“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 78?1384 \u00a0 LADISH COMPANY, \u00a0 \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 \u00a0December 17, 1981DECISIONBefore: ROWLAND, Chairman; CLEARY and COTTINE,Commissioners.BY THE COMMISSION:??????????? Adecision of Administrative Law Judge Ralph B. Maxwell is before the Commissionfor review under section 12(j), 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i), of the Occupational Safetyand Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651?678 (?the Act?). Judge Maxwellaffirmed a citation issued to Respondent, Ladish, Company (Ladish?). Thecitation[1], which was issuedfollowing the investigation of a fatal accident, alleged a serious violation ofthe Act for noncompliance with the standard at 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212(a)(1).[2] Ladish petitioned fordiscretionary review of the judge?s decision and the petition was granted byformer Commissioner Barnako. The questions presented on review are: (1) whetherthe cited standard applies to the conditions at issue, (2) whether a hazardexisted, and (3) whether Respondent knew or with the exercise of reasonablediligence could have known of the existence of the alleged hazard.??????????? Forthe following reasons, we conclude that the standard at 29 C.F.R. ?1910.212(a)(1) applies, there was a machine guarding hazard, and Ladish knew orcould have known with reasonable diligence that a hazard existed. We thereforeaffirm the citation.I??????????? Ladishmanufactures drop forgings, such as railcar wheels and aircraft landing gears,at its Cudahy, Wisconsin plant, where it employs 4,700 of its 6,700 workers.During manufacturing the forgings are cleaned in a large drum-like mill calleda wheelabrator and then dumped onto a vibrating conveyor. The wheelabrator ison the west side of the conveyor. Immediately opposite the wheelabrator on theeast side of the conveyor is another large machine called a wheelabratorloader. The conveyor runs from north to south between the two machines.??????????? Theforgings are placed into the wheelabrator by the wheelabrator loader, which hastwo arms that lift a ?tote box? or materials bucket. In loading thewheelabrator, the loader arms pivot forward and down across the conveyor to thedump position. It takes thirty seconds for the loader arms to lower and becomefully extended. When fully extended, the bottom edges of the loader arms cometo rest on a low railing on the east side of the conveyor. At this point ofcontact a Ladish employee, (nameredacted), was fatally crushed on January 16, 1978.??????????? Atthe time of the accident, (name redacted)was working as a wheelabrator helper. A wheelabrator helper oversees andexpedites the movement of the forgings down the conveyor. The conveyor does nothave a moving belt but rather moves the forgings by vibration. When theforgings become stuck, the helper frees them, using a three-foot long steelhook. Usually he stands on the east side of the conveyor on a small metalplatform 25 inches off the floor in order to reach the forgings. Lessfrequently he stands on a slightly larger 35-inch-high platform located in anarrow space between the wheelabrator loader and the vibrating conveyor. Whenworking on the higher platform, the wheelabrator helper?s back is to theloader, he is out of the line of vision of the wheelabrator operator, and thenoise is too loud for the helper to hear the movement of the wheelabratorloader. (name redacted) was workingon the higher platform when a wheelabrator loader arm crushed him.??????????? Twowheelabrator helpers, Jack Conley and John Perencevic, testified that theyregularly stood on the higher platform to free stuck forgings on the conveyor,using the three-foot steel hook provided for that task. Conley stated that overhis four years as a wheelabrator helper he had to stand on the higher platformat least 10 percent of the time because he could not always reach the forgingsfrom the lower platform. Conley also testified that at times he had been on thehigher platform when the wheelabrator loader cycle started and he came close tobeing pinned by the loader arms. He further testified that he saved anotheremployee, Copland, from the descending loader arms by pulling him out of theway. Conley testified that his supervisor, George Milan, had seen him on thehigher platform. Conley and Perencevic both stated that they were never instructednot to use the higher platform.??????????? Perencevicstated that, prior to (name redacted)?saccident, the higher platform, originally wooden, was replaced by a platformmade of metal grating after Perencevic complained numerous times to Jim Heinan,his supervisor, that the wooden platform was damaged and therefore dangerous tostand on. He testified that he would have to stand on the lower or upperplatforms between ten and forty times a shift, depending on the types offorgings and the number of loads dumped into the wheelabrator.??????????? ArthurLadish, Respondent?s safety officer, testified that he conducted weekly safetyinspections of the wheelabrator building and never was aware that employeesused the upper platform or of any danger posed by it. George Milan, shiftsupervisor for Ladish, testified that no employee ever complained to him aboutthe upper platform. He also stated that he was ?right in front? of thewheelabrator section forty to fifty per cent of his work day and never saw anemployee use the upper platform. Ralph Weber, Ladish?s general foreman, alsotestified that he had never seen an employee on the upper platform. Milan andWeber both admitted that employees were not instructed to stay off the upperplatform. Weber also stated that the lower platform once had been wooden andwas replaced by a metal platform, but he did not comment on whether the upperplatform had been replaced.??????????? ComplianceOfficer Donald Zehm, who conducted the inspection following the accident,testified that the condition that gave rise to the citation was a danger zonein the back of the wheelabrator loader and that the loader needed guarding inthat area. He acknowledged, however, that he had spent five to ten minutes inLadish?s wheelabrator area during an inspection one or two years earlier anddid not recall noticing any problems with the wheelabrator operation at thattime.??????????? Shortlyafter the accident Ladish installed several safety devices, including aguardrail to block access to the upper platform, a red ?jelly bean? light towarn of the operation of the loader, mirrors to allow the operator to seeanyone in the hazardous area, and several emergency stop boxes at criticallocations.II??????????? Inhis decision Judge Maxwell concluded that a machine guarding hazard existed in?the area between the back of the loader and the conveyor, exposing employeesto death or serious injury through contact with moving parts of the equipment.?He further concluded that this hazard came within the meaning of the standardat 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212(a)(1) and that Ladish failed to comply with the machineguarding standard in that Ladish failed to provide ?protective devices,guarding methods, warning signals or other safeguards.? Judge Maxwell foundabatement of the hazard readily available through ?shutting off access to thearea.? The judge assessed a penalty of $480, agreeing with the Secretary thatthe corporation was a large one and the violation was serious.III??????????? Inits post-hearing brief, which was submitted with its petition for review,Ladish argues that, for several reasons, 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212(a)(1) does notapply to the cited condition. First, Ladish maintains that the wheelabratorloader and the conveyor are not machines used in the manufacturing process, andtherefore not within the ambit of the subject standard, because the forgingsare already manufactured when they are brought to the wheelabrator area.Second, Ladish contends that the cited standard applies only to individualmachines, while the alleged hazardous area here is an area between twomachines; moreover, the alleged hazardous area concerns a platform, and noviolation of the platform guarding standard, 29 C.F.R. ?\u00a01910.23(c)(3),was cited.[3] Ladish further contendsthat the ?pinch point? hazard alleged in the citation is not one covered by thesubject standard; rather it is defined in 29 C.F.R. ?\u00a01910.211(d)(44) as aterm used in connection with power presses.??????????? Ladishalso argues that the Secretary failed to prove that a hazard existed or that itknew or could have known of the alleged hazard. Ladish points out that itssupervisors did not perceive the area between the wheelabrator loader and theconveyor to present a hazard because they were not aware of any employee beingin this area. Ladish also notes that no employee complained that there was ahazard in this area. Ladish contends that the only evidence that there was ahazard was the testimony of compliance officer Zehm and that his testimony tothis effect was based solely on the occurrence of the accident. Ladish notesthat the Secretary did not present evidence that the forging industry regardedthe cited condition here as being hazardous. Ladish also points out thatcompliance officer Zehm had previously inspected the plant and had not noticeda machine guarding hazard between the wheelabrator loader and the conveyor.IV??????????? Wereject Ladish?s contention that section 1910.212(a)(1) is inapplicable. Thelanguage of the cited standard, as well as the heading of section 1910.212,?General requirements for all machines,? clearly indicates that the citedstandard is generally applicable according to its terms to the hazardspresented by the moving parts of all types of industrial machinery unless amore specific machine guarding standard applies. See Dayton Tire and RubberCo., 80 OSAHRC 95\/D4, 8 BNA OSHC 2086, 1980 CCH OSHD ?24,842 (No. 16188, 1980).The platform-guarding standard raised by Ladish, section 1910.23(c)(3), is nota machine guarding standard; it is designed to prevent employees from fallingoff platforms and other surfaces rather than barring employees from access toplatforms or other locations made hazardous by machinery. Thus, section1910.23(c)(3) does not preclude application of section 1910.212(a)(1). Cf., General Supply Co., 77 OSAHRC16\/A2, 4 BNA OSHC 2039, 1976?77 CCH OSHD ?21,503 (No. 11752, 1977) (where aspecific standard addresses a cited hazard, it shall prevail over a moregeneral standard); United States SteelCorp., 77 OSAHRC 192\/B5, 5 BNA OSHC 2063, 1977?78 CCH OSHD ?22,269 (No.15500, 1977) (same).??????????? Moreover,Ladish?s contention that, under Allis-ChalmersCorp., 76 OSAHRC 142\/C3, 4 BNA OSHC 1876, 1976?77 CCH OSHD ?21,341 (No.8274, 1976), and United States SteelCorp., supra, section 1910.212(a)(1) is inapplicable to its wheelabratorloader and conveyor because they are not used in the manufacturing process isunsound. In limiting the applicability of section 1910.212(a)(1) to machines thatare or can be used in the manufacturing process, Allis-Chalmers distinguishes machines used in manufacturing frommachines that are in the process of being made; the latter are excluded fromapplication of the standard.[4] The cleaning of theforgings by a process comprised of the wheelabrator loader, conveyor, andwheelabrator is integral to the manufacture of forgings. Thus, these machinesare not excluded from the scope of the subject standard under Allis-Chalmers.[5]??????????? We agreewith Ladish that the Secretary has the burden of proving the existence of ahazard when a violation of section 1910.212(a)(1) is charged. Papertronics, Division of Hammermill PaperCo., 78 OSAHRC 54\/C6, 6 BNA OSHC 1818, 1978 CCH OSHD ?22,898 (No. 76?3517,1978). However, contrary to Ladish?s contention, we find that the Secretarysucceeded in proving the existence of a hazard here. It is readily apparentthat an employee standing on the higher platform with his back to thewheelabrator loader is in danger of being struck by the descending arms of theloader and pinned between them and the conveyor railing. The hazard isexacerbated by the fact that the high volume of noise in the area masks thesound of the loader arms descending and that an employee standing on the higherplatform is out of the range of vision of the wheelabrator operator.Furthermore, employee testimony establishes several instances in whichemployees narrowly missed being struck by the loader arms. We reject Ladish?sassertion that the Secretary failed to sustain his burden because there was noevidence that the forging industry recognized the cited condition as presentinga hazard. The record evidence establishes that an employee on the higherplatform is exposed to a hazard within the meaning of the cited standard.Section 1910.212(a)(1) is specific in its requirements. Accordingly, areference to industry custom and practice is unnecessary. See A. E. BurgessLeather Co. v. OSHRC, 576 F.2d 948 (1st Cir. 1978).[6] Indeed, Ladish does notassert that no hazard is posed to an employee standing on the higher platform;rather it argues that its supervisors did not perceive a hazard because theywere unaware that any employee stood on the higher platform.??????????? Wealso conclude that Ladish knew or with the exercise of reasonable diligencecould have known of the hazard. Safety director Ladish, general foreman Weber,and supervisor Milan denied that wheelabrator helpers stood on the upperplatform. Wheelabrator helpers Conley and Perencevic, on the other hand,testified that on a regular basis they stood on the upper platform to reachstuck forgings and that their three-foot hook often was too short to reachstuck forgings from the lower platform. It is uncontroverted, however, thatprior to (name redacted)?s accidentLadish had replaced the upper platform, which was wooden, with a metal oneafter receiving employee complaints that the wooden one was damaged andtherefore dangerous to stand on. Thus, Ladish clearly knew that employees stoodon the upper platform and, hence, knew or with reasonable diligence could haveknown of the hazard presented to such employees by the arms of the wheelabratorloader.??????????? Ladish?scontention that no employee ever brought the hazard to the attention of asupervisor is of no significance. The duty to comply with the Act rests on theemployer and cannot be shifted to the employees by relying on them to determineand report whether the conditions under which they work are unsafe. Armstrong Cork Co., 80 OSAHRC 16\/D4, 8BNA OSHC 1070, 1980 CCH OSHD ? 24,273 (No. 76?2777, 1980), aff?d, 636 F.2d 1207 (3d Cir. 1981); J. H. MacKay Electric Co., 78 OSAHRC 77\/B10, 6 BNA OSHC 1947, 1978CCH OSHD ?23,026 (No. 16110, 1978); AlderElectric Co, 77 OSAHRC 49\/C8, 5 BNA OSHC 1303, 1977?78 CCH OSHD ?21,748(No. 13573, 1977).??????????? Ladish?sargument that compliance officer Zehm previously had inspected the wheelabratorarea and had not noted a hazard is to no avail. Zehm had spent only five to tenminutes in that area and certainly was not as familiar with the wheelabratoroperation as Ladish, so it was not unreasonable that he overlooked the hazardposed by the wheelabrator loader arms. In any event, his failure to issue acitation for the wheelabrator loader did not grant Ladish immunity from subsequentenforcement, and Ladish is not absolved of its own knowledge of the hazard byZehm?s earlier failure to spot the hazard. SeeColumbian Art Works, Inc., 81 OSAHRC??, 10 BNA OSHC 1132, 1981 CCH OSHD ?25,737 (No. 78?0029, 1981).??????????? Accordingly,we affirm a serious violation of the standard at 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.212(a)(1) forLadish?s failure to guard the area between the loader and the conveyor whichcreated a hazard.V??????????? Apenalty of $480 was proposed by the Secretary and found by the judge to bereasonable. Applying the penalty factors in section 17(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.? 661(i), we find the gravity of the violation to be high and no history ofprior violations. Respondent is a large corporation employing 6,700 people,4,700 in the Cudahy plant. Ladish demonstrated good faith in promptly abatingthe hazard. On balance, we find $480 to be an appropriate penalty.??????????? Accordingly,we affirm the decision of the judge and assess a $480 penalty.?SO ORDERED.?FOR THE COMMISSION:?Ray H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDATED: DEC 17, 1981\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 78?1384 \u00a0 LADISH COMPANY, \u00a0 \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 September 26, 1979DECISION??????????? Thisis a proceeding under Section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Actof 1970.??????????? Acitation was issued by the complainant (Secretary) on March 8, 1978, allegingviolation by respondent (Ladish) of the machine guarding standard found at 29CFR 1910.212(a)(1). That citation reads in pertinent part as follows:Machine guarding was not provided toprotect operator(s) and other employees from hazard(s) created by pinch point:Wheelabrator loader (Company #3406),located in the Processing Department, had an unguarded danger zone between theback of the loader and the shaker conveyor, exposing employees to contact bymoving parts of the equipment.???????????? Thealleged violation was characterized in the citation as ?serious? and theSecretary proposed a penalty of $480.??????????? Section1910.212(a)(1), which deals with requirements for all machines, reads asfollows:(a) Machine Guarding?(1) Types ofguarding. One or more methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protectthe operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as thosecreated by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chipsand sparks. Examples of guarding methods are?barrier guards, two-hand trippingdevices, electronic safety devices, etc.???????????? Ahearing was held in Milwaukee, on January 8 and 25, 1979. Ladish wasrepresentated by attorney Peter C. Karegeannes of the firm Quarles & Bradyof Milwaukee, and the Secretary by Robert H. Brown, of the Office of theSolicitor, Department of Labor, Chicago, Illinois.??????????? OSHA?sinspection in this case was triggered by a fatal accident occurring January 16,1978, in the wheelabrator area of Ladish?s Cudahy, Wisconsin plant. At thatplant Ladish manufactures drop forged items such as railroad car wheels andaircraft landing gears. (TA10)??????????? Wheelabratorsare large drum-like cleaning mills in which newly manufactured drop forgingsare cleansed by being tumbled and agitated in a caustic abluent. (TALL) Afterthe forgings are cleaned, they are unloaded onto a vibrator type metalconveyor, whence they are jiggled along to the place where they are collectedand hauled away.??????????? Forgingsare placed into the wheelabrator by a machine called a wheelabrator loader,which is principally a large material bucket or ?tote box,? to which arms areattached. When the wheelabrator is to receive a fresh load for cleaning, thetote box, loaded with forgings, extends forward reaching across the conveyortoward the wheelabrator. During this process, the loader arms descend into anotch on the rim of the conveyor. (TA 11, 12)??????????? Onthe day of the accident, the deceased employee, (name redacted), was working as a ?wheelabrator helper.? Amongother duties, a wheelabrator helper is required to superintend the movement ofthe cleaned forgings down the conveyor, making certain there are no blockagesor pileups. If forgings become lodged, the wheelabrator helper reaches out andmanipulates them with a steel hook. He would normally stand on a smallsteel-grid platform adjacent to the conveyor. To reach certain areas, itsometimes became necessary for him to move alongside the conveyor to a secondplatform which was within stepping distance and some 10 inches higher than thefirst. This higher platform was in a ?mcahine area,? being directly beneath thewheelabrator loader. (name redacted)was working from this upper platform when the wheelabrator loader, filled withforgings, was activated. The tote bucket moved forward across the conveyortoward the wheelabrator. The loader arms descended toward (name redacted), catching him and crushing him against the rim ofthe conveyor.??????????? Theoccurrence of this accident is probative evidence, albeit not conclusiveevidence, of the existence of a hazard. Sec.v. Ralston Purina Co., 7 BNA OSHC 1302 (1979). That accident, however, doescombine with several other facts in this case to establish that employeesworking on the upper platform were endangered by the functioning of the loader.The movement of the loader arms toward the conveyor created a type of pinchpoint. The record shows that anyone working on the upper platform would bestanding so that his back was to the menace of the descending arms of theloader. It also shows that the person operating the loader was so stationedthat the upper platform area was hidden from his view. (TA70) Additionally, anysound generated by the activated wheelabrator loader would usually be drownedout by other noise in the building. (TA82) There were no protective devices,guarding methods, warning signals or other safeguards to protect employees whowere working in the danger area.??????????? Hazardabatement in this case was readily feasible through the simple expedient of shuttingoff access to the upper platform. (TA32) Jam-ups on the conveyor in that areacould have been reached by merely using a longer hook.??????????? Ladishdefends upon several grounds. One is that it had no knowledge that a hazardexisted.??????????? Wherea hazardous situation is open to view, and would be noticed in the course of areasonably diligent inspection, lack of knowledge is not an acceptable defense.A duty to inspect for danger rests upon every employer. Sec. v. Giles & Cotting, Inc. 3 BNA OSHC 2002 (1976); Sec. v. Camden Drilling Co., 6 BNA OSHC1560 (1978), The Review Commission, in Sec.v. J. H. MacKay Electric Co., 6 BNA OSHC 1947 (1978) stated:. . . the lack of perimeter protection onthe 5th Floor would have been readily apparent had the Respondents simplyinspected that area before permitting their employees to work there. Thus, hadthe Respondents exercised reasonable diligence, they would have known of theviolation.???????????? Inthe present case, no keen eye of a safety professional was needed to detect thethreat to employee safety presented by conditions on the upper platform. Thesehazardous conditions were manifest, and the employer must therefore be chargedwith notice of them.??????????? Ladishalso defends upon the ground that Section 1910.212(a)(1) is not applicablesince it is limited to machines that are used in manufacturing. Ladish contendsthe wheelabrator process comes after manufacture of the forgings has beencompleted.??????????? It isa correct statement of the law that the machine guarding standard does notreach beyond the manufacturing process. Sec.v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 4 OSHC 1876 (1976). However, in the present case,the wheelabrator operation and the cleaning process involved therein appear toconstitute an integral part of the production or manufacturing process. Thewheelabrator cleansing was a refinement process. Such refining was obviouslydeemed essential by Ladish to the production of a finished product. It was thefinal touch in the manufacturing process. Since the forgings were incompleteuntil the wheelabrator cleansing had been accomplished, it follows that Sec.1910.212(a)(1) governed the process.CONCLUSION??????????? Thestandard upon which the citation is based requires that ?machine guarding shallbe provided to protect . . . employees in the machine area from hazards.? Underthat standard the employer has a duty to ?provide a safe environment foremployees in the machine area from hazards created by the machine?s operation.?Sec. v. Akron Brick and Block Co., 3 BNAOSHC 1877 (1976). In this case the Secretary has established that workers wereexposed to a machine area hazard against which no safeguards defended. Hence, aviolation of the machine guarding standard has been established, and the recordsupports the propriety and amount of the proposed penalty.FINDINGS OF FACT??????????? 1.Respondent Ladish Company, is a corporation having an office and place ofbusiness in Cudahy, Wisconsin.??????????? 2.Jurisdiction is not contested by respondent.??????????? 3. Atthe Cudahy plant, respondent manufactures drop forged items such as railroadcar wheels and aircraft landing gears.??????????? 4. Aspart of the manufacturing process, drop forged items are cleaned with a causticsolution in a drum-like machine known as a wheelabrator. Forgings are loadedinto the wheelabrator by another machine known as a wheelabrator loader.??????????? 5.Workers had access to an area directly beneath the spot where the arms of theloader would descend when the wheelabrator was being loaded.??????????? 6. OnJanuary 16, 1978, a wheelabrator helper, (nameredacted), was working in the area of the wheelabrator loader. When theloader was activated, the loader arms descended and caught the employee andcrushed him against a conveyor.??????????? 7.When workers would be in the area beneath the wheelabrator loader, their backswould be toward the moving parts of the machine.??????????? 8.The person operating the wheelabrator loader had an obstructed view of saidarea.??????????? 9.There were no protective devices, guarding methods, warning signals or othersafeguards to protect employees in said area.??????????? 10. Amachine hazard existed in the area between the back of the loader and theconveyor, exposing employees to death or serious injury through contact withmoving parts of the equipment.??????????? 11.Hazard abatement was readily available by merely shutting off access to the dangerzone.??????????? 12.Respondent failed to take reasonable precautionary steps to protect itsemployees from a hazard in a machine area of the workplace.??????????? 13.The proposed penalty of $480 is appropriate and consistent with therequirements of 17(j) of the Act.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW??????????? 1.Respondent was at all times material an employer engaged in a businessaffecting commerce within the meaning of section 3 (5) of the OccupationalSafety and Health Act.??????????? 2.Respondent was at all times subject to the requirements of the Act and thestandards promulgated thereunder.??????????? 3.The commission has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of thisproceeding.??????????? 4.Respondent violated 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1) in that it failed to take measures toprotect employees in a hazardous machine area, for which violation a penalty of$480 should be imposed.ORDER??????????? Basedupon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is now ORDEREDthat the citation and the proposed penalty of $480 are AFFIRMED.?Ralph B. MaxwellJudge, OSHRC[1] The citationstated:Machineguarding was not provided to protect operator(s) and other employees fromhazard(s) created by pinch point:Wheelabratorloader (Company #3406), located in the processing Department, had an unguardeddanger zone between the back of the loader and the shaker conveyor exposingemployees to contact by moving parts of the equipment.[2] The standardprovides:?1910.212 General requirements for all machines.(a)Machine guarding?(1) Types of guarding. One or more methods of machine guardingshall be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machinearea from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nippoints, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks. Examples of guarding methodsare?barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safety devices, etc.?[3] That standardstates:? 1910.23 Guarding floor and wallopenings and holes.(c) Protection of open-sidedfloors, platforms, and runways.(3) Regardless of height,open-sided floors, walkways, platforms, or runways above or adjacent todangerous equipment, pickling or galvanizing tanks, degreasing units, andsimilar hazards shall be guarded with a standard railing and toe board.[4] Respondent?sassertion that the Allis-Chalmersexclusion was expanded in United StatesSteel Corp. represented the view of only one Commission member and thus isnot Commission precedent. Even under that view, application of ? 1910.212 to aparticular machine would depend on the relationship of that machine to themanufacturing process. As noted infra,the wheelabrator loader and conveyor are integral to Ladish?s manufacturingprocess.[5] We also rejectLadish?s contention that, because the term ?pinch point,? as defined in?\u00a01910.211(d)(44), is a term used in connection with power presses, pinchpoint hazards are not covered by ? 1910.212(a)(1). The definition of ?pinchpoint? in ? 1910.211(d) is one of a number of terms that are there defined asused in the mechanical power press standard, ? 1910.217. However, from the factthat the term ?pinch point? is given a specific definition for its use in themechanical power press standard it does not follow that only ? 1910.217 mayprotect against pinch point hazards. The hazard of pinch points is presented bymany types of machinery, and it would be anomalous for the general industrystandards to limit protection against pinch points to mechanical power presses.Ladish?s assertion that ?1910.212(a)(1) applies only to individual machines similarly is without merit.As noted supra, the standard appliesgenerally to the moving parts of all machines, and Ladish provides no authorityfor its argument that the standard applies to machines only one at a time,rather than in groups. Cf. Ormet Corp.,81 OSAHRC 35\/C3, 9 BAN OSHD 1828, 1981 CCH OSHD ? 25,322 (No. 76?4398, 1981),(? 1910.212(a)(1) is the applicable standard as to the point where the conveyorpassed under the chutes). Moreover, as Zehm testified, the hazard here ispresented by the movement of the loader arms.[6] Because ChairmanRowland finds that Respondent had knowledge of the hazardous condition for thereasons stated infra, he finds it unnecessary to reach Respondent?s contentionsconcerning the absence of proof of industry recognition of the cited hazard.”