Find Machine Guarding Violations Before OSHA Does: AI-Powered Hazard Detection

Machine guarding violations represent one of the most frequently cited OSHA violations year after year. In 2025 alone, OSHA issued citations totaling $9,375,065 for violations of machine guarding standards. These aren't just statistics—they represent preventable amputations, crush injuries, and fatalities that occur when machinery lacks proper safeguarding.

The challenge isn't that safety managers don't care about machine guarding. It's that identifying every missing guard across a sprawling facility with hundreds of machines is nearly impossible using manual inspection methods. Until now.

Understanding OSHA 1910.212(a)(1): Machine Guarding Requirements

OSHA standard 1910.212(a)(1) establishes the fundamental requirement for machine guarding in general industry. The regulation is deceptively simple but critically important:

The regulation requires employers to assess each machine for hazards and implement appropriate safeguards. This applies to:

• Point of operation: The area where work is performed on material (cutting, shaping, boring, forming)
• Power transmission apparatus: Flywheels, pulleys, belts, chains, couplings, and connecting rods
• Rotating parts: Any rotating component that could catch clothing, hair, or body parts
• Nip points: Where two rotating parts come together (gears, rollers, belt and pulley systems)

Why Machine Guarding Violations Are So Common

Machine guarding violations persist for several interconnected reasons that compound over time:

The Real Cost of Machine Guarding Violations

The $9.4 million in OSHA penalties represents only a fraction of the true cost organizations pay for inadequate machine guarding:

How SoterAI's Hazard Identification Workflow Detects Guarding Issues

SoterAI's Hazard Identification Workflow transforms how organizations approach machine guarding compliance. Instead of relying on periodic manual inspections that may occur monthly or quarterly, the system enables continuous monitoring using computer vision and AI trained specifically on industrial safety hazards.

The Three-Step Process

Real-World Detection Examples

Here are three common machine guarding violations that SoterAI's Hazard Identification Workflow successfully identifies in manufacturing facilities:

Violations

Unguarded press point of operation and in-going hazards

Field	Value
Observation	Large press with a central cylindrical workpiece/drum under the upper platen; no physical guards, gates, or presence-sensing devices visible at the hazard zone.
Presence	Present – The main working area under the press head is fully open where an operator would load/unload parts.
Regulatory Code(s)	29 CFR 1910.212 – General requirements for all machines
Regulatory Requirements	§1910.212(a)(1) requires one or more methods of machine guarding to protect employees in the machine area from hazards such as point of operation, in-going nip points, and rotating parts, using methods like barrier guards or two-hand controls.
Evaluation	The press point of operation and adjacent moving parts appear completely unguarded, exposing employees to severe crushing and amputation hazards when the press cycles or parts shift.
Compliance	Violated – No guarding or safeguarding devices are visible that would prevent body parts from entering the danger zone during operation.
Potential Cost	Up to about $16,550 per serious violation; up to about $165,514 per willful/repeated violation under 29 CFR 1903.15.

Corrective Actions:

• •Install fixed barrier guards, interlocked gates, light curtains, or two-hand controls that prevent access to the point of operation while the press can cycle.
• •Conduct a formal machine-specific risk assessment and retrofit guarding in accordance with applicable consensus standards.
• •Train operators and maintenance staff on safe operation and the purpose and proper use of all guarding and safety devices.

Violations

Unguarded rotating milling cutter and point of operation

Field	Value
Observation	A multi-insert face milling cutter is rotating above a clamped workpiece with no visible fixed guard, shield, or enclosure around the cutting area.
Presence	Present – the cutter and point of operation are clearly exposed directly above the workpiece in the vise.
Regulatory Code(s)	29 CFR 1910.212 – General requirements for all machines
Regulatory Requirements	1910.212(a)(1) requires one or more methods of machine guarding to protect employees from hazards such as point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks.
Evaluation	The cutting tool and point of operation are fully exposed with no shield or enclosure, leaving operators vulnerable to contact and flying chips, which does not meet the requirement for guarding against rotating parts and flying chips.
Compliance	Violated – absence of any visible guard around the cutter and work area conflicts with 1910.212(a)(1).
Potential Cost	OSHA serious violation penalties can be up to tens of thousands of dollars per violation; exact amount varies by case and year (see OSHA penalty schedule on osha.gov).

Corrective Actions:

• •Install appropriate machine guarding such as fixed or adjustable chip shields, interlocked enclosures, or barrier guards around the cutter and point of operation.
• •Ensure guards are designed so that hands and other body parts cannot enter the danger zone during operation while still allowing necessary visibility.
• •Develop and enforce procedures requiring guards to be in place and properly adjusted before starting the machine.

Violations

Exposed rotating shaft / power-transmission apparatus

Field	Value
Observation	A large horizontal shaft protrudes from a drive unit with no guard or enclosure, fully exposed where the worker can contact or become entangled.
Presence	Present – The rotating/power-transmission shaft is clearly visible and unguarded in the image.
Regulatory Code(s)	29 CFR 1910.219
Regulatory Requirements	§1910.219(b) and (c) require flywheels, shafts, pulleys and other mechanical power-transmission apparatus to be guarded, e.g., with enclosures or guards so employees cannot contact rotating parts.
Evaluation	The shaft is not enclosed or guarded and is within normal reach of the operator, directly contradicting requirements that rotating shafts and similar power-transmission components be guarded.
Compliance	Violated – Required guarding is absent where employees are exposed to rotating mechanical power-transmission parts.
Potential Cost	Up to ~$16,131 per serious violation; up to ~$161,323 per willful/repeated violation (OSHA 2024 penalty adjustments).

Corrective Actions:

• •Install fixed guards or fully enclosed housings over the protruding shaft and any associated couplings as specified in 1910.219.
• •Configure guards so they prevent contact yet allow necessary operation and maintenance (e.g., removable/interlocked guards where access is required).
• •Incorporate guarding inspection into preventive maintenance and pre-use checks.

Benefits Beyond Compliance

While OSHA compliance is critical, organizations implementing SoterAI's Hazard Identification Workflow discover benefits that extend far beyond avoiding citations:

Getting Started with Hazard Identification

Implementing SoterAI's Hazard Identification Workflow requires no specialized hardware, lengthy training programs, or operational disruption. Organizations typically follow this implementation path:

Find Hazards Before They Find You

The $9.4 million in OSHA penalties issued in 2025 for machine guarding violations represents avoidable costs that organizations paid because hazards went undetected until inspectors arrived. Every citation represents a failure in the organization's hazard identification process—a guard that was removed and not reinstalled, a modification that created new exposure, an inspection program that missed critical equipment.

SoterAI's Hazard Identification Workflow changes this equation. By deploying AI-powered computer vision trained specifically on industrial safety hazards, organizations gain the capability to continuously monitor their facilities at a scale impossible with traditional manual inspection methods. The result: hazards detected and corrected before they result in injuries, production disruption, or costly OSHA citations.