Hobart Corporation; Hobart Corporation (Troy Sunshade Division)

Plain-English summary

Hobart Corporation and its Troy Sunshade Division operated nine press brakes without point-of-operation guards. The company argued that a more specific press standard displaced the cited machine-guarding rule and that the cited rule was vague and invalidly issued. The Commission rejected those arguments under controlling precedent that applied § 1910.212 to press brakes. It also rejected the company's generalized claim that guarding would be difficult or impractical because no specific error was identified in the judge's analysis. The Commission affirmed both citations and penalties of $70 and $95.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.212(a)(3)(ii)
• Outcome: Press-brake guarding citations affirmed with $165 in total penalties
• Key point: The general point-of-operation guarding standard applies to press brakes, and generalized claims of difficulty do not establish a defense.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 14110; 14224

HOBART CORPORATION; HOBART CORPORATION, (TROY SUNSHADE DIVISION)

OSHRC Docket No. 14110; 14224

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

August 3, 1977

�
[*1]
�

Before: BARNAKO, Chairman; CLEARY, Commissioner.
�

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

William S. Kloepfer, Assoc. Regional Solicitor

Frank E. Bazler, Asst. Secy Corporate Attorney, Hobart Corporation (Troy Sunshade Division), for the employer

Robert E. Wehrley, Local 128, International Union, United Auto Workers, for the employees

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

The issue presented for review is whether Respondent is required by 29 C.F.R. 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) n1 to guard the point of operation of its press brake machines. In Docket 14110 Judge Louis G. LaVecchia affirmed a citation issued to Hobart Corporation for failing to guard four of its press brake machines and assessed a penalty of $70.
�
In Docket 14224 he also affirmed a citation issued to the Troy Sunshade Division of Hobart Corporation for failing to guard five press brake machines and assessed a penalty of $95.
�
We affirm.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 This standard states:

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 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.

�
[*2]
�

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Respondent argues that Section 1910.212 is not applicable to its press brakes because of a more specific standard at 29 C.F.R. 1910.217.
�
It also argues that Section 1910.212(a)(3)(ii) is void for being impermissibly vague and for having been invalidly promulgated.
�
The Commission rejected these same arguments by its decision in Diebold, Inc., 76 OSAHRC 3/E5, 3 BNA OSHC 1897, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,333 (No. 6767, 1976), petition for review filed, No. 76-1278, 6th Cir., March 8, 1976. n2 The Judge properly held that Diebold is controlling.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n2 The Eighth Circuit in Long Manufacturing Co., N.C. v. OSHRC, No. 76-1518, unofficially reported, 5 BNA OSHC 1376 (May 12, 1977), and the Ninth Circuit in Irvington Moore Division of U.S. Natural Resources, Inc. v. OSHRC, No. 75-2159 (June 20, 1977) affirmed Commission decisions whereby it was concluded that press brakes are covered under 29 C.F.R. 1910.212 and that the standard is not impermissibly vague.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -End Footnotes-
                                �
                                [*3]
                                �

Respondent also reiterates the contention it made before the Judge that guarding its press brakes would be difficult or impractical.
�
It does not, however, assign any specific error in the Judge's decision, and we note that the Judge's discussion of this issue is consistent with our precedents.
�
Sheet Metal Specialty Co., 75 OSAHRC 51/F1, 3 BNA OSHC 1104, 1974-75 CCH OSHD para. 19,546 (No. 5022, 1975); Garrison & Associates, Inc., 75 OSAHRC 51/D5, 3 BNA OSHC 1110, 1974-75 CCH OSHD para. 19,550 (No. 4235, 1975).
�
Accordingly, Respondent's contention is rejected.

The Judge's decision is affirmed.
�