Kevin Ian Schmidt

Here is the next in my series where I examine the effect the loss of Chevron deference could have on OSHA standards and workplace safety, this week we are reviewing Machine Guarding.

If you missed it, here is my article on PPE and the loss of Chevron Deference. The whole series is centered around understanding what it means to workplace safety to lose Chevron deference, and the risk to workers from workplaces that don’t care about employees.

OSHA standard 1910.212 pertains to general requirements for all machines, specifically machine guarding. This standard aims to protect employees from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips, and sparks. However, certain aspects of this standard are ambiguous and have required clarifications through OSHA letters of interpretation. Here are some of the common areas of ambiguity and the issues that frequently require interpretation:

• General Nature of the Requirements:
  • The standard establishes broad requirements for machine guarding but fails to provide specific details on how to implement these requirements across different machines and operational contexts. This lack of precision can create significant uncertainty for employers trying to determine what specific guarding methods are considered compliant. Without clear, detailed guidance, businesses may find it challenging to apply the general principles of the standard to their unique machinery and operational circumstances. This ambiguity can lead to varied interpretations and implementations of guarding measures, potentially resulting in inconsistent safety practices and compliance issues across different workplaces. As a result, employers may struggle to ensure that their machine guarding methods meet OSHA’s expectations, potentially putting workers at risk, and OSHA would not have a recourse to address the hazard in the workplace outside of a lengthy court proceeding.
• Definition of “Point of Operation”:
  • The term “point of operation” denotes the specific area on a machine where work is performed on the material being processed. However, the exact boundaries and characteristics of this area are not clearly defined, which can lead to varying interpretations. This ambiguity can make it difficult for employers to determine precisely what constitutes the point of operation for different types of machinery. As a result, there may be inconsistencies in how this critical area is identified and guarded, leading to potential safety risks. Without a clear, universally accepted definition, businesses might implement differing safety measures, potentially resulting in non-compliance with OSHA standards and varying levels of protection for workers. This lack of clarity necessitates further guidance to ensure that employers can effectively and uniformly identify and guard the point of operation to maintain a safe working environment.
• Criteria for Guard Effectiveness:
  • OSHA 1910.212 mandates that guards be “affixed to the machine where possible” and designed to prevent employees from having any part of their body in the danger zone during operation. However, the standard does not provide precise criteria for what constitutes an effective guard, leading to significant ambiguity. This vagueness can result in uncertainty for employers trying to comply with the regulation, as they must determine on their own what types of guards will sufficiently protect employees from the hazards associated with specific machines. The absence of clear, detailed guidelines means that interpretations can vary widely, potentially leading to inconsistent implementations of guarding measures across different workplaces. This lack of specificity not only complicates the task of ensuring compliance but also poses a risk to worker safety, as improperly guarded machines may fail to provide the necessary protection. Clearer criteria are needed to guide employers in selecting and installing effective machine guards, thereby enhancing workplace safety and regulatory compliance.
• Variety of Machines and Hazards:
  • Given the wide range of machinery covered under this standard, it can be challenging to determine the appropriate type of guarding for specific machines and hazards. This diversity necessitates a more tailored approach, which the standard itself does not provide.

Check Out: Machine Guarding Basics

Clarifications from OSHA Letters of Interpretation

OSHA has issued several letters of interpretation to address these ambiguities. Here are some key points clarified through these letters:

• Specific Guarding Requirements:
  • OSHA has provided more detailed guidance on acceptable guarding methods for different types of machinery. For example, certain letters explain how to guard specific machines like press brakes, conveyors, and woodworking machinery.
• Point of Operation Guarding:
  • Clarifications have been made regarding what constitutes adequate point of operation guarding. OSHA has emphasized that guards must not only prevent contact with the danger zone but also be designed and installed in a way that does not create additional hazards.
• Guard Effectiveness Criteria:
  • OSHA has outlined criteria for what makes a guard effective, such as being secure, preventing access to the danger zone, and being constructed of durable materials. The interpretation letters often provide examples of compliant guards and non-compliant ones.
• Alternative Guarding Methods:
  • In cases where standard guarding is not feasible, OSHA letters have discussed acceptable alternative methods, such as the use of electronic safety devices, two-hand controls, and safety distance measures. These alternatives must provide equivalent protection to traditional guards.
• Maintenance and Adjustment of Guards:
  • OSHA has clarified that guards must be maintained in good condition and adjusted appropriately to ensure continued protection. This includes regular inspections and repairs as needed.

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference casts a shadow over OSHA’s ability to enforce machine guarding regulations. While the core standards will likely remain, the interpretation and enforcement process faces significant hurdles. Increased litigation, conflicting court rulings, and the potential for a legislative overhaul of machine guarding regulations are all on the horizon.

The path forward for machine guarding regulations remains uncertain. However, one thing is clear: the importance of safeguarding workers from machinery hazards hasn’t diminished. Stakeholders across the board – employers, employees, advocacy groups, and lawmakers – will need to work together to navigate this new environment and ensure the continued safety of America’s