C.F.R. » Title 30 » CHAPTER I—MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER K—METAL AND NONMETAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH › PART 56—SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS—SURFACE METAL AND NONMETAL MINES › Subpart M—Machinery and Equipment

30 C.F.R. § 56.14107

Moving machine parts

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Moving machine parts shall be guarded to protect persons from contacting gears, sprockets, chains, drive, head, tail, and takeup pulleys, flywheels, couplings, shafts, fan blades, and similar moving parts that can cause injury.

(b) Guards shall not be required where the exposed moving parts are at least seven feet away from walking or working surfaces.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1997–2012 · leading case: Mainline Rock & Ballast, Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 693 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mainline Rock & Ballast, Inc. v. Sec'y of Labor, 693 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2012). · cites it 8× “An MSHA inspector cited Mainline Rock for failing to install a protective guard around the moving part as required by 30 C.F.R. § 56.14107 (a), and for failing to timely notify the MSHA of the accident pursuant to 30 C.”
Mainline Rock v. MSHA (10th Cir. 2012). · cites it 8× “An MSHA inspector cited Mainline Rock for failing to install a protective guard around the moving part as required by 30 C.F.R. § 56.14107 (a), and for failing to timely notify the MSHA of the accident pursuant to 30 C.”
Crimson Stone v. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health, 198 F. App'x 846 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 5× “” 30 C.F.R. § 56.14107 (a). The ALJ determined that, in order to prove the violation as charged, it was not necessary for the Secretary to show that the dry plant was actually operating with a defective guard when the citation was issued.”
Beck Materials Co. v. MSHA (8th Cir. 1997). “11001 ; and that the belt pulleys were not sufficiently guarded to prevent contact with the pinch point, in violation of 30 C.F.R. § 56.14107 (a). The Secretary determined that the violations were “significant and substantial” and that violations related to the failure to…”
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.