One sentence of regulation. A million machines.

§1910.212 is intentionally general: any machine part, function, or process that may cause injury must be guarded. Examples of guarding methods — barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safety devices — are illustrative, not exhaustive. The point of operation provision does the heavy lifting: where a machine's operation exposes an employee to injury, the danger zone must be guarded so no part of the body can be in it during the operating cycle.

The general rule coexists with machine-specific standards — mechanical power presses (§1910.217), abrasive wheels (§1910.215), woodworking machinery (§1910.213), power transmission (§1910.219). Where a specific standard exists, it governs its machine; §1910.212 catches everything else, from packaging equipment to CNC cells, which is why it never leaves the top ten.

Guards removed for maintenance and never reinstalled. Interlocks bypassed with zip ties or tape because they slowed the cycle. Bench grinders with tool rests gapped beyond 1/8 inch and tongue guards beyond 1/4 inch (that's §1910.215, but it starts as a guarding walk-through). Fans at head height with finger-sized openings. Machines that shimmy across the floor because nobody anchored them. Every one is visible on a walkthrough — machine guarding citations rarely require sampling or document review.

Guarding also interlocks with lockout/tagout: the moment a guard comes off for servicing, §1910.147 takes over. Plants get cited under both standards for the same event — the missing guard and the un-locked-out machine it exposed.

The guarding question is rarely "is a guard required?" — it's "which standard governs this machine, and what exactly does it demand?" RegLogic's search resolves the machine to the controlling section across Subpart O, with interpretation letters on guard openings, interlocks, and robotics attached in context. Maintenance leads pin the sections for their equipment list and annotate the plant's guard specifications alongside.