29 CFR 1910.217 - Mechanical power presses

Cite as29 CFR 1910.217
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
88 practice notes
  • Worker Safety and Health Program; chronic beryllium disease prevention,
    • United States
    • Federal Register February 09, 2006
    • February 9, 2006
    ...standard and thus, was a de minimis condition and a variance was not needed. In a third example, OSHA determined that a deviation from 29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1)(ii) which, requires that mechanical power presses be inspected and tested at least weekly, was de minimis in a situation where the mac......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register February 09, 2006
    • February 9, 2006
    ...standard and thus, was a de minimis condition and a variance was not needed. In a third example, OSHA determined that a deviation from 29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1)(ii) which, requires that mechanical power presses be inspected and tested at least weekly, was de minimis in a situation where the mac......
  • Faultless Div., Bliss & Laughlin Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, No. 81-1740
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 30, 1982
    ...§§ 1910.211(c)(2)-(3) (1980). Faultless further contends that its presses are excluded from the more specific guarding requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.217 (1980) applicable to power presses and, therefore, this "specific" regulation must govern as against the "general" language of 29 C.F.R......
  • Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall, No. 76-1278
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 3, 1978
    ...vacated the citations and proposed penalties, having concluded that a regulation specifically applicable to mechanical power presses, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.217, relieved press brakes from any point of operation guarding requirement. The Commission thereupon called the case for review, 29 U.S.C. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • Faultless Div., Bliss & Laughlin Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, No. 81-1740
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 30, 1982
    ...§§ 1910.211(c)(2)-(3) (1980). Faultless further contends that its presses are excluded from the more specific guarding requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1910.217 (1980) applicable to power presses and, therefore, this "specific" regulation must govern as against the "general" language of 29 C.F.R......
  • Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall, No. 76-1278
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 3, 1978
    ...vacated the citations and proposed penalties, having concluded that a regulation specifically applicable to mechanical power presses, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.217, relieved press brakes from any point of operation guarding requirement. The Commission thereupon called the case for review, 29 U.S.C. ......
  • Colegrove v. Cameron Machine Co., No. 99-CV-258 J.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • October 23, 2001
    ...prohibiting unguarded foot switches around mechanical power presses. See Defendant's Exhibit 1-K, dkt. no. 93, ex. 4, at 3 (citing 29 CFR § 1910.217(b)(7)(x) (2001)). Nothing in Snyder's report, however, indicates that Westvaco knew of this regulation and failed to heed its A-B simply concl......
  • Martinez v. Southington Metal, No. 27201.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • June 19, 2007
    ...from training and instructing employees in safe methods of work before starting work on a mechanical power press in violation of 29 C.F.R. 1910.217(f)(2) when they knew, or should have know[n], that such reasonable measures were available to make—and would make—the machine the plaintiff was......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT