Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents|
| Standard Number:||1910.217(b)(3)(ii); 1910.217(b)(4)(iii)|
29 CFR 1910.217(b)(3)(ii) 29 CFR 1910.217(b)(4)(iii)
February 23, 1978
MEMORANDUM FOR: DAVID H. RHONE Regional Administrator THRU: DONALD E. MACKENZIE Field Coordinator FROM: RICHARD P. WILSON Deputy Director Federal Compliance and State Programs SUBJECT: Compression Springs Requirements, 29 CFR 1910.217(b)(3)(ii) and 29 CFR 1910.217(b)(4)(iii)
This is in response to your letter of September 28, 1977, regarding a request for comments and guidelines concerning the use of tension springs in lieu of the required compression springs on power presses. It further confirms discussions between Mr. Nunez and Mrs. Preston on this subject.
Our research reveals that the requirement originated years ago in the National Consensus Standard with the theory that compression springs are more reliable than tension springs. However, there are no documents available to support this requirement.
In view of the fact that the standard requirements for compression springs are not supported and the tension springs appear not to present a hazard, the employer has complied with the intent of the standards. Therefore, the situation would be considered a de minimis violation.
A copy of your correspondence and this response are being forwarded to the Directorate of Safety Standards Programs for information purposes.
|Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents|
The Department of Labor does not endorse, takes no responsibility for, and exercises no control over the linked organization or its views, or contents, nor does it vouch for the accuracy or accessibility of the information contained on the destination server. The Department of Labor also cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked Web sites. Users must request such authorization from the sponsor of the linked Web site. Thank you for visiting our site. Please click the button below to continue.