OSHA SearchOSHA records by employer

Aerocontrolex: OSHA inspections and violations

South Euclid, Ohio · Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing · NAICS 336413

1inspections
2citation items
$15,226current penalties
Nov 18, 2021last inspection

OSHA has inspected Aerocontrolex once in Ohio.

The inspection began on Nov 18, 2021 on a referral, in South Euclid.

That inspection ended with 2 citation items: 2 serious.

Penalties were first proposed at $20,302 and now stand at $15,226, 25% lower after settlements or reviews.

How that compares: the median penalty per cited inspection for manufacturing employers since 2015 is $3,600, and Aerocontrolex averages $15,226 (1 cited inspection).

Aerocontrolex also files yearly injury logs with OSHA, summarized below.

Aerocontrolex: OSHA citation items per year, 2021 to 2021
Citation items per year, by inspection date.

Ohio · latest 90 days of OSHA records

275employers cited

Get notified the morning OSHA posts each new citation in Ohio: the employer, the site address, the rules broken and the penalty.

See who gets cited next

Latest cited in Ohio

Checking a subcontractor, a client or your own company? Watch Aerocontrolex and get notified the morning OSHA posts a new citation for it.

Watch this company

Inspection history

Inspection 345646160 OPENED NOV 18, 2021Closed

Referral · Partial · Safety · 97 employees at the site · Closed Feb 23, 2022

4223 Monticello Boulevard, South Euclid, OH 44121 · Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing · OSHA's record · Phone and website on Google Maps

Incident on Nov 11, 2021: Worker lacerates hand and fractures finger while setting up

At 10:34 a.m. on November 11, 2021, an employee was working for a firm that manufactured aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment. She was an assembly production lead. She was operating a Cunningham Manufacturing Co. "C" style hydraulic swaging press, with serial number 91597-214. It had a 6 in (152.4 mm) bore, a 3 in (76.2 mm) piston, and a 9 in (228.6 mm) stroke. She was performing a normal die setup on the press. The employer operated several hydraulic swage presses for manufacturing sliding cables. Six were "C" style hydraulic presses. To make the cables, employees had to switch out dies to perform different operations. Depending on the part, employees might perform between four and ten die changes. During setup, employees turned the lower die piston knob counterclockwise to lower the height adjustment piston until the top of the die adapter was flush with the lower die cup. This ensured adequate clearance between the lower die and the top die when the press was operated. Employees then turned on the press and actuated the foot pedal until the top die piston was fully actuated. If the dies looked as if they were going to touch, employees took their foot off the pedal and backed the lower die down further. Once confident the dies wouldn't make contact, employees kept their foot on the pedal. Employees performed the die setup with the press on. In this incident, the employee loaded dies into the press and actuated it to verify proper die alignment. When the press was actuated, the upper and lower dies made contact, resulting in a die failure. A die disintegrated. Fragments of the die struck the employee's right hand and index finger. She suffered a laceration of the hand and a fracture of her index finger. In addition, fragments of metal were embedded in both her hands. She was transported to the hospital, where she received emergency care. She was hospitalized. There was no machine guarding in place, and energy control measures were not performed during die setup.

Citation and ruleTypeProposedCurrentIssuedStatus
Citation 1, item 2
29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i) · Lockout/tagout
Serious$10,151$7,613Jan 19, 2022Final
Citation 1, item 3
29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1) · Machine guarding
Serious$10,151$7,613Jan 19, 2022Final

Injury and illness logs

From the Form 300A summaries employers file with OSHA each year. Rate = recordable cases per 100 full-time workers.

In 2025, the South Euclid site logged 1 recordable injury or illness among about 124 workers: 0.7 per 100 full-time workers, against a median of 1.1 for its industry.

Site and yearWorkersCasesDays-away casesRateIndustry median
AeroControlex
South Euclid · 2025
124 100.71.1

The rules behind these citations

Current text from the Code of Federal Regulations. Some citations were issued under older wording.

29 CFR 1910.147 · Lockout/tagout

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(7)(i)

(7) Training and communication. (i) The employer shall provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program are understood by employees and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of the energy controls are acquired by employees. The training shall include the following:

29 CFR 1910.212 · Machine guarding

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1)

(a) Machine guarding—(1) Types of guarding. One or more methods of machine guarding shall be provided to protect the operator and other employees in the machine area from hazards such as those created by point of operation, ingoing nip points, rotating parts, flying chips and sparks. Examples of guarding methods are—barrier guards, two-hand tripping devices, electronic safety devices, etc.

Other other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing employers in Ohio

Alert subscribers get notified of each newly cited employer in Ohio the morning it is posted. See the alert plans.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA enforcement data. A citation is OSHA's allegation; employers can contest it, and the status column shows where each item stands. Something wrong on this page? Tell us.