.)<span><span></span>
					</span>After the blades cut the fabric, and depending upon the job, a similar roll on the other side of the Slitter mill gathers the cut material on the uptake roll.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 278-79.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">On the rare occasion when the blades stopped cutting correctly (<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">i.e.</span>, not deep enough to cut through the fabric) or became misaligned, employees, prior to the accident, would sometimes adjust them while the Slitter mill was still operating.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 134-35, 137-38, 141, 240, 247;<span>
					</span>Exh. 2 at 3.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Employees also adjusted the rolls of material by hitting them with tubes while the Slitter mill was operating.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 137-38, 144-45, 159, 252.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Although the Slitter mill could be turned off to make adjustments, by doing so, “the rolls would lose alignment” making it “harder to do the job.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 142.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Following the accident, employees do not adjust the blades while the Slitter mill is operating.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 229, 247-48.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Red buttons located on both the front and the back of the Slitter mill allow employees to shut it off, either during an emergency or normal operations. (Exhs. R-2, R-5, C-2 at 7; Tr. 280.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">On December 18, 2020,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>president Richard<span>
					</span>Balka<span><span></span>
					</span>directed employees S.H. and M.L. to complete a final product run after they had completed inventory.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 133.)<span><span></span>
					</span>M.L. mixed the rubber and S.H. cut it into 4-inch strips on the Slitter mill.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 133;<span>
					</span>Exh. C-2 at 3.)<span><span></span>
					</span>S.H., who was standing in front of the mill to operate it, noticed one of the Slitter’s blades was not correctly cutting rubber.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 133-34.)<span><span></span>
					</span>He stepped closer to the mill to reach up with his right hand to tap the top of the blade to put it into place.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref4" href="#ftn4">4</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 134;<span>
					</span>Exh. C-2 at 3.)<span><span></span>
					</span>As he was doing so, he lost his balance and his left shirt sleeve “got stuck in the roll,”<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref5" href="#ftn5">5</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>which was collecting the cut material and is approximately 28 inches off the floor.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 134;<span>
					</span>Exh. C-2 at 3.)<span><span></span>
					</span>S.H. was unable to extract his<span>
					</span>arm from the rotating spool, which eventually pulled his arm off.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-2 at 3.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">M.L. did not see the accident, but when he came back to the Slitter, he saw S.H. on the ground under the mill with his left arm severed.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref6" href="#ftn6">6</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 244, 282;<span>
					</span>Exh. C-2 at 7-8.)<span><span></span>
					</span>S.H.’s arm and hand were found lodged in the roll of product, which had to be cut away to remove them.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-2 at 7.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>employee S.F. alerted Balka of the accident and then called 911.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 281-82.)<span><span></span>
					</span>While S.F. waited for the ambulance, M.L. and Balka attended to S.H., covering him up with a blanket and then assisting the emergency medical technicians.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 282.) M.L. and<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>employee P.R. then retrieved trash bags and Balka retrieved bleach.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 282.)<span><span></span>
					</span>They used rags and bleach to clean up the accident area and disposed of the rags, S.H.’s clothing, and their nitrile gloves into a trash bag for appropriate disposal.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 283.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>Controller Stacey Hepner notified OSHA’s Marlton, New Jersey, office and the company’s worker’s compensation carrier later that day.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 207.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Denaka, through third-party Capital Health, had trained some employees on bloodborne pathogens, as well as first aid and CPR, and it had used American Heart Association student workbooks as part of the training program.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 87, 94, 117, 160;<span>
					</span>Exhs. C-5 (first aid), C-8 at 1-2, 4 (pathogens).)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>also had trained employees on first aid and CPR in 2017, which discussed the use of PPE, handwashing, and notification procedures in the event of an accident, however this training was not site specific.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-4 at 3.) Emails sent by Hepner to OSHA provide the company’s designated first aid responders included, among others, Balka and M.L.<span>
					</span>(Exhs. C-3 at 6, C-9 at 4; Tr. 210-11.)<span><span></span>
					</span>A designated first aid responder is “[s]omebody<span><span></span>
					</span>who would respond in the event of first aid or cleanup of blood from equipment.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 91.)<span><span></span>
					</span>However, Balka testified at trial<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not have a designated team or group of employees who would be expected to clean up blood.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 302-03.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>also did not offer the Hepatitis B vaccination to employees who had completed bloodborne pathogen training or to its designated first aid responders before the accident and did not have declination forms on file.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; "><a name="ftnref7" href="#ftn7">7</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 47-48;<span>
					</span>Exhs. C-3 at 4, 7, 9-11, C-9 at 4.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Following the 2020 accident, it offered the Hepatitis B vaccine to all three employees involved in<span>
					</span>the cleanup.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 283.)<span><span></span>
					</span>P.R. and Balka signed waivers declining the shots the Monday following the Friday accident, and Hepner called the clinic to arrange the vaccination for M.L., who received his first dose on December 23, 2020, and eventually completed his series.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 208, 283;<span>
					</span>Exh. C-3 at 2;<span>
					</span>Exh. R-30.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Regarding<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>bloodborne pathogen program, Hepner provided to OSHA in an email following the accident, the company “do[es] not have a written program for Bloodborne pathogens.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Exh. C-8 at 3.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Balka also testified the company had no formal pathogen plan or policy prior to 2020.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 306-07.)<span><span></span>
					</span>However, the company had previously provided OSHA with a bloodborne pathogens policy, which contained portions of a National Safety Council workbook, as proof of abatement following a 2016 inspection and investigation.<span>
					</span>(Exhs. C-7 (Denaka), C-6 (NSC); Tr. 64-65, 307.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">2020 Accident Inspection and Safety History</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">CSHO Townsend conducted a workplace inspection on Monday, December 21, 2020, and continued her investigation over the next several months.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; "><a name="ftnref8" href="#ftn8">8</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 95.)<span><span></span>
					</span>As part of her investigation, CSHO Townsend received information on machine guarding, vaccinations, training, and the company’s bloodborne pathogens program from Hepner.<span>
					</span>She also reviewed<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>inspection and violation history, which included citations in 2010, 2012, and 2016.<span>
					</span>CSHO Townsend consulted her supervisor, Assistant Area Director Marie Lord, who had inspected the<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>facility following the 2016 accident.<span>
					</span>CSHO Townsend also reviewed the case file regarding the 2016 accident and resulting citation.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 95-97, 167-68.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The 2016 accident involved a<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>employee’s hand being pulled into the nip point while he was feeding raw material onto the Chrome mill’s steel rollers.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Home Rubber Co., LP</span>, No. 17-0138, 2021 WL 3929735, at *1 (OSHRC Aug. 26, 2021).<span>
					</span>Although he freed his hand by reversing the rollers, four of his fingers were later surgically amputated at a hospital.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">.<span>
						</span></span>Following the 2016 accident, two<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>employees used rags and bleach to clean up blood from the area.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; "><a name="ftnref9" href="#ftn9">9</a></span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">AAD Lord had observed the Slitter mill in 2016, however she did not ask<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>to operate the mill and did not see it actually operating.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; "><a name="ftnref10" href="#ftn10">10</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 176-77, 294-95.)<span><span></span>
					</span>AAD Lord also reviewed a 1999 audit inspection report for<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>facility, which<span>
					</span>Balka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>former partner had obtained through a voluntary OSHA audit program.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-11; Tr. 274-75.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Among other things, the third-party consultants conducting the audit observed that “Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>procedures for machinery guarding appear to be inconsistently implemented” because “guards are in place on some fixed<span>
					</span>equipment but<span><span></span>
					</span>missing on others.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Exh. C-11 at 8.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The consultants recommended<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>develop “a formal program for machinery guarding” based upon the “requirements in 29 CFR Subpart O, 1910.211 through 1910.219.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span>According to<span>
					</span>Balka,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>added some guarding to machines throughout the facility following the audit.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 276.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">OSHA also inspected<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>facility in 2010 and 2012 and issued citations which alleged machine guarding violations.<span>
					</span>(Exh. R-36.)<span><span></span>
					</span>In 2010,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>and OSHA settled a serious citation alleging violations of § 1910.219(e)(3)(i) (requiring employers to enclose vertical and inclined belts with a conforming guard), § 1910.219(f)(1) (requiring employers to guard gears according to a method set forth in the standard), and § 1910.303(g)(1)(ii) (requiring employers to guard normally enclosed live electrical parts that are exposed for inspection or servicing, if in a passageway or general open space) for a total penalty of $1,463.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span>at 1.)<span><span></span>
					</span>In 2012, they settled a serious citation alleging violations of § 1910.212(a)(1) (requiring machine guarding to protect the operator and employees from hazards) and § 1910.303(g)(1) (requiring employers to provide and maintain sufficient access and working space for safe operation and maintenance of electric<span>
					</span>equipment) for a total penalty of $3,108.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span>at 2.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>also settled without penalty an other-than-serious citation alleging a violation of § 1910.146(c)(2), which requires employers to inform employees of the existence, location, and danger posed by permit spaces.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span>at 1.)<span><span></span>
					</span>At trial, Balka testified that the 2012 inspection and citation did not involve the mills involved in the 2016 citation or the Slitter in the current citation.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 273.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">OSHA primarily based its decision to issue a willful citation in the instant matter on these previous citations and the factual circumstances surrounding the 2016 accident.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 97, 192-93.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">Credibility and Conflicting Testimony</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Court credits the testimony of CSHO Townsend</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Her recollection of events and conversations that occurred during her investigation was consistent with her investigation summary, OSHA violation worksheets, as well as email exchanges with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employees</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Exhs</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">. C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-8, C-9.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Similarly, the Court credits the testimony of AAD Lord regarding her involvement in the 2020 accident inspection and citation</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Slitter Machine Operation</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Regarding the machine guarding citation, S.H. testified he did not often tap the blades to adjust them while the Slitter mill was running</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 141.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">In his deposition, he testified either Debra Steele, who was the production manager at the time of the accident, or Balka saw him hitting the blade while the mill was moving</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 136.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">S.H. also testified he observed M.L. hitting the blade while the mill was operating</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 137.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">M.L. testified he had observed employees adjusting the blades with a mallet while the mill was operating</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 240.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">He also testified he had tapped down the blades while the mill was running</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 247.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">He later contradicted himself and said he had only seen others tap down the blades while the mill was running</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 249-50.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">M.L. testified the Slitter mill must now be turned off to adjust the blades</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 241, 247-48.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">However, at his deposition, he stated the blades could not be adjusted while the mill is moving</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 242-43.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employee W.C., who began working for the company in February 2020, testified he did not adjust blades at the top of the Slitter mill while it was operating</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 229-30.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Steele, who left the company in April 2022, testified she observed employees operating the Slitter mill but did not see them adjust blades while the mill was operating</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 159.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">She observed operators occasionally use a mallet or similar tool to realign material coming through the roll</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 159.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Balka testified he had never seen or been informed of employees adjusting the blades while the Slitter mill was operating</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 285-86.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Based upon the above testimony, the Court credits the injured employee S.H.’s testimony he adjusted the blades while the Slitter mill was operating and observed others doing so</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">That managers may not have observed Slitter mill operators adjusting the blades while the mill was operating, and that a current employee does not make these adjustments, do not establish employees did not previously engage in this behavior, including at the time of the 2020 accident</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Testimony from employees and managers establishes the Slitter mill was rarely used, or at least used less frequently than other mills</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 136, 141, 224.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Court concludes employees, prior to the 2020 accident, occasionally adjusted and tapped down the Slitter mill’s blades while it was operating</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Vaccine Testimony</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Turning to the vaccine citation, Lord testified that during the 2016 closing conference she, Balka, and Hepner “discussed provision of the Hepatitis B vaccination to any employees who were designated as either first aid responders or to clean up blood or bodily fluids after an exposure event.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 173.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">In her testimony during the Commission proceeding for the 2016 citations, she said the vaccine violation “was issued because a Hepatitis B vaccination was not provided, was not offered and/or provided to employees required to clean up blood.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 187.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Hepner testified, based upon her participation in the 2016 opening and closing conferences and communications with OSHA, that it was her understanding the vaccine “was [to be offered] at the time of an accident.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 206, 209.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Balka similarly testified it was not his understanding from the 2016 citation and conferences the vaccine should be offered to someone who had been trained in bloodborne pathogens or designated a first aid responder</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 301-02.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Based upon this conflicting testimony and the fact these conferences took place six years prior to the trial in the current case, the Court declines to make a finding on whether these discussions were limited to offering the vaccine following a potential exposure event or included the requirement to offer the vaccine within ten days to employees who had received bloodborne pathogen training</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">As discussed below, the Court finds although OSHA’s basis for the previous citation was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka’s</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>failure to offer the vaccine to employees within ten days of cleaning up after the May 6, 2016, accident, OSHA made no affirmative representations to the company that the other part of the standard’s provision, directing employers to offer the vaccine with ten days of initial assignment, did not apply.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Bloodborne Pathogens Response and Training<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Steele<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">testified that</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>an outside company trained a group of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employees on first aid and bloodborne pathogens exposure</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 160.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">W.C. testified he had safety, CPR, first aid, bloodborne pathogens, mill rescue, and forklift<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">training</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>employee and that the CPR and first aid training had been in January 2021 or 2022</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 230-31.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">M.L. testified he had received first aid training prior to the 2020 accident, which was meant to allow him to respond to accidents involving blood at the facility</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 252-53.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Balka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“would not let someone who was not trained clean bodily fluids,” but the company in 2016 had “no designated team [and] no first responders.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 302.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Similarly, he testified the company did not have a designated team in 2020, although it “offered the trainings that we do to every employee in the factory and in the office without an expectation that they're going to need to use it for any purpose.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 303.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Balka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>also testified<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>offered first aid, CPR, and bloodborne pathogens trainings and insurance company resources to employees following the 2016 accident, but the company did not have a formal, written bloodborne pathogen control and incident response plan at the time of the 2020 accident. (Tr. 306-07.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Hepner testified it was her understanding designated first aid responders are employees trained in first aid, not necessarily designated to respond to an incident</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 210-211;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Exh</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">. C-9 at 4.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">She testified<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>would not call or alert a specific group of employees in the event of an incident involving blood, such as the one at issue in 2020</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 211.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">She did not recall any discussion with OSHA as to the meaning of the term “designated first aid responder” and did not contact CSHO Townsend about the meaning of the term designated first responder</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 211, 215.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">In response to inquiries regarding designated first aid responders during the investigation, Hepner sent a list of employees and American Heart Association CPR/first aid cards for M.L., Balka, and P.R. to CSHO Townsend</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Exhs</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">. C-9 at 4; C-3 at 7, 9-11.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">CSHO Townsend confidently testified Hepner sent the names and cards for employees trained in first aid and CPR and it established these employees were in fact designated first aid responders within the meaning of the standard</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 48-50.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Court finds the above testimony credible</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">It establishes<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>trained its employees in CPR and first aid, and it had designated first aid responders either expected or directed to clean up blood and bodily fluids at the facility.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">The Citation</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Following the inspection and investigation, OSHA cited<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>for three willful violations<span>
					</span>of Section 5(a)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the standards thereunder found at<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">29 C.F.R. § 1910</span>.212(a)(1),<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(f)(2)(</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">i</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">), and 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(g)(2)(</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">i</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">ANALYSIS</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">To prove a violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Act, the Secretary must establish “by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the cited standard applies, (2) there was a failure to comply with the cited standard, (3) employees had access to the violative condition, and (4) the cited employer either knew or could have known of the condition with the exercise of reasonable diligence.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">​​Astra Pharm. Prods.</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">, 9 BNA OSHC 2126, 2129 (No. 78-6247, 1981),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d in pertinent part</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">, 681 F.2d 69 (</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">lst</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Cir. 1982).​</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Machine Guarding</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary alleges in Citation 2, Item 1:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; margin-right:48px; ">29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(1): Types of guarding. One or more methods of machine guarding were not provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks.<span>
					</span>Examples of guarding methods are barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safety devices, etc.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; ">a)<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Mill Room: Slitter/rewinder was not provided with a guard to protect the operator from being caught in rotating parts.<span>
					</span>Employees exposed to caught-in hazards while adjusting the material on the spools on the take-up bar.<span>
					</span>Employees stand in front of and when more than one take-up bar is used stand in between the rotating take up bars while winding product on the spools on or about 12/18/2020.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; ">b)<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Mill Room: Slitter/rewinder was not provided with a guard to protect the operator from being caught in rotating parts.<span>
					</span>Employees are exposed to caught in hazards while adjusting the depth of the knife blade while the machine is running on or about 12/18/2020.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; ">c)<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Mill Room: The shaft to the Slitter/rewinder machine was not provided with a guard to protect the operator from being caught in the rotating shaft while utilizing the on/jog/off buttons on or about 12/18/2020.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; ">(Am.<span>
					</span>Compl. VI.)<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Whether the Cited Standard Applies</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>argues the injury did not occur at the Slitter’s “point of operation,” which is defined in § 1910.212(a)(3)(i) as “the area on a machine where work is actually being performed upon the material being processed,” but rather at the rotating spool which was gathering up the cut material.<span>
					</span>(Resp’t<span><span></span>
					</span>Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 6.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Therefore, according to<span>
					</span>Denaka, the cited provision of the machine guarding standard does not apply.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span>The Court finds this argument unpersuasive, as it ignores the plain text of the provision.<span>
					</span>Section 1910.212(a)(1) also requires guarding to protect employees from hazards created by “ingoing nip points, rotating parts, fly chips and sparks.”<span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(1).<span>
					</span>Rotating parts are enumerated in the machine guarding requirements, and the Secretary alleges the rotating shaft was unguarded.<span>
					</span>Therefore, the Court finds that the cited standard applies.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See S & G Packaging Co.</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1503 (No. 98-1107, 2001) (machine guarding violation affirmed where employee suffered injuries by contacting unguarded rotating drive rollers).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; margin-left:24px; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Whether<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Violated the Standard</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The cited standard,<span>
						</span></span>§ 1910.212(a)(1), is a performance standard, “which means ‘it states the result required . . . , rather than specifying that a particular type of guard must be used.’ ”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Aerospace Testing All.</span>, No. 16-1167, 2020 WL 5815499, at *3<span>
					</span>(OSHRC April 15, 2020)<span>
					</span>(quoting<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Diebold, Inc.</span>, 3 BNA OSHC 1897, 1900 (No. 6767, 1976) (consolidated),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">rev'd</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>on other grounds</span>, 585 F.2d 1327 (6th Cir. 1978)).<span>
					</span>“Performance standards ‘require an employer to identify the hazards peculiar to its own workplace and determine the steps necessary<span>
					</span>to abate them.’ ”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Aerospace Testing</span>, 2020 WL 5815499, at *3 (quoting<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Thomas Indus. Coatings, Inc.</span>, 21 BNA OSHC 2283, 2287 (No. 97-1073, 2007)).<span>
					</span>Here, it is undisputed<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not provide any guarding for the Slitter mill’s rotating shaft.<span>
					</span>(Exhs. C-2 at 3, 7, R-2; Tr. 277.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The record establishes the rotating shaft posed an amputation hazard, which required<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>to guard the Slitter mill pursuant to § 1910.212(a)(1).<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See S & G Packaging</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1503 at *3 (existence of a hazard established based upon employee injuries and record evidence that machine rollers were not guarded).<span>
					</span>The Court finds<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not comply with the standard.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; margin-left:-48px; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Whether Employees Had Access to the Violative Condition</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>To establish access, “the Secretary must show either that Respondent's employees were actually exposed to the violative condition or that it is ‘reasonably predictable by operational necessity or otherwise (including inadvertence), that employees have been, are, or will be in the zone of danger.’ ”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">S & G Packaging</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1503, at *3 (quoting<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Fabricated Metal Prods.</span>, 18 BNA OSHC 1072, 1074, (No. 93-1853, 1997)).<span>
					</span>Here, S.H.’s injury establishes actual exposure to the violative condition set forth in paragraph (b) of Citation 2, Item 1, which alleges employee exposure to caught in hazards while adjusting knife blades.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See S & G Packaging</span>, 19 BNA OSHC<span>
					</span>1503, at *3 (Employee’s “injuries establish actual exposure to the unguarded drive rollers.”);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">see also Phoenix Roofing, Inc.</span>, 17 BNA OSHC 1076, 1079 (No. 90-2148, 1995) (employee’s fall through a skylight established actual exposure to a fall hazard),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">aff'd without published opinion</span>, 79 F.3d 1146 (5th Cir. 1996).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Court also finds that the Secretary proved access to the violative condition was reasonably predictable.<span>
					</span>Commission precedent provides the zone of danger “is . . . the ‘area surrounding the violative condition that presents the danger to employees the standard is intended to prevent.’ ”<span><span></span>
					</span>​<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Dover High Performance Plastics​​</span>, ​​No. 14-1268, 2020 WL 5880242, at *2 (OSHRC ​Sept. 25, 2020) (quoting<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">RGM Constr. Co.</span>, 17 BNA OSHC 1229, 1234 (No. 91-2107, 1995)).<span>
					</span>The relevant inquiry involves assessments of the configuration of the machine and how employees position themselves near the machine.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">ConAgra Flour Milling Co.</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 1137, 1149-50 (No. 88-1250, 1993)<span>
					</span>(finding exposure where employees worked 1 to 1.5 feet away from unguarded parts and neither the operation nor the configuration of the machine would prevent the employees from approaching them),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">rev'd</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in part on other grounds</span>, 25 F.3d 653 (8th Cir. 1994);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Mosser Constr. Co.</span>, 15 BNA OSHC 1408, 1411, (No. 89-1027, 1991).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Here, the record establishes it was reasonably predictable<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>employees, either through their assignments or inadvertence, would be in the area surrounding the violative condition—the unguarded rotating shaft— that presents danger to employees.<span>
					</span>Although<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>employees did not have an operational necessity to contact the unguarded rotating spool while adjusting the blades, this action brought their hands, arms, and upper bodies within the zone of danger, exposing them to inadvertent contact with the spool.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See S & G Packaging</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1503, at *3 (machine operators had no operational necessity for contacting rollers, but checking paste application process put their heads and upper bodies within the zone of danger);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Fabricated Metal Prods.</span>, 18 BNA OSHC 1072, at *3 n.7 (No. 93-1853) (“Our inquiry then is whether the employees’ proximity to the machines makes it reasonably predictable that they will enter these zones of danger by slipping or falling.”).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Slitter’s roll was at the top, tip of the triangular-shaped machine, 20 inches from the rotating spool, which is located lower on the outside of the triangle.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-2 at 3, 7-8.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The blades at the time of the accident were spaced out from one side of the Slitter roll to the other to cut four-inch strips of nylon fabric.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 3, 7.)<span><span></span>
					</span>An employee attempting to adjust any of these blades would be near the unguarded rotating spool, given the configuration of the machine.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See RGM Constr.</span>,<span>
					</span>17 BNA OSHC at 1234 (the zone of danger is “that area surrounding the violative condition that presents the danger to employees which the standard is intended to prevent”).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As to the Secretary’s allegations in paragraphs (a) and (c)—exposure to the rotating shaft while adjusting spools on the take up bar and exposure while using the on/jog/off buttons—the record supports an exposure/access finding for each.<span>
					</span>Employees performed both tasks while the Slitter mill was running.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 137-38, 142-43, 145, 148 (material), 289 (jogger);<span>
					</span>Exh. C-2 at 4.)<span><span></span>
					</span>And both tasks required employees to enter the zone of danger.<span><span></span>
					</span>First, employees adjusting the spools themselves would place their hands directly into the zone of danger to adjust materials on the rotating shafts.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref11" href="#ftn11">11</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 137-38, 142-43, 145, 148, 248, 252;<span>
					</span>Exh. C-2 at 4.)<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>And second, operating the on/jog/off buttons required employees to be roughly 13 inches away from the unguarded rotating spool, which is nearer than when they adjusted the blades, placing them in the zone of danger.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-2 at 3, 7-9.)<span><span></span>
					</span>For these reasons, the Secretary has established access to the unguarded rotating shaft.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Whether<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Had Knowledge of the Violative Condition</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">To establish the knowledge element, “the Secretary must prove that the employer knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the conditions constituting the violation.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Cent. Fla. Equip. Rentals, Inc.</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">, 25 BNA OSH​C 2147, 2155 (No. 08-1656, 2016) (citing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Jacobs Field Servs. N. Am.</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">, 25 BNA OSHC 1216, 1218 (No. 10-2659, 2015))</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span>“The actual or constructive knowledge of the employer’s foreman or supervisor can be imputed to the employer.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Jersey Steel Erectors</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 16 BNA OSHC 1162, at *2 (No. 90-1307, 1993),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">aff'd</span>, 19 F.3d 643 (3d Cir. 1994).<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Here,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>offers several unpersuasive arguments as to why it did not have knowledge of the violative condition</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>asserts it did not know S.H. was adjusting the blades while the Slitter was operating, because employees infrequently used the Slitter mill</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Resp’t</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Post-</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Hr’g</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Br. at 7-9.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">It also asserts it did not have knowledge of the violative condition because the Secretary did not indicate during previous investigations the Slitter lacked machine guarding</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 10.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">These arguments fail</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Secretary need not establish<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>management knew S.H. adjusted the blades while the Slitter was operating</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Secretary must only establish “that the employer was aware of the physical conditions constituting the violation.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">S & G Packaging</span>, 19<span>
					</span>BNA OSHC 1503<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at *4.<span>
					</span>Here, the physical condition is the lack of guarding on the Slitter mill’s rotating shaft, and the record establishes<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>knew of this violative condition.<span>
					</span>Steele testified she saw employees operating the Slitter mill.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; "><a name="ftnref12" href="#ftn12">12</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 159.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Balka testified the mill had not been modified since he purchased the company nearly 25 years before the accident.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 277.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Moreover, CSHO Townsend’s investigation notes provide Balka told her he had observed S.H. operating the mill.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-2 at 4.) Therefore, Balka would have observed the Slitter’s lack of guarding.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See S & G Packaging</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1503, at *4 (actual knowledge established where compliance officer testified the plant manager and safety manager told her they were aware of unguarded condition).<span>
					</span>CSHO Townsend’s notes and photographs provide Balka also demonstrated how the unguarded Slitter mill works.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref13" href="#ftn13">13</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Exh. C-2 at 4, 8; Tr. 44-45.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Commission also has found an employer is aware of the physical conditions constituting the violation when the conditions are in the open, plainly visible to anyone walking by, and supported by photographic evidence in the record.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See S & G Packaging</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1503, at *4.<span>
					</span>Here, photographs in the record establish the Slitter mill was in plain view, such that company management was at least able to observe it was not guarded.<span>
					</span>(Exhs. C-2 at 3, 7-9, R-2.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>also posits a fair notice argument by alleging it did not have knowledge of the violative condition since the Secretary did not indicate during previous inspections and investigations the Slitter lacked guarding or required it</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Resp’t</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Br. at 10.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Court finds this argument unpersuasive</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">It is well-settled that “the mere fact of prior inspections does not give rise to an inference that OSHA made an earlier decision that there was no hazard, and does not preclude the Secretary from pursuing a later citation.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Seibel Modern Mfg. & Welding Corp.</span>, 15 BNA OSHC 1218, at *7 (No. 88-821, 1991<span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Furthermore,<span>
						</span></span>the record does not support a finding OSHA<span>
					</span>affirmatively represented to<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>the Slitter, which was not involved in the 2016 amputation accident, complied with machine guarding requirements.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Compare</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">S & G Packaging</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1503, at *4 n.12 (“[T]here is no evidence that OSHA made any representations that deprived Respondent of fair notice of the standard’s requirements.”) and<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Columbian Art Works, Inc.</span>, 10 BNA OSHC 1132, at *1 (No. 78–0029, 1981) (record did not establish compliance officer informed employer it was in compliance with machine guarding standard),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">with</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Miami Indus., Inc.</span>, 15 BNA OSHC 1258, 1264 (No. 88-671, 1991) (OSHA’s affirmative representations that agency considered the employer in compliance with guarding standard deprived employer of fair notice),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d in relevant part and set aside in part without published opinion</span>, 983 F.2d 1067 (6th Cir. 1992).<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>“ ‘continuing obligation’ ” to comply with the Act does not absolve it of its failure to provide machine guarding on the Slitter.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Seibel Modern Mfg.</span>, 15 BNA OSHC 1218, at *7 (quoting<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Lukens Steel Co.</span>, 10 BNA OSHC 1115, at *11 (No. 76–1053, 1981)).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_NormalWeb style_NormalWeb " style="background-color:#FFFFFF; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Court finds the Secretary has established all elements of her burden of proof for Citation 2, Item 1.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Hepatitis B Vaccination</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Secretary alleges in Citation 2, Item 2:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; margin-right:48px; ">29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(f)(2)(i): The Hepatitis B vaccination was not made available within 10 working days of initial assignment to all employee(s) with occupational exposure.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:8px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">a)</span>Facility: The employer did not offer the Hepatitis B vaccine series to designated first aid responders and employees who conducted cleanup operations after an incident involving blood or other potentially infections [sic] materials, on or about 12/18/2020.<span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Citation at 8.)</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Whether the Cited Standard Applies</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The standard generally requires employers to offer the Hepatitis B vaccine to employees within 10 working days of initial assignment, such as after they have received required bloodborne pathogen training, and to all employees who have occupational exposure, such as after a workplace incident.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(f)(2)(1)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">It defines<span>
						</span></span>occupational exposure as “reasonably anticipated skin, eye, mucous membrane, or parenteral contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that may result from the performance.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(b)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span>Here, the Secretary asserts the standard applies to M.L., among others, because<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>trained and designated him as a first aid responder in 2017, and he responded to and cleaned up blood after<span>
					</span>the 2020 amputation accident.<span>
					</span>(Sec’y Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 15.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>argues that although it trained some employees in first aid and bloodborne pathogens, it did not have any designated first aid responders or a set group of employees expected to respond to an incident.<span>
					</span>(Resp’t<span><span></span>
					</span>Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 13.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Court is not persuaded.<span>
					</span>The 2016 accident, and the nature of the work performed with machines and knives, demonstrate<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>could reasonably anticipate designated first aid responders or employees otherwise trained to respond would, during an incident response, have occupational exposure to blood resulting from performance of their first aid and cleanup duties.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Cf. Am. Recycling & Mfg. Co. v. Sec'y of Labor</span>,<span style="background-color:#FFFF00; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">​</span><span><span></span>
					</span>676 F.<span>
					</span>App'x<span><span></span>
					</span>65, 72 (2d Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (rejecting violation where employer could not reasonably anticipate contact with blood during their work duties).<span>
					</span>That<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>offered such training also reinforces a finding the company has at a minimum employees expected to respond in the event of an incident.<span>
					</span>The standard, § 1910.1030(f)(2)(i), applies to the cited condition.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Whether<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Violated the Standard</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Secretary argues<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>violated the standard due to<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>failure to offer M.L. the vaccine within 10 working days of his initial assignment as a designated first aid responder.<span>
					</span>(Sec’y Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 15.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Instead,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>offered the vaccine three days after the 2020 accident to which M.L. responded.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka, which was cited by OSHA for a violation of the same standard following the 2016 accident and investigation, argues Balka’s understanding was OSHA issued the previous citation on the basis the company did not offer the vaccine within ten days of the 2016 exposure event.<span>
					</span>(Resp’t<span><span></span>
					</span>Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 11.)<span><span></span>
					</span>It asserts Balka did not understand the standard required<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>to offer the vaccine to employees once they were trained to respond to incidents involving occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 11-12.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Court is not persuaded by<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>fair notice argument.<span>
					</span>Denaka, again, does not point to any affirmative representations by OSHA that the first part of the standard’s provision regarding offering the vaccine after initial assignment does not apply.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See S & G Packaging</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1503<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at *4 n.12 (“[T]here is no evidence that OSHA made any representations that deprived Respondent of fair notice of the standard’s requirements.”).<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>merely asserts<span>
					</span>Balka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>understanding that OSHA’s previous citation was based upon the company’s failure to offer the vaccine within ten days of occupational exposure resulting from the 2016 accident.<span>
					</span>(Resp’t<span><span></span>
					</span>Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 14 (“To be sure, in 2016, OSHA cited<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>for not offering the vaccine at the time<span>
					</span>of cleanup and exposure to potentially contaminated materials.”); Tr. 206 (Hepner), 299, 301 (Balka).)<span><span></span>
					</span>It appears, from the evidence adduced at trial, this was OSHA’s basis for the previous citation, as<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>had not designated any first aid responders at the time of the 2016 accident.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-3 at 15-16; Tr. 187, 194 (employees were assigned on the date of the May 6 accident).)<span><span></span>
					</span>However,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>failed to present any evidence OSHA represented it did not need to offer the vaccine to employees after they had received required bloodborne pathogen training, and nothing precludes OSHA from issuing a citation based upon<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>failure to offer the vaccine after initial assignment.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Implicit in<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>argument OSHA did not previously inform the company of its obligation to offer the vaccine to employees within ten days of initial assignment (training), is a claim the standard’s provision is unclear or it lacked notice from the provision’s text.<span>
					</span>Even if<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>had explicitly raised this argument, the Court would reject it.<span>
					</span>Whether<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>knew its conduct violated the standard, the company was aware of the conditions—its failure to offer the vaccine after initial assignment—underlying the violation.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Froedtert Mem. Lutheran Hosp., Inc.</span>, 20 BNA OSHC 1500, at *11 (No. 97-1839, 2004) (rejecting employer’s argument it lacked notice that it was required to comply with vaccination requirement because the “Commission has long held that the knowledge required to establish a violation is not directed ‘to the requirements of the law, but to the physical conditions which constitute a violation of [the Act].’ ”<span><span></span>
					</span>(quoting<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Sw. Acoustics & Specialty, Inc.</span>, 5 BNA OSHC 1091, 1092 (No. 12174, 1977);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">see also Midwest Masonry, Inc.</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1540, 1544 n.6, (No. 00-0322, 2001) (“[w]hether<span><span></span>
					</span>or not employers are in fact aware of each OSHA regulation and fully understand it, they are charged with this knowledge and are responsible for compliance . . . . [i]t is no defense that they did not understand the reasonable interpretation of a regulation”) (internal citations omitted).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>reading of the standard is also contrary to established Commission precedent, as well as the interpretation of Commission judges and appeals courts.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Froedtert</span>, 20 BNA OSHC 1500, at *12 (“The standard . . . requires only that the vaccine be ‘made available’ to exposed employees within ten days of initial assignment.”).<span>
					</span>Recently, a Commission judge found an employer failed to comply with the standard when it did not offer employees the Hepatitis B vaccine within ten working days of assignment to its injury response team.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Wal-Mart Stores E., LP</span>, 26 BNA OSHC 1756, at *19 (No. 16-0272, 2017) (ALJ).<span>
					</span>The Commission denied the employer’s petition for review and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the<span>
					</span>judge’s decision.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Wal-Mart Stores East, LP v. Acosta</span>, 919 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 2019).<span>
					</span>The Eighth Circuit found the judge correctly “relied on testimony from Wal-Mart’s AP manager in charge of the SIRT team during the relevant time period, who conceded he failed to offer the vaccine to certain SIRT volunteers after they had completed their training.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 1080.<span>
					</span>Here, the arguments advanced by<span>
					</span>Denaka, as well as Balka and Hepner’s testimony they were unaware of the need to offer the vaccine in the absence of an exposure event, amount to a concession the company similarly failed to offer the vaccine to employees after they completed their bloodborne pathogens training.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Whether Employees Had Access to the Violative Condition</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>M.L. was a designated first aid responder and, as he testified,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not offer the vaccine to him within ten days of completing his training or at any time before the 2020 amputation accident.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 243-44, 253;<span>
					</span>Exh. C-3 at 4.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Previous accidents and the nature of work at the facility, which involved working with and near machines and knives, made designated first aid responder exposure reasonably foreseeable within the meaning of the standard.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Offshore Shipbuilding, Inc.</span>, 18 BNA OSHC 2169, at *8 (No. 97-257, 2000) (“[D]esignated<span><span></span>
					</span>first aid providers . . . might be exposed to bloodborne pathogens in rendering assistance to a fellow employee who had been injured . . .<span>
					</span>.<span>
					</span>[and g]iven<span><span></span>
					</span>the nature of the work being done . . . an injury that would cause bleeding was reasonably foreseeable.”).<span>
					</span>Although Lord testified employees did not end up having an exposure to bloodborne pathogens because they wore gloves while cleaning up after the accident, actual exposure is not a prerequisite under the standard for the requirement to offer the vaccine.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 171.)<span><span></span>
					</span>As noted above, the standard also defines occupational exposure as “reasonably anticipated . . . contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that may result from the performance.”<span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(b).<span>
					</span>The Court therefore finds the Secretary has established access to the violative condition.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Whether<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Had Knowledge of the Violative Condition</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">To establish knowledge, the Secretary must either establish the employer knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the physical conditions constituting the violation</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Cent. Fla. Equip. Rentals, Inc.</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">, 25 BNA OSH​C at 2155</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span>The Court notes the<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">physical condition here is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka’s</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>failure to offer employees the vaccine within ten days of completing bloodborne pathogen and first aid training, which<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>does not dispute</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Instead,<span>
						</span></span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>claims it was unaware of the requirement to offer the vaccine after training since OSHA had not raised<span>
					</span>this requirement during the previous inspection and citation conferences.<span>
					</span>(Resp’t<span><span></span>
					</span>Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 11-13.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>also argues it did not have designated first aid responders to whom it was required to offer the vaccine absent an exposure, because it offers the training to all employees.<span><span></span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.<span>
						</span></span>at 13-14.)<span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Secretary argues Balka assigned M.L. to clean up the area around the Slitter mill following the accident, despite knowing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>had not offered him the vaccine</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(</span>Sec’y Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 17.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Further, the Secretary notes Balka and M.L. had both received first aid and bloodborne pathogen training in 2017, according to Steele, who, along with Hepner, also confirmed M.L. was a designated first aid responder.<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The evidence adduced at trial establishes actual knowledge.<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not offer M.L. and other first aid responders the vaccine within ten days of completing their training and prior to the 2020 accident.<span>
					</span>Balka testified that after the 2020 accident<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>“offer[ed] the vaccination immediately [to M.L., P.R., and me] because we just assigned these people to clean up blood.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 305).<span>
					</span>Similarly, Hepner, who arranged the vaccination appointments and waivers following the accident, testified it was her “understanding . . . that they were to be offered [the vaccine series] at the time of the incident.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 209; 245.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Because Balka is president of<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>and Hepner is a management employee, their knowledge that<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>had not offered the vaccine to M.L. following his training is imputable to the company.<span>
					</span>Therefore,<span>
					</span>Denaka, despite its misunderstanding of the standard’s command, knew of the violative condition.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Court finds the Secretary has established all elements of her burden of proof for Citation 2, Item 2.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">Training Violation</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Secretary alleges:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; margin-right:48px; ">Citation 2, Item 3</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; margin-right:48px; ">29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(g)(2)(i): The employer did not<span>
					</span>ensure that each employee with occupational exposure participated in a training program.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">a)</span>Facility: The employer did not provide training on the minimum required elements of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(a) [sic] through (g)(2)(vii)(N) for employees who were assigned to conduct cleanup operations after an incident involving blood or other potentially infections [sic] materials, on or about 12/18/2020.<span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Citation at 9.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The cited standard provides<span>
						</span></span>“[t]he employer shall train each employee with occupational exposure in accordance with the requirements of this section. Such training must be<span>
					</span>provided at no cost to the employee and during working hours.<span>
					</span>The employer shall institute a training program and ensure employee participation in the program.”<span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(g)(2)(i).<span>
					</span>Among other things, the training must contain the text of the standard, an explanation of the employer’s control plan and where the employee can obtain a written copy of it, an explanation of methods to recognize tasks that involve exposure, vaccine information, reporting requirements following the exposure incident, and procedures for responding to an exposure incident.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span>29 C.F.R.<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>§§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(a)-(g)(2)(vii)(N).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Whether the Standard Applies</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Secretary argues the standard applies to<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>designated first aid responders, as well as other employees with occupational exposure.<span>
					</span>(Sec’y Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 22 (citing Tr. 48, 252-53;<span>
					</span>Exh. C-4 at 2).)<span><span></span>
					</span>The Court agrees.<span>
					</span>M.L. and P.R. were among the employees who required training due to the fact they responded to the underlying accident, and M.L. also was a designated first aid responder.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 22 (citing Tr. 160, 164, 244).)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>does not dispute the applicability of the standard.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Whether<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Violated the Standard</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Generally, “[t]o establish noncompliance with a training standard, the Secretary must show that the cited employer failed to provide the instructions that a reasonably prudent employer would have given in the same circumstances.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">N & N Contractors, Inc.</span>, 18 BNA OSHC 2121, at *7 (No. 96-0606, 2000) (citing<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Archer-Western Contractors</span>, 15 BNA OSHC 1013, 1019-20 (No. 87-1067, 1991)).<span>
					</span>The cited standard here enumerates the elements of a compliant training, therefore the Court declines to apply a reasonable employer standard.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Compare</span><span><span></span>
					</span>employer-specific reporting requirements, contacts, methods, plans, and training intervals found in §§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(a)-(g)(2)(vii)(N)<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">with</span><span><span></span>
					</span>general fall protection training requirements allowing employee discretion in §§ 1926.503(a)(2)(i)-(vii)<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">and</span><span><span></span>
					</span>“broadly-worded training standard” found at § 1910.134(a) & (b).<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Am. Sterilizer Co.</span>, 18 BNA OSHC 1082, at *3 (No. 91-2494, 1997).<span>
					</span>The Secretary asserts<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>training program was deficient because the company did not meet several requirements contained in the standard and therefore failed to train its employees.<span>
					</span>(Sec’y Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 22.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Among other things, the company lacked a written bloodborne pathogens control plan that was specific to the company and its worksite, according to the Secretary.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 23.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary argues further, assuming<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>had a control plan, it failed to explain, among other things, how employees could obtain a copy, who managed the program, what constitutes an exposure, which<span>
					</span>types of PPE to use and where to find them, and an explanation of procedures employees must follow after an incident.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Court finds testimony from<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>employees and management establishes it provided some training in first aid, CPR, and bloodborne pathogens to its employees.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 230-31, 252-53, 307-08;<span>
					</span>Exhs. C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8.)<span><span></span>
					</span>As evidence of its program,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>points to American Heart Association bloodborne pathogen student workbooks Hepner provided to OSHA during the investigation.<span>
					</span>(Exhs. C-5, C-8.)<span><span></span>
					</span>CSHO Townsend also testified Hepner sent the National Safety Council’s Bloodborne Pathogens workbook as evidence of abatement.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 62-64, 126;<span>
					</span>Exh. 6.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The Court finds, however,<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>training program was inadequate, and therefore the company violated the standard.<span>
					</span>The documents relied upon by<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>and set forth in the record neither address the company’s policies, practices, and procedures nor the conditions at its facility, all of which are required by the standard.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See O'Brien Concrete Pumping, Inc.</span>, 18 BNA OSHC 2059, at *4 (No. 98-0471, 2000) (“What matters is the content of this training, and whether it specifically addressed both the hazards associated with their work and the applicable OSHA standards.”) (citing<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">El Paso Crane</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 1419, 1425 nn.6 & 7 (No. 90-1106, 1993).<span>
					</span>An examination of the National Safety Council and American Heart Association documents reveals, as CSHO Townsend testified, they were not “site specific” items<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>was “training their employees on, such as their site specific exposure control plan, you know, what do they do if they get blood on them, who are they supposed to report it to.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 56);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">cf.</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Atl. Battery Co.</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 2131, at *51 (No. 1994) (vacating hazard communication training violation where evidence in the record did not support OSHA inspector’s conclusion employees had not been trained).<span>
					</span>CSHO Townsend also credibly testified to a number of other deficiencies in the generic plans, such as a lack of information regarding PPE and where to go to seek treatment in the event of exposure.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 56-57.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>asserts it complied with the standard because, although it cannot point to a specific document, it communicated the information required by the standard to its employees and conducted several training courses on bloodborne pathogens and first aid, including one before the accident.<span>
					</span>(Resp’t<span><span></span>
					</span>Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 15 (citing Tr. 206;<span>
					</span>Exhs. C-4 at 3, C-5, C-8).)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>also asserts it trained employees on when to notify supervisors, how to report incidents, and where to find personal protective equipment, even if these items were not memorialized in a written plan.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 15 (citing Tr. 307-08).)<span><span></span>
					</span>The Commission has recognized that in certain circumstances company safety rules, policies, and instructions do not need to be written so long as they are clearly and<span>
					</span>effectively communicated to employees.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Capform</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">, Inc.</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1374, at *2 (No. 99-0322, 2001) (“[T]he Commission has stated, ‘section 1926.21(b)(2) does not limit the employer in the method by which it may impart the necessary training.’ ” (quoting<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Concrete Constr. Co.</span>, 15 BNA OSHC 1614, 1920 (No. 89-2019, 1992)).<span>
					</span>However, this argument is inconsistent with the standard at issue here, which requires the training program contain, at a minimum, “[a]n explanation of the<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">employer’s exposure control plan</span><span><span></span>
					</span>and the means by which the employee can obtain<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">a copy of the written plan</span>.”<span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(D) (emphasis added).<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Jesco, Inc.</span>, 24 BNA OSHC 1076, at *2 (No. 10-0265, 2013) (“If the wording is unambiguous, the plain language of the standard will govern, even if [a party] posits a different interpretation.”)​;<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Am.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Fed’n</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>of Gov’t Emps., Local 2782 v. FLRA</span>, 803 F.2d 737, 740 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (“regulations are to be read as a whole, with each part or section . . . construed in connection with every other part or section”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).<span>
					</span>The record establishes<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>training did not contain an explanation of its exposure control plan and the company did not have a written control plan, both of which were required by the standard.<span>
					</span>Hepner recognized this in an email to CSHO Townsend, which stated “we do not have a written program for [b]loodborne<span><span></span>
					</span>pathogens.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Exh. C-8 at 3.)<span><span></span>
					</span>And at trial,<span>
					</span>Balka<span><span></span>
					</span>testified he “underst[ood] we should have had this program written down.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 306-08.)<span><span></span>
					</span>As<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not have a written plan, the Court finds<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>employees did not receive the training required by the standard.<span>
					</span>The standard was violated.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Whether Employees Had Access to the Violative Condition</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As CSHO Townsend testified,<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>designated first aid responders, such as M.L., could be exposed to bloodborne pathogens hazards, such as HIV, Hepatitis B and C, without a proper training program.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 57.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The Court finds the Secretary has established the access element.<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>provided P.R., M.L., and others with a training program that did not meet the requirements of the cited standard, and M.L. and P.R. responded to an accident involving bloodborne pathogens.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Offshore Shipbuilding</span>, 18 BNA OSHC 2169, at *2 (affirming training violation of confined space standard where untrained employee was in a ballast tank and therefore “exposed to the conditions the standard was intended to protect against”).<span>
					</span>Indeed, even if the accident and corresponding response had not occurred here, the Court finds<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>designated first aid responders were exposed to the hazardous condition due to<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>inadequate bloodborne pathogen program training.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Bardav</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">, Inc.</span>, 14 BNA OSHC 2105, at *10 (No. 10-1055, 2014) (citing<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Gen. Motors Corp.</span>, 22 BNA OSHC 1019, 1030 (Nos. 91-2834E & 91-2950, 2007)<span>
					</span>(unreasonable to require actual employee exposure to a hazard before requiring training to recognize and avoid that hazard)).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Whether<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Had Knowledge of the Violative Condition</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Several factors establish Balka not only knew training on a compliant bloodborne pathogens exposure control plan was required for employees, but he also knew the training was inadequate.<span>
					</span>Balka was aware training was required because<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>had been cited for a violation of the same standard following the 2016 accident, and this item was affirmed by the judge and did not reach the Commission on review.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Home Rubber</span>, 2021 WL 3929735, at *57 (“Mr. Balka knew a bloodborne pathogen policy and training were needed but did not ensure the policy and training were developed and implemented.”) (ALJ).<span>
					</span>The fact<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>actually trained its employees establishes it knew training was required by the standard.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 306.)<span><span></span>
					</span>But, as discussed above, Hepner and Balka, both management officials at<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>during and after the 2016 investigation, knew the training was deficient in that the company failed to present a written bloodborne pathogens control plan setting forth facility and company-specific information.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-8 at 3, Tr. 306-08.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>had actual knowledge of the violative condition.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref14" href="#ftn14">14</a></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Court finds the Secretary has established all elements of her burden of proof for Citation 2, Item 3.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">CHARACTERIZATION OF THE VIOLATION</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Secretary characterized the violations as willful-serious. A serious violation is established when there is “a substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result [from a violative condition] . . . unless the employer did not, and could not with the exercise of reasonable diligence, know of the presence of the violation.”<span><span></span>
					</span>29 U.S.C. § 666(k).<span>
					</span>“This does not mean that the occurrence of an accident must be a substantially probable result of the violative condition but, rather, that a serious injury is the likely result if an accident does occur.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">ConAgra Flour</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 1137, at *7.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Here, CSHO Townsend testified the machine guarding violation was serious “[b]ecause<span><span></span>
					</span>it resulted in an injury that was beyond first aid treatment.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 45.)<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>As the accident demonstrates,<span>
					</span>serious injury is the likely result if employee exposure to the unguarded rotating spool occurs.<span>
					</span>Townsend also testified the Hepatitis B vaccine violation was serious “[b]ecause<span><span></span>
					</span>Hepatitis B would result in treatment beyond first aid.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 50.)<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary asserts the bloodborne pathogens control plan training violation is also serious.<span>
					</span>As CSHO Townsend testified, “HIV, Hepatitis B and C would all result in treatment beyond first aid treatment.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 58.)<span><span></span>
					</span>This testimony is consistent with Commission precedent recognizing the serious nature of exposure and potential exposure to bloodborne pathogens based upon the effects of Hepatitis B.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g.</span>,<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Home Rubber</span>, 2021 WL 3929735, at *12 n.17<span>
					</span>(“Hepatitis B can result in ‘serious liver’ diseases, with about one third of infected individuals experiencing ‘severe’ symptoms including jaundice, extreme fatigue, anorexia, nausea, and abdominal pain, and some developing ‘Fulminant hepatitis’ which is ‘85% fatal even with the most advanced medical care.’”<span><span></span>
					</span>(quoting 56 Fed. Reg. 64,004, 64,009 (Dec. 6, 1991));<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Waldon Health Care Ctr.</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 1052, at *11 (No. 89–2804, 1993) (“a person who contracts the HBV virus is likely to suffer death or serious physical harm’).<span>
					</span>The Court therefore finds the cited violations can result in serious injuries or death.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Secretary characterized each of the cited “serious” violations as willful.<span>
					</span>To prove a willful citation, the Secretary must show that an employer’s violations of the Act were “committed with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the requirements of the Act, or with plain indifference to employee safety.”<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref15" href="#ftn15">15</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Tampa Shipyards Inc.</span>, 15 BNA OSHC 1533, 1539 (No. 86-360, 1992) (consolidated).<span>
					</span>“To prove intentional disregard, the Secretary must show that the employer (1) had a heightened awareness of the applicable standard or provision prohibiting the conduct or condition and (2) consciously disregarded the standard.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Jim Boyd Constr., Inc.</span>, 26 BNA OSHC 1109, 1111 (No. 11-2559, 2016) (internal quotations omitted). The employer’s state of mind is the key inquiry.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Propellex</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Corp</span>., 18 BNA OSHC 1677, 1684 (No. 96-0265, 1996) (“The Secretary must show that the employer was actually aware, at the time of the violative act,<span>
					</span>that the act was unlawful, or that it possessed a state of mind such that if it were informed of the standard, it would not care.”).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Machine Guarding Violation</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Secretary argues the machine guarding violation was willful because<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>had heightened awareness of the cited requirement yet waited until after the 2020 accident to abate the hazard.<span>
					</span>(Sec’y Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 11.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Specifically, the Secretary claims<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not install any guarding on the Slitter mill until 22 years after the audit, five years after the 2016 accident on a different mill that resulted in an employee’s four fingers being amputated, and one month after the accident at issue that resulted in the amputation of S.H.’s left arm.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 11-12.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Even then,<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>choice of guarding, a foot pedal, was inadequate.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 12.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary asserts<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>only installed a light curtain when this case reached trial.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary contends the Court should reject<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>argument that the violation is not willful due to OSHA not specifically citing the company for failing to guard the Slitter mill because OSHA’s failure to previously cite the company does not amount to approval of the condition.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 13.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>argues the machines cited in 2016 for guarding violations were substantially different from the Slitter mill, and, in any event, Lord viewed the Slitter mill and even issued a citation for a piece of electrical equipment on it.<span>
					</span>(Resp’t<span><span></span>
					</span>Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 18.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>asserts “[b]ecause<span><span></span>
					</span>[i]t did not have ‘heightened awareness’ of the standard, [it] could not have ‘consciously disregarded that standard.’ ”<span><span></span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 18 (quoting<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Home Rubber</span>, 2021 WL 3929735, at *2 (internal quotations omitted)).)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Court agrees with the Secretary that<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>had a heightened awareness of OSHA’s machine guarding requirements as a result of the 1999 audit report, as well as previous machine guarding citations issued in 2010, 2012, and 2016.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See MVM Contracting Corp.</span>, 23 BNA OSHC 1164, 1167 (No. 07-1350, 2010) (employer’s heightened awareness of OSHA standard’s requirements established where supervisor was previously informed of requirements).<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>also knew the Slitter mill was unguarded because Balka testified the company had not changed or modified the mill since he had purchased the company, he had observed employees operating the mill, and it was in plain view on the facility floor.<span>
					</span>Further, Balka’s heightened awareness for the purposes of finding the violation willful is imputable to<span>
					</span>Denaka.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Branham Sign Co.</span>, 18 BNA OSHC 2132, at *2 (No. 98-752, 2000) (“The state of mind of a supervisory employee, his or her knowledge and conduct, may be imputed to the employer for purposes of finding that the violation<span>
					</span>was willful.”).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Despite Balka’s heightened awareness of the machine guarding requirement, the Court finds the Secretary failed to establish Balka had heightened awareness of the illegality of the cited conditions.<span>
					</span>Although Balka was aware of the machine guarding standard and knew the Slitter mill was unguarded, the Secretary has failed to show Balka was aware the unguarded mill did not comply with the standard.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Stark Excavating, Inc.</span>, 24 BNA OSHC 2215, at *7-8 (Nos. 09-0004 & 09-0005, 2014) (“Based on our review of the record, we find the Secretary has not shown that the superintendent was, in fact, aware that the excavation was noncompliant.”),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span>, 811 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2016).<span>
					</span>OSHA did not allege the Slitter mill lacked guarding in any of the previous guarding citations, and the 1999 audit report recommended guarding generally, rather than guarding specifically for that mill.<span>
					</span>Moreover, as discussed above, AAD Lord observed the Slitter mill at rest in 2016, and OSHA cited<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>for a torn strain relief on an electrical cable that attaches to control panel for the mill, rather than machine guarding.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Home Rubber</span>, 2021 WL 3929735, at *54 (ALJ).<span>
					</span>While the Court agrees with the Secretary that OSHA’s previous failure to cite<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>for failing to guard the Slitter mill does not amount to approval of the violative condition, the Secretary has failed to show<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>had the requisite state of mind regarding the Slitter mill’s lack of guarding to support a willful violation of the standard.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Hern Iron Works, Inc.</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 1206, at *8 (No. 89-433, 1993) (“A willful violation is differentiated by heightened awareness of the illegality of the conduct or conditions and by a state of mind of conscious disregard or plain indifference when the employer committed the violation.”).<span>
					</span>The<span style="color:#FF0000; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>Court therefore characterizes the machine guarding violation set forth in Citation 2, Item 1 as Serious.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Hepatitis B Vaccine Violation</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary again argues<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>failure to offer the Hepatitis B vaccine to employees within ten days of initial assignment as designated first aid responders was willful since the company had heightened awareness of the requirements of the standard.<span>
					</span>(Sec’y Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 18.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Specifically, the Secretary argues Balka admitted he knew the requirements of the standard, which was confirmed by AAD Lord’s testimony she told him about the standard during the 2017 closing conference and gave him OSHA’s fact sheet containing the requirements of the standard.<span>
					</span>(Sec’y Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 18, 20 (citing<span>
					</span>Exh. C-3 at 18).)<span><span></span>
					</span>The Secretary argues the 2016 citation also made clear the company was required to offer the vaccine after initial assignment, rather than after exposure.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 20 (citing<span>
					</span>Exh. C-3 at 15).)<span><span></span>
					</span>In addition to the documentation provided by OSHA,<span>
					</span>the Secretary further asserts documents<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>handed over to the agency during the 2016 and 2020 investigations support a finding the company was aware of the standard’s requirements.<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>provided OSHA the National Safety Council’s workbook, which contains, among other things, the vaccination standard, as well as the American Heart Association’s workbook, which provides employers should make the vaccine available.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 19-21 (citing<span>
					</span>Exhs. C-6, C-7, C-8).)<span><span></span>
					</span>Balka’s conduct, according to the Secretary was willful because he had access to all this information and decided not to offer the vaccine sooner. (<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 19.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>argues it did not intentionally, knowingly, or voluntarily disregard OSHA standards in offering the vaccine to employees who cleaned up the area around the Slitter mill immediately following the 2020 accident.<span>
					</span>(Resp’t<span><span></span>
					</span>Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 23.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>again recites OSHA did not instruct it “to offer the vaccine<span>
					</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; ">at the time of training</span>” and the record demonstrates it took steps to ensure the safety of its employees based upon OSHA’s representations following the 2016 accident.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span>Due to its good faith efforts to comply with the standard’s provision,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>asserts any failure on its part to timely offer the vaccine does not amount to a willful violation of that provision.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 23-24.) <span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">As set forth above,<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>interpretation of the standard is flawed, and the fact OSHA neither previously cited the company for failing to offer the vaccine after the trainings occurred, nor instructed it to do so, does not relieve the company of its duty to comply.<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>also was aware of the standard.<span>
					</span>It was included in the 2016 citation and related judge’s decision, as well as in the NSC workbook.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Home Rubber</span>, 2021 WL 3929735, at *56 (ALJ);<span>
					</span>Exhs. C-6 at 59, R-27 at 42.<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>also was aware it did not offer the vaccine to employees after they had completed their bloodborne pathogens training or within ten days of becoming designated first aid responders, as evidenced by the fact it offered the vaccine after the December 2020 accident.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">However, the Court finds the Secretary failed to establish<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>acted with the requisite state of mind to support a willful violation.<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>offered the vaccine series to the employees who responded to the 2020 accident on the Monday following the Friday accident.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 208.)<span><span></span>
					</span>P.R. and Balka signed waivers, and M.L. received his first dose on December 23, 2020.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 208, 283;<span>
					</span>Exh. C-3 at 2;<span>
					</span>Exh. R-30.)<span><span></span>
					</span>By offering the vaccine, albeit after the exposure event,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not act with plain indifference to employee safety.<span>
					</span>Further, the timing of<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>vaccine offer to its employees is consistent with its flawed understanding of the standard, which the company believed required it to do so within ten days of the exposure event.<span>
					</span>Therefore, the Court finds<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>violation of the standard was negligent rather than willful.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Gen. Motors Corp.</span>, 22 BNA OSHC at 1043 (“[T]he<span>
					</span>Commission<span><span></span>
					</span>and courts distinguish ‘between mere negligence and willfulness, holding that the former is sufficient for affirming a non-willful violation, but that willfulness is characterized by an intentional, knowing failure to comply with a legal duty.’”<span><span></span>
					</span>(quoting<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Manganas</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Painting Co.</span>, 21 BNA OSHC 1964, 1991 (No. 94-0588, 2007)).<span style="color:#FF0000; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>The Court therefore characterizes the hepatitis B vaccination violation set forth in Citation 2, Item 2 as Serious.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Bloodborne Pathogens Control Plan Training</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The Secretary also argues<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>failure to train its employees regarding the hazards associated with exposure to bloodborne pathogens was willful.<span>
					</span>The Commission has found an employer’s failure to train its employees is willful where it had general knowledge of the standard and failed to provide a compliant training program.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Gen. Motors Corp.</span>, 22 BNA OSHC 1019, at *33;<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">E.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Smalis</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Painting, Co.</span>, 22 BNA OSHC 1553, at *26 (No. 94-1979, 2009) (affirming training violation as willful where employer was on notice of requirements due to discussion at previous proceeding and failed to train in accordance with the standard).<span>
					</span>The Secretary asserts<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>managers had a heightened awareness of the standard’s training requirements from their involvement in the 2016 accident investigation.<span>
					</span>(Sec’y Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 24.)<span><span></span>
					</span>At trial,<span>
					</span>Balka<span><span></span>
					</span>admitted<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not have a written bloodborne pathogens exposure control plan at the time of the accident, such that it could have trained its employees on the plan.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span>This, according to the Secretary, was despite<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>representations to OSHA it had abated the 2016 violation.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span>Therefore, the Secretary contends,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>showed plain indifference to employee health.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>argues it has, in response to the 2016 investigation and citation, made a “conscious effort to comply with” the standard and this is supported by evidence it offered and employees received bloodborne pathogen and first aid trainings prior to the 2020 accident.<span>
					</span>(Resp’t<span><span></span>
					</span>Post-Hr’g<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 24.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>asserts even if its training “neglected to include certain required elements . . . mere lapses cannot support a finding of willfulness under the law.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>at 25.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The record supports a finding<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>took some steps following the 2016 accident to train its employees regarding bloodborne pathogens and first aid.<span>
					</span>In 2017, third-party Capital Health conducted a bloodborne pathogen training and first aid training.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 160, 252-53;<span>
					</span>Exh<span><span></span>
					</span>C-3 at 9-11.)<span><span></span>
					</span>In 2021 or 2022, the company also provided Hepatitis B training as part of a larger training on CPR and first aid.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 232.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Balka<span><span></span>
					</span>testified<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>“offer[s] every employee the opportunity to be trained on bloodborne pathogens,” and<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>“had a round of training for bloodborne<span>
					</span>pathogens and first aid” since the 2016 accident.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 302.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Balka<span><span></span>
					</span>also testified<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>bloodborne pathogens exposure control plan and training is “all in the [American Heart Association] book<span>
					</span>. . .<span>
					</span>.<span><span></span>
					</span>All of our employees know how and when and where to report accidents and things of that nature. . .<span>
					</span>.<span><span></span>
					</span>Everybody knows where to get them. Everybody knows where to get their PPE.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 307-08.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Balka added, “Frankly, I understand we should have had this program written down. I don’t see how it would be anything that our employees don’t currently fully understand.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 308.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The American Heart Association workbook, provided by Hepner as<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>exposure control plan, meets some requirements of the standard.<span>
					</span>The workbook explains epidemiology and symptoms of bloodborne diseases (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(B)) and explains how bloodborne pathogens are transmitted (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(C)). (Exh. C-8 at 9-10.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The workbook also contains information on selecting PPE (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(H)) and recognizing biohazard symbols (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(M)).<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-8 at 12-13, 16-17.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Based upon<span>
					</span>Balka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>testimony,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>may have given employees some site-specific instruction on PPE and steps to take and persons to contact in an emergency involving blood (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(J)).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">However, these are only five of fourteen enumerated minimum requirements in the standard.<span>
					</span>The workbook provides there are two parts to this training course; the first being the material in the workbook, and “[t]he second part is training you must receive on your employer’s site-specific exposure control plan.”<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref16" href="#ftn16">16</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Exh. C-8 at 6.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The workbook also recognizes “[t]his course is designed to meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements when used with site-specific training.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>In the absence of a site-specific exposure control plan,<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>program and training did not include “[a]n accessible copy of the regulatory text of this standard and an explanation of its contents” (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(A)); “[a]n explanation of the employer’s exposure control plan and the means by which the employee can obtain a copy of the<span>
					</span>written plan” (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(D)); “[a]n explanation of the appropriate methods for recognizing tasks and other activities that may involve exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials” (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(E)); “[a]n explanation of the use and limitations of methods that will prevent or reduce exposure including appropriate engineering controls, work practices, and personal protective equipment” (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(F)); “[i]nformation<span><span></span>
					</span>on the types, proper use, location, removal, handling, decontamination and disposal of personal protective equipment” (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(G)); “[i]nformation<span><span></span>
					</span>on the hepatitis B vaccine, including information on its efficacy, safety, method of administration, the benefits of being vaccinated, and that the vaccine and vaccination will be offered free of charge” (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(I)); “[a]n explanation of the procedure to follow if an exposure incident occurs, including the method of reporting the incident and the medical follow-up that will be made available” (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(K)); and “[i]nformation<span><span></span>
					</span>on the post-exposure evaluation and follow-up that the employer is required to provide for the employee following an exposure incident” (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(L)).<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref17" href="#ftn17">17</a></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The standard also directed<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>to “train each employee with occupational exposure” and to “institute a training<span>
					</span>program, and<span><span></span>
					</span>ensure employee participation.”<span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(g)(2)(i). But<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>merely “offers” bloodborne pathogens training to all its employees, according to Balka, rather than requiring employees who respond to incidents to attend training.<span>
					</span>Further,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>was required to provide the training “at least annually” after the initial training.<span>
					</span>29 C. F.R. §1910.1030(g)(20(ii)(B).<span>
					</span>There is no evidence in the record<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>trained employees on an annual basis between the 2017 training and the December 2020 accident.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Arguments advanced by both the Secretary and<span>
					</span>Denaka, as well as<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>efforts to comply, establish the company had a heightened awareness of the standard’s command to “ensure that each employee with occupational exposure participated in a training program.”<span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(g)(2)(i).<span>
					</span>In 2016, the Secretary alleged<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>“did not develop a written bloodborne pathogen Exposure Control Plan” and did not “ensure . . . a training program was provided to employees.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(Exh. R-27 at 40-41; s<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">ee<span>
						</span></span>Exh. C-4 at 9-10.)<span><span></span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Balka learned during the 2016 accident proceeding that<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>written policy “was merely a pamphlet from the National Safety<span>
					</span>Council,” and the company admitted in its brief “it did not have a written Exposure Control Plan for bloodborne pathogens.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Home Rubber</span>, 2021 WL 3929735, at *55 (ALJ) (citing<span>
					</span>Resp’t<span><span></span>
					</span>Br. at 35).<span>
					</span>Accordingly, the judge found<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>violated the standard’s requirements to have a written plan and provide training.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref18" href="#ftn18">18</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Home Rubber</span>, 2021 WL 3929735, at *55 (ALJ);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">see E.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Smalis</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>22 BNA OSHC 1553, at *26 (heightened awareness of standard established where judge had emphasized importance of training requirement in earlier proceeding and settlement order).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Despite<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>acknowledgement it lacked a written exposure control plan, the judge’s ruling affirming the related citation items, and<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>failure to challenge it on review, the company still did not create and train its employees on a site-specific written exposure control plan in the fifteen months leading up to the 2020 accident.<span>
					</span>Therefore, it could not train each employee with occupational exposure in accordance with § 1910.1030(g)(2)(i) and the requirements of<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span>§§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(a)-(g)(2)(vii)(N).<span>
					</span>Balka, who testified he participated in the 2017 generic workbook training, would have seen the workbook’s references to an “employer’s site-specific exposure control plan,” yet he disregarded both theses references and the standard’s command to create and train on such a plan.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 306;<span>
					</span>Exh. C-8 at 6-8, 13, 16, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 31, 33.)<span><span></span>
					</span>This establishes<span>
					</span>Balka<span><span></span>
					</span>knew<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>bloodborne pathogens training program was deficient as he was<span>
					</span>actually taking<span><span></span>
					</span>the workbook training.<span>
					</span>Balka confirmed as much during the current proceeding by testifying he knew<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not have a written bloodborne pathogen exposure control plan, which is required by the standard and the bedrock of the training.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 306-08.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">While the Court recognizes physical conditions for the 2016 citations regarding machine guarding and vaccination were different from the 2020 accident citation, such that<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not act with an intentional, knowing, or voluntary disregard for the Act, the record simply does not allow the same finding regarding this item.<span>
					</span>Denaka, through<span>
					</span>Balka, knew of both the physical conditions creating the violation—Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>lack of a written exposure control plan—and the standard’s requirements—to conduct training based upon a written, site-specific exposure control plan.<span>
					</span>Despite<span>
					</span>Balka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>knowledge,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not create its own written plan and train its employees accordingly.<span>
					</span>These deliberate, knowing actions are far from what<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>calls “mere lapses.”</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Because<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>offered some training on bloodborne pathogens (albeit with the knowledge it did not meet the standard’s requirements) the Court rejects the Secretary’s argument<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>has acted with plain indifference towards employee safety.<span>
					</span>However, based upon<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>knowledge of the standard and knowledge that it was not providing a compliant training program, the Court finds<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>acted with intentional, knowing or voluntary disregard for the requirements of the Act.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See A. G. Mazzocchi, Inc.</span>, 22 BNA OSHC 1377, at *13 (No. 98-1696, 2008) (affirming willful characterization despite partial compliance, because employer's “incomplete efforts” to distribute relevant reports did not negate its decision to knowingly withhold required information).<span>
					</span>Here,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>“has been previously cited for [a]<span>
					</span>violation[] of the standard[] in question, is aware of the requirements of the standard[], and is on notice that violative conditions exist.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">J.A. Jones Constr. Co.</span>, 15 BNA OSHC 2201, at *9 (No. 87-2059, 1993). Therefore, the Secretary has “shown [Denaka] was actually aware, at the time of the violative act, that the act was unlawful.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Propellex</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Corp.</span>, 18 BNA OSHC at 1684.<span>
					</span>Accordingly, the Court finds the Bloodborne Pathogens Control Plan Training violation set forth in Citation 2, Item 3 is properly characterized as willful.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">PENALTY DETERMINATION</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The Commission considers “the appropriateness of the penalty with respect to the size of the business of the employer being charged, the gravity of the violation, the good faith of the employer, and the history of previous violations.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><a href="https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=29USCAS666&originatingDoc=Iec8e1f76fa3811d9bf60c1d57ebc853e&refType=RB&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink)#co_pp_267600008f864"><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">29 U.S.C. § 666(j)</span></a><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Gravity, according to the Commission, “is a principal factor in the penalty determination and is based on the number of employees exposed, duration of exposure, likelihood of injury, and precautions taken against injury.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">., No. 00-1052, 2005 WL 696568, at *3 (OSHRC Feb. 25, 2005) (citation omitted);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">see also</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Natkin & Co. Mech. Contractors</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">, No. 401, 1973 WL 4007, at *9, n.3 (OSHRC April 27, 1973) (“Gravity, unlike good faith, compliance history and size, is relevant only to the violation being considered in a case and therefore is usually of greater significance. The other factors are concerned with the employer generally and are considered as modifying factors.”).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>AAD Lord testified the severity of the violation of § 1910.212(a)(1) (machine guarding) was high because the violation led to an amputation</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 168.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">She also testified the probability of injury was greater because, “in this case, the injury did, in fact occur.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 168.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Therefore, the gravity was high. (Tr. 168.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">As to the penalty, AAD Lord testified there was an automatic reduction<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">of 30% for employer size.</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref19" href="#ftn19">19</a></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 169.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">OSHA did not make a good faith reduction because it characterized the proposed violation as willful and did not make a history reduction because it had inspected the company in the past five years and issued citations</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 169.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">It proposed an adjusted penalty of $95,572 penalty for this item</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Court agrees with OSHA’s analysis that the gravity was high based upon severity and probability</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Because the Court finds this violation is serious rather than willful, it assesses the maximum serious penalty of $13,653 and reduces it by 30% based upon the size of the employer</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">86 Fed. Reg. 2964, 2969-70 (Jan 14, 2021) (maximum for a serious penalty assessed after Jan. 15, 2021, but on or before Jan. 15, 2022)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Therefore, the Court assesses a penalty of $9,557.10 for Citation 2, Item 1.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Regarding the violation of § 1910.1030(f)(2)(1) (vaccination), AAD Lord testified the severity was high due because the type of injury that could occur, such as Hepatitis, “can have long-term detrimental effects.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 170.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">However, she said the probability was lesser because employees were not exposed, and they were wearing personal protective equipment during the 2020 accident clean up</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 170.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Therefore, the gravity was moderate</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 170.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">OSHA proposed a $117,024 penalty and adjusted it to $70,214</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 170.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Curiously, OSHA and AAD Lord noted a 30% reduction for<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka’s</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>size</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Exh</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">. C-3 at 1-2; Tr. 170.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">However, OSHA appears to have reduced the penalty by roughly 40%</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Court agrees with OSHA’s analysis that the gravity was moderate because the severity was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">high</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and the probability was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">lesser</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">However, because the Court recharacterizes the violation as serious, it assesses an adjusted penalty of $8,192 for Citation 2, Item 2, which reflects a similar percentage reduction to the one proposed by the Secretary.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>AAD Lord also said the gravity of the violation of § 1910.1030(g)(2)(</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">i</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">) (bloodborne pathogen exposure control plan training) was moderate</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">She again testified the severity was high because the type of injury that could occur, such as Hepatitis B, “can have long-term detrimental effects.”</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 171.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">She also testified the probability was lesser because employees, although they had occupational exposure as defined by the standard, were not actually exposed and were wearing personal protective equipment during the 2020 accident clean up</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 171.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Court notes the citation carried a penalty of $81,919 for this item, which reflects a roughly 30% reduction from $117,024</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Citation at 9-10.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">However, the violation worksheet for this item noted, and AAD Lord testified, that OSHA proposed an adjusted $70,214 penalty based upon the size of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">171;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Exh</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">. C-4 at 1-2.)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Secretary did not seek to amend the penalty amount for this item between the filing of the Amended Complaint and trial</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Because this amount is less than what the Secretary originally sought, and the Court finds AAD Lord’s testimony regarding its appropriateness credible, the Court will enter the penalty proposed at trial</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Court also finds this penalty amount appropriate based upon<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka’s</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>disregard for the standard</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Although this citation item is for a training violation,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">Denaka’s</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>failure to train its employees on a compliant bloodborne pathogens exposure control plan is especially egregious considering its knowledge of the standard, directions in the workbook it relied upon to create a site-specific plan, citation history, and warnings from the Commission</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">The Court affirms Citation 2, Item 3, as willful and assesses a penalty of $70,214.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">The foregoing decision constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">ORDER</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; ">Based upon the foregoing decision, it is ORDERED that:</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Citation 2, Item 1, alleging a violation of<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; ">29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(1)</span>, is<span>
				</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">AFFIRMED</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, recharacterized as serious</span>, and a penalty in the amount of $9,557.10 is assessed.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">2.</span>Citation 2, Item 2, alleging a violation of<span>
				</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; ">29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(f)(2)(1), is<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">AFFIRMED</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; ">, recharacterized as serious, and a penalty in the amount of $8,192 is assessed.<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">3.</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; ">Citation 2, Item 3, alleging a willful violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(g)(2)(</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; ">i</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; ">), is<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; ">AFFIRMED</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; "><span><span></span>
					</span>and a penalty of $70,214 is assessed.<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; line-height:1.5; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">SO</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span>ORDERED.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-left:288px; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline ;">/s/</span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">___________________________<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Sharon D. Calhoun</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; ">Dated: </span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; ">May 17, 2023</span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Administrative Law Judge, OSHRC</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:1.5; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "> Atlanta, GA</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<hr/>"
      <div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn-1" href="#ftnref-1"></a><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; "></span> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn0" href="#ftnref0"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn1" href="#ftnref1"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">1 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>is the corporate name for Home Rubber.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 21.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The names were used interchangeably at trial, but OSHA issued the citation to<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>and the notice of contest was filed by<span>
					</span>Denaka.<span>
					</span>Therefore, the Court uses<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>throughout this opinion.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn2" href="#ftnref2"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; ">2 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; ">Commission Rule 102, 29 C.F.R § 2200.102, provides the Secretary may withdraw a citation “at any stage of a proceeding.”</span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; ">Further, “the Secretary's decision to withdraw a citation against an employer under the Act is not reviewable by the Commission.”</span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_Emphasis style_Emphasis " style="font-size:10pt; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; font-size:10pt; ">Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union</span><span style="font-size:10pt; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; "> 474 U.S. 3, 7 (1985)</span><span style="font-size:10pt; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-size:10pt; ">The Court acknowledges the Secretary’s withdrawal disposes of Citation 1, Item 1, and on November 8, 2022, granted the Secretary’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint, which included withdrawal of Citation 1, Item 1.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn3" href="#ftnref3"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">3 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The Slitter mill was also referred to as a “splitter rewind machine” and “duck cutter” at trial.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 43, 226.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn4" href="#ftnref4"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">4 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>It is unclear from the record what S.H. was using to tap down the blade at the time of accident, but he testified he would use “a tube, similar like a tube” to tap the blades.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 144.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The “Slitter roll,” where the material is cut, is approximately 20 inches above the rotating spool.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-2 at 3, 7.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn5" href="#ftnref5"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">5 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The roll referred to here is the also called the rotating spool or rotating shaft, which gathers material after it is cut by the blades.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn6" href="#ftnref6"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">6 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The OSHA violation worksheet provides another<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>employee eventually stopped the mill, but it does not indicate exactly how it was stopped.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-2 at 3.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The worksheet describes the main operational switch as being approximately 13 inches from the rotating spool or bar.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-2 at 3, 7.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn7" href="#ftnref7"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">7 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Hepner did not name P.R., among other employees, as a designated first responder in an e-mail to CSHO Townsend during the investigation. (Exh. C-9 at 4.)<span><span></span>
					</span>However, she attached an American Heart Association “First Aid, CPR, AED” certification card issued to P.R. in 2017 for a training conducted by a third-party Capital Health.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-3 at 10.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Balka testified that the first aid and bloodborne pathogen trainings were offered to all employees.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 302.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn8" href="#ftnref8"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">8 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>CSHO Townsend joined OSHA in 2011 and estimated she had conducted a few hundred inspections during her time with the agency.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 36.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn9" href="#ftnref9"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">9 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Among other things, OSHA cited<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>for serious violations of § 1910.212(a)(1) (for failing to guard the rotating arm on another machine, called the Kobe mill), § 1910.1030(f)(2)(i) (for failing to timely make the Hepatitis B vaccination available to employees), and § 1910.1030(c)(1)(i) (for failing to develop and implement a written bloodborne pathogen exposure control plan).<span>
					</span>(Exhs. C-2 at 11-13, C-3 at 15-16, C-4 at 8-10.)<span><span></span>
					</span>OSHA also cited<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>for failing to guard the point of operation on the Chrome mill, the Kobe mill, Mill One, and Mill Three, in violation of § 1910.212(a)(3)(ii), which is another provision of the machine guarding standard.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-2 at 16-19.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The machine guarding violations and bloodborne pathogen exposure control plan violations were affirmed, and on review the Commission affirmed the Hepatitis B vaccination violation.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Home Rubber</span>, 2021 WL 3929735, at *1, 11-12.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">These mills are described in the 2016 violation worksheet.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-2 at 18.)<span><span></span>
					</span>The Chrome mill, according to worksheet, “is operated to make a specialty rubber product.<span>
					</span>Raw rubber is fed into the mill and then additional rubber and or powdered chemicals are added to the mix.<span>
					</span>All ingredients<span>
					</span>have to<span><span></span>
					</span>be hand fed into the mill due to the nature of the material that is produced.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span>The Chrome mill had no guarding features at the time of the 2016 incident.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">To make products containing carbon black on Mill Three, an employee places a block of rubber “onto the cylinders and [it is] pulled into the machine creating a smooth sheet.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span>The employee adds “[p]owdered<span><span></span>
					</span>chemicals and oils . . . to the rubber using a shovel as the cylinders on the machine are spinning. The sheet is cut several times by hand, pulled out of the cylinders and then put back in.<span>
					</span>Finished sheets of rubber are removed by the same cutting process.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span>Mill One is used in the same manner but without the carbon black.<span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">The Kobe mill, according to the worksheet, “is also known as the<span>
					</span>warm up<span><span></span>
					</span>mill. Finished sheets of rubber are placed into the cylinders to warm up the rubber prior to feeding it into the calendar machine. Employees also hand cut this rubber, pull it out of the cylinders and then feed it back into the cylinders.”<span><span></span>
					</span>(<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span>)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn10" href="#ftnref10"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">10 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>As a result of her observations, OSHA also cited<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>for a torn strain relief on an electrical cable that attaches to control panel for the Slitter mill, as well as torn strain reliefs on two other mills, in violation of § 1910.305(g)(2)(iii).<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Home Rubber</span>, 2021 WL 3929735, at *54 (ALJ).<span>
					</span>The judge affirmed this serious citation item and penalty of $3,742, and the Commission did not consider this citation item on review.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn11" href="#ftnref11"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">11 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>It is unclear from the record whether the material was at times being adjusted on the roll before it was cut or after it was cut.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn12" href="#ftnref12"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">12 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Townsend also testified that Steele said she had observed employees operating the Slitter mill.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 45.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Her investigation notes also state that Steele said she observed S.H. operating the Slitter mill.<span>
					</span>(Exh. C-2 at 4.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn13" href="#ftnref13"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">13 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Even assuming the violative condition is related to employees adjusting the blades while the Slitter mill was running and management did not observe this practice, management could have discovered the practice with the exercise of reasonable diligence.<span>
					</span>Employees testified they learned to operate the Slitter from more senior employees and observation, rather than any formal training and there was no evidence in the record of a work rule forbidding this practice.<span>
					</span>S.H testified he learned to operate the Slitter mill by helping other people, including Walter, who managed the mill room, and Jose, another employee who had worked on the mill.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 132-33.)<span><span></span>
					</span>S.H. also said he did not receive formal training from HR on how to operate the mill.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 133.)<span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>management did not train its employees to correctly use the Slitter, did not take steps to discover how employees used the mill, and did not discipline employees when they used it incorrectly.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">See Precision Concrete Constr.</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1404, 1407 (No. 99-0707, 2001) (To determine whether an employer exercised reasonable diligence, the Commission considers, among other things an “employer’s obligation to have adequate work rules and training programs, to adequately supervise employees. . . .”).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn14" href="#ftnref14"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">14 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Alternatively, and at a minimum, the record establishes<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>constructive knowledge of the violative condition.<span>
					</span>With the exercise of reasonable diligence,<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>could have known training on a site-specific bloodborne pathogens exposure control plan was required and its training program was deficient.<span>
					</span>Hazards at the worksite, including knives and machinery, as well as its designation of first aid responders, put<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>on notice that bloodborne pathogens exposure control plan training was required.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn15" href="#ftnref15"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">15 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The Court notes<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>is a New Jersey company and the worksite in this case<span>
					</span>is located in<span><span></span>
					</span>New Jersey, which is within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.<span>
					</span>Since it is probable that any Commission decision will be appealed to the Third Circuit, the Court briefly discusses the law of that circuit to the extent it differs from Commission precedent.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">See ​Kerns Bros. Tree Serv.</span>, 18 BNA OSHC 2064, 2067 (No. 96-1719, 2000) (Under 29 U.S.C. §§ 660(a) and (b), the “employer or Secretary may appeal Commission order to federal court of appeals for circuit in which violation allegedly occurred, or where employer has its principal office; employer also may appeal to District of Columbia Circuit[.]”).<span>
					</span>Although the Third Circuit frames its willfulness test as “an ‘obstinate refusal to comply’ with safety and health<span>
					</span>requirements[,] that [test] ‘differs little from’ the Commission and majority-circuit test.”<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">George Campbell Painting Corp.</span>, 17 BNA OSHC 1979, 1982 (No. 93-984, 1997) (quoting<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Universal Auto Radiator Mfg. Co. v. Marshall</span>, 631 F.2d 20, 23 (3d Cir.1980)).<span>
					</span>Because there is no practical difference between the Third Circuit’s test and the Commission’s test, the Court discusses Commission precedent in its analysis.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn16" href="#ftnref16"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">16 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The workbook also provides:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; ">The exposure control plan is a set of rules and procedures specific to your workplace.<span>
					</span>The plan is designed to protect you and your coworkers from being exposed to bloodborne pathogens and to care for workers who have been exposed to bloodborne pathogens.<span>
					</span>Your employer will provide this training.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; ">****</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; ">This workbook refers to the exposure control plan several times.<span>
					</span>When you see the icon to the left, that means you can find more information in your company’s exposure control plan.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">(Exh. 8 at 6.)</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn17" href="#ftnref17"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">17 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The final requirement is “[a]n opportunity for interactive questions and answers with the person conducting the training session.”<span><span></span>
					</span>29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030(g)(2)(vii)(N).<span>
					</span>It is unclear from the record whether<span>
					</span>Denaka’s<span><span></span>
					</span>employees had the opportunity to ask questions in the third-party training.<span>
					</span>Because<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not provide training on a site-specific exposure control plan, the Court finds employees did not have the opportunity to ask questions.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn18" href="#ftnref18"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">18 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>The judge issued her opinion in September 2019, and<span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>did not seek review of the citation items alleging serious violations of § 1910.1030(c)(1)(i) (written exposure control plan) and § 1910.1030(g)(2)(i) (training).<span>
					</span>(Resp’t<span><span></span>
					</span>Pet. for Rev. at 11.)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:0px; text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn19" href="#ftnref19"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">19 </span></a><span><span></span>
					</span>Denaka<span><span></span>
					</span>had approximately 35 employees at the time of the 2020 accident, according to Balka.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 260.)</p>
			</div></div></body>
</html>