Identical saw-guard requirements and citation grouping

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

February 25, 1976

Memorandum For: Grover Wrenn, Acting Director of Standards
Subject: Standards with Identical Requirements

The language in Section 17(b) of the Act states that an employer shall be assessed a civil penalty for each serious violation of a standard. The Field Operations Manual authorizes grouping of multiple instances of a serious violation of a single standard for penalty purposes. However, in some instances the standards are written in such a way that violation of a single requirement may involve two standards. For example 29 CFR 1910.213(c)(1) and 1910.213(d)(1) wherein 29 CFR 1910.213(d)(1) refers to paragraph (c)(1) for guarding requirements.
The present standard effects two or more violations when good judgement indicates there should be one violation for similar operations on similar or identical pieces of equipment. In the example given, the only difference is the blade used, crosscut or ripsaw - all other items, including the guard, are identical.
It is recommended that 29 CFR 1910.213(c)(1) and (2), 1910.213(d)(1) and (2), and possibly 1910.213(e)(1) and (2) with 1910.213(f)(1) and (2) be combined under one heading, 1910.213(c), with the title "Circular Saws."
Barry J. White
Associate Assistant Secretary
for Regional Programs