Machine Guarding: OSHA Requirements, Common Violations, and How to Stay Compliant (2026)

Machine guarding shows up on OSHA’s top 10 most cited violations list year after year. The standard at 29 CFR 1910.212 hasn’t changed in decades. The hazards haven’t changed. But guards keep getting removed, and workers keep losing fingers.

Most of those injuries were preventable. The equipment that prevents them often costs less than a single day of production downtime.

The Standard and What It Covers

29 CFR 1910.212 is the general machine guarding standard for general industry. It covers mechanical power-transmission equipment and machine hazards broadly. The standard requires that one or more guarding methods protect operators and other workers from point of operation hazards, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips, and sparks.

Other OSHA standards address specific machine types and are more prescriptive. 1910.217 covers mechanical power presses. 1910.213 covers woodworking machinery. 1910.215 covers abrasive wheel machinery. When a specific standard applies, it controls over the general standard. But 1910.212 catches everything else and is the citation OSHA reaches for most often.

The general standard sets the core requirements: guards must be affixed to the machine where possible, workers must not be able to remove or bypass them without tools, and the guard itself must not create a new hazard (no sharp edges, no additional pinch points, no restricted visibility that causes the operator to work in an unsafe position).

The Four Hazard Zones

Point of operation is where the machine works on material. On a press, it’s where the die comes down. On a table saw, it’s the blade. On a lathe, it’s where the tool meets the workpiece. This is the most dangerous zone because the work requires the operator to be close, and because the machine’s action is often fast and forceful. Most amputations happen here.

Power transmission apparatus includes belts, chains, gears, pulleys, flywheels, and couplings. These components move constantly while the machine is running, and they’re often not where the operator is focused. Workers have been caught in drive belts that weren’t behind a panel.

Operating controls and other rotating or reciprocating parts round out the zones. Each requires a different guarding approach, and a machine audit should address all four, not just the point of operation.

Guarding Methods

Fixed guards are the preferred approach when the work allows it. They have no moving parts, they don’t depend on operator cooperation, and they’re the hardest to defeat accidentally. A solid barrier that prevents any part of the body from reaching the danger zone is the simplest and most reliable solution.

Interlocked guards stop the machine when the guard is opened or removed. They’re appropriate when operators need regular access to the danger zone, such as for feeding stock or clearing jams. The interlock has to be functional, not bypassed with a piece of tape.

Adjustable guards accommodate different stock sizes while still blocking the danger zone. They require proper adjustment for each job setup, which is where compliance breaks down. An adjustable guard set for 4-inch stock that’s running 2-inch stock isn’t guarding anything.

Self-adjusting guards move with the material, opening only enough to let the workpiece through. Common on radial arm saws and band saws. They work when they’re maintained. Worn components defeat them.

Beyond physical barriers, presence-sensing devices (light curtains, pressure-sensitive mats) and two-hand controls are acceptable methods for certain machine types, particularly mechanical power presses. The OSHA machine guarding eTool at osha.gov/etools/machine-guarding covers which methods are acceptable for which machine categories.

Why Guards Get Removed

Production pressure is the primary driver. Guards slow down setup. They make it harder to clear jams. They’re in the way when feeding material. A guard that adds 30 seconds to every setup cycle on a machine that cycles 200 times a shift adds real time.

Once a guard comes off and production continues for a few days without incident, the pressure to replace it drops sharply. This is how facilities end up with guards stored in the corner of the shop floor while machines run unguarded for months. Nobody got hurt, so nobody fixed it.

The other driver is maintenance and die changes. Guards have to come off for those tasks. When they come off regularly and going through lockout/tagout procedures feels like overhead, the temptation to skip re-guarding after a quick adjustment is constant.

This is also why OSHA classifies so many machine guarding violations as willful. An inspector who finds a guard in the corner of the shop, a machine running without it, and a supervisor who can’t explain when it was last in place has everything needed to document that the employer knew and didn’t correct it.

The LOTO Connection

You can’t legally remove a guard for maintenance or blade changes without first applying lockout/tagout under 29 CFR 1910.147. The machine must be de-energized and locked out before any part of the body enters the danger zone, regardless of how quick the task seems.

This is where the serious injuries concentrate. A worker who reaches into a press to clear a jam without locking out, because LOTO feels like too much overhead for a 20-second task, is in the exact scenario 1910.147 was written to prevent. The machine doesn’t know the jam-clearing was supposed to be quick.

The job hazard analysis guide covers how to document these tasks formally, identify where LOTO applies, and make sure the written procedures reflect what workers actually encounter.

How OSHA Enforces This Standard

Machine guarding is one of the first things OSHA inspectors look for during manufacturing walkthroughs. It’s visible. It’s obvious. A missing guard on a running machine is a clear violation before the inspector has said a word.

What drives the high penalty amounts is the classification. OSHA typically classifies machine guarding violations as willful when a guard is missing and the employer has prior citations or has received informal complaints. Willful violations can reach $165,514 per item as of 2024, adjusted annually for inflation.

Serious violations (the employer knew or should have known about the hazard) carry up to $16,550 per item. Repeat violations, where the same standard was cited within five years, carry the same ceiling as willful violations. Verify current amounts at osha.gov/penalties, as these adjust each year.

The OSHA fines and penalties guide covers the full penalty schedule, how OSHA calculates penalty reductions, and what the informal settlement process looks like.

Practical Compliance: What the Audit Looks Like

A machine guarding audit is a physical walk-through, not a paperwork exercise. It needs someone who knows what the standard requires and who will actually look at the machines, not just verify that a policy document exists.

The basic checklist covers the following: Are all guards in place on running machines? Can any guard be removed by hand without tools? Is the point of operation protected? Are power transmission components (belts, chains, gears) behind guards? Are interlocks functional, meaning the machine actually stops when the guard is opened? Are adjustable guards set correctly for the current job?

Run this check before every shift on high-risk equipment. Run a full facility audit at minimum quarterly. Document what you find and what you corrected. Documentation of corrective action is the difference between a citation that gets reduced at settlement and one that doesn’t.

Training Requirements

OSHA 1910.212 doesn’t specify a training standard, but the general duty clause and 1910.132 require that workers understand the hazards they face and the controls in place to address them. For machine operators, that means knowing what the guard is protecting them from, why it can’t come off during operation, and what to do when a guard is damaged or missing.

The answer to that last question should always be: stop the machine and notify the supervisor. Not “work around it carefully.” Not “fix it yourself.” Stop the machine.

OSHA 30 General Industry training covers machine guarding as part of the general industry curriculum. It’s appropriate background for supervisors and safety personnel, not a substitute for task-specific operator training.

Walk your facility floor with one test in mind: can you remove a guard with your bare hands in under 10 seconds without any tools? If yes, it doesn’t meet the standard.