Text correction - swimming pool rules FIRST PART

You aren't writing just one regulation, but rather a set of them.

REGULATIONS FOR SWIMMING POOL USE
1. Hours of pool operation are from 9.00 am to 8:00 pm.
2. The maximum capacity of the pool in number of bathers present at one time is 67 people. is 67 bathers at any one time.
3. This does not provide the lifeguard; No lifeguard is provided; in case of accidents or incidents the management shall not be liable for any injury, loss or damage suffered. the incident. The managment management denies will not accept any liability and for losses the loss of valuables which have been left unattended within the area or for any possible accidents provoked caused by customers for through non-observance of these rules.
4. Children below fourteen years must be accompanied by an adult.
5. Animals are not allowed to get into in the pool.
6. It is mandatory to have a full shower and a foot bath with a disinfectant solution before entering the bath pool. The area with the shower and foot bath is in a conspicuous position by the pool.
7. It is mandatory The use of bathing caps is mandatory.

2: The sentence was a little long and convoluted. Also it would be more common to say "in terms of the number of... etc", but that would have made it even longer. The change simplifies it and makes it easier to read and understand.

I don't have enough space to explain the rest; I'll continue that in a separate correction.

Continued from part 1, which contains all of the corrections; please read that first.

3/ "It does not provide the lifeguard..." leads to the question... what does not provide the lifeguard? This is better expressed in the impersonal here, or as "The pool management does not provide... etc." Also, you don't ever have a legal liability for an incident as such, but rather for the consequences of an incident. In this case, injury, loss or damage. I would add "or incidents" just to avoid any chance of a lawyer wanting to argue about whether an incident was an accident or not; for example, if someone deliberately dropped a pool chair on another bather it would be an incident but not an accident.

Although the term is often used in English, it's a little hard to legally "deny" liability for something which has not and may not happen. Although you could use that and get away with it, I would prefer to say "will not accept".

You can't say "and losses"; "and" joins two things. They aren't accepting liability for losses. (Though in this case I've re-expressed it as "the loss of", meaning "some theoretical loss".)

Provoked is not the right word here. It is true that a provocation like taunting someone (calling them unpleasant names, or yelling at them) can provoke a reaction, but in this case it's stretching it to call a breach of these rules a"provocation". Breaking the rules is a "cause" of the loss. Also it's not for non-observance of the rules; the person who suffered the loss would not do their action for the benefit of the rules. It is through, that is, "because of" the rules not being observed that the loss occurred.

5/ It's not that they aren't allowed to perform the action of entering the pool; they aren't allowed to be in it at all.

7/ "It" is a pronoun and is used to replace something else. In this case you have used both the pronoun and the something that it is supposed to replace; that is, "the wearing of bathing caps". The only way that you would use "It" in something like that would be in something like "The wearing of bathing caps is not optional. To be clear, it is mandatory".