(a) Machine guarding—(1) Types of guarding. One or more methods of machine guarding shall be 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. Examples of guarding methods are—barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safety devices, etc.
(2) General requirements for machine guards. Guards shall be affixed to the machine where possible and secured elsewhere if for any reason attachment to the machine is not possible. The guard shall be such that it does not offer an accident hazard in itself.
(3) Point of operation guarding. (i) Point of operation is the area on a machine where work is actually performed upon the material being processed.
(ii) The point of operation of machines whose operation exposes an employee to injury, shall be guarded. The guarding device shall be in conformity with any appropriate standards therefor, or, in the absence of applicable specific standards, shall be so designed and constructed as to prevent the operator from having any part of his body in the danger zone during the operating cycle.
(iii) Special handtools for placing and removing material shall be such as to permit easy handling of material without the operator placing a hand in the danger zone. Such tools shall not be in lieu of other guarding required by this section, but can only be used to supplement protection provided.
(iv) The following are some of the machines which usually require point of operation guarding:
(a) Guillotine cutters.
(b) Shears.
(c) Alligator shears.
(d) Power presses.
(e) Milling machines.
(f) Power saws.
(g) Jointers.
(h) Portable power tools.
(i) Forming rolls and calenders.
(4) Barrels, containers, and drums. Revolving drums, barrels, and containers shall be guarded by an enclosure which is interlocked with the drive mechanism, so that the barrel, drum, or container cannot revolve unless the guard enclosure is in place.
(5) Exposure of blades. When the periphery of the blades of a fan is less than seven (7) feet above the floor or working level, the blades shall be guarded. The guard shall have openings no larger than one-half (
1/2) inch.
(b) Anchoring fixed machinery. Machines designed for a fixed location shall be securely anchored to prevent walking or moving.
Notes of Decisions
Thomas E. Perez v. Loren Cook Co., 803 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 16× “Following an industrial accident, the Secretary of Labor (Secretary)1 determined that the Loren Cook Company (Loren Cook) violated 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212 (a)(1), which requires barrier guards on certain industrial equipment.”
Akm LLC v. Sec'y of Labor, Dept. of Labor, 675 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards," 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212 (a)(1), a citation remains timely more than six months after the first unguarded day, because each day a machine is unguarded there is a continuing violation-a continuing…”
Carroll v. Getty Oil Co., 498 F. Supp. 409 (D. Del. 1980).
· cites it 9× “ry safe for the use to which it was supplied; (c) failed to exercise reasonable care to discover the machinery’s dangerous condition and to inform plaintiff thereof; (d) failed to warn the plaintiff of the dangerous condition of the supplied machinery; (e) failed to comply with…”
S. Hens, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 930 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 4× “The third arose from observing Hunt clearing the conveyor jam with his hands and concerned compliance with a machine-guarding standard: 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212 (a)(1), requiring guards on machines that pose hazards from "ingoing nip points," among other features.”
Almonte v. Averna Vision & Robotics, Inc., 128 F. Supp. 3d 729 (W.D.N.Y. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Coniglio relied upon the following safety regulations and standards: (1) OSHA regulations governing “Machinery and Machine Guarding,” which are set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212 (a)(l)-(3); (2) ASME industry standards governing “Safety Standard for Conveyors and Related…”
Thomas E. Perez v. Loren Cook Co., 750 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 16× “In the order, the Commission approved without comment an underlying Administrative Law Judge's decision that addressed competing interpretations of a Department of Labor safety regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212 (a)(1). The ALJ rejected the Secretary's interpretation of the…”
Martinez v. Southington Metal Fabricating Co., 924 A.2d 150 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 4× ““[g] failed to out source the operation even though the operation of bending and/or crimping sheets of plate steel is infrequently performed; “[h] failed to install guards at all points of operation of the aforesaid leaf break machine to prevent employees from having any part of…”
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Comm'r of Labor & Indus., 662 A.2d 256 (Md. 1995).
· cites it 6× “The issue is whether, under a citation charging violation of the machine guarding requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212 (a)(1), the burden is on the employer to prove infeasibility of compliance as an affirmative defense.”
Jenkins v. Easco Aluminum, 598 S.E.2d 252 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “§ 97-12 because of OSHA violations ( 29 C.F.R. §1910.212 ) for which [Easco] had prior knowledge and willfully chose not to comply with OSHA regulations.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a) — 3 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(1) — 2 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(2) — 1 case
Jenkins v. Easco Aluminum, 598 S.E.2d 252 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
“§ 97-12 because of OSHA violations ( 29 C.F.R. §1910.212 ) for which [Easco] had prior knowledge and willfully chose not to comply with OSHA regulations.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(3)(i) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) — 4 cases
Martinez v. Southington Metal Fabricating Co., 924 A.2d 150 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007).
““[g] failed to out source the operation even though the operation of bending and/or crimping sheets of plate steel is infrequently performed; “[h] failed to install guards at all points of operation of the aforesaid leaf break machine to prevent employees from having any part of…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(4) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(4)(1995) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.