October 21, 2024

Luke Contos
Sustainability Systems, LLC
1464 Palmer
Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Luke Contos:

Thank you for your letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), requesting clarification of OSHA standard 29 CFR §1910.147, The Control of Hazardous Energy, Lockout/Tagout (LOTO). This constitutes OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may not be applicable to any questions not delineated within your original correspondence. Your paraphrased background information, questions, and the responses to your questions are below.

Background: You stated that your client must perform service and maintenance tasks that will require power in certain circumstances. Some of the tasks qualify for the minor servicing exception to 29 CFR §1910.147 standard. However, there are other tasks that are considered service and maintenance, but still require power. An example is setting up a machine for change over to a new product run. You recognize that such tasks are not normal production, and the requirements of 29 CFR §1910.147 apply. However, the task of set-up or change-over requires control functions for inch, jog, etc. and cannot be done when the primary energy source is isolated and locked.

Question 1: If the minor servicing exception does not apply, and power is required for a task, does OSHA have an alternative to isolating and locking a primary energy source? If yes, what is the alternative?

Response: OSHA standard §1910.147(f)(1) allows temporary removal of LOTO devices and the re-energization of the machine only when necessary to perform particular tasks that require energization (i.e., when power must be restored to test or position machines, equipment, or their components). However, employers must provide employee protection (e.g., via machine guarding techniques when it is not possible to remove an employee(s) from the danger area) that eliminates exposure to hazardous energy during all phases of the testing or repositioning operation. When testing or positioning is necessary, the relevant procedure must establish a sequence of actions to be undertaken, in accordance with §1910.147(f)(1), because employees may be exposed to significant risks during these transition periods. These actions are required to maintain the integrity and continuity of employee protection.

These prescribed steps must be implemented in sequence prior to re-energization:

1. Clear machines of tools and materials – §1910.147(e)(1)
2. Remove employees from the hazardous areas around the machine – §1910.147(e)(2)
3. Remove the lockout or tagout devices as specified in the standard – §1910.147(e)(3)
4. Energize the machine and employ effective employee protection while testing or positioning machinery; and
5. Turn off all systems, isolate the machine from the energy source, and reapply lockout or tagout devices as specified if additional servicing or maintenance is required – §1910.147(d).

This temporary exception applies only for the limited time required for testing or repositioning the machine/equipment or its components. When an energized state is no longer required, the authorized employees must again de-energize the machine/equipment and resume the energy control measures. Paragraph (f)(1) of the standard does not allow the employer to disregard the requirement for locking out or tagging out during other portions of the servicing or maintenance operation.

Question 2: Does OSHA recognize the definition of “Alternative Methods” in ANSI B11.0-2020 and ANSI Z244.1-2016 (defined as A means of controlling hazardous energy (other than energy isolation) to reduce risk to an acceptable level)?

Response: No. OSHA recognizes the value of national consensus standards, and in many respects, the ANSI B11.0-2020 and ANSI Z244.1-2016 standards offers useful guidance for employers and employees attempting to control hazardous energy. However, OSHA has not determined that, in all cases, compliance with specific provisions of the ANSI B11.0-2020 and ANSI Z244.1-2016 standards and its annexes would constitute compliance with relevant OSHA requirements.

The OSH Act contemplates a distinction between the national consensus standard process and the process of OSHA rulemaking. While the former often produces information useful in the latter, it is not equivalent. Section 5(a)(2) of the OSH Act requires employers to comply with OSHA standards (29 USC §654(a)(2)). Thus, only national consensus standards that have been adopted as, or incorporated by reference into, an OSHA standard pursuant to Section 6 of the OSH Act provide a means of compliance with Section 5(a)(2) of the OSH Act.

Question 3: The 2019 OSHA Field Operations Manual, CPL 02-00-163, contains 30 references to “feasibility.” However, there is no definition of feasibility in the manual. Does OSHA recognize the definition of “Feasibility” in ANSI B11.0-2020 (defined as The practicability of implementing a risk reduction measure(s) in an actual application to reduce risk to an acceptable level)?

Response: No. The definitions of Feasibility in the Field Operations Manual apply to the abatement measures required to correct violations identified during OSHA inspections.

The latest version of the Field Operations Manual (2020), CPL 02-00-164, provides the following definitions:

Feasibility: Abatement measures required to correct a citation item are feasible when they are capable of being done.

Technical Feasibility: The existence of technical know-how about materials and methods available or adaptable to specific circumstances, which can be applied to a cited violation with a reasonable possibility that employee exposure to occupational hazards will be reduced.

Economic Feasibility: This means that the employer is financially able to undertake the measures necessary to abate the citations received.

NOTE: If an employer’s level of compliance lags significantly behind that of its industry, an employer’s claim of economic infeasibility will not be accepted.

Question 4: If OSHA recognizes properly developed and implemented alternatives to control hazardous energy in lieu of full energy isolation and the use of feasibility to make that determination, is there a documented methodology OSHA recognizes for this alternative method?

Response: See the response to question # 1.

Our understanding is that your question relates to federal OSHA requirements. However, because you indicated you are writing on behalf of a nationwide client, you should be aware that there are States that administer their own OSHA-approved State Plans. Such States are required by law to have a program of standards and enforcement that is at least as effective as the Federal OSHA requirements. However, those States may enact more stringent requirements. An employer in such a State is required to follow the State’s more stringent requirements. If you are interested in information on this issue as it pertains to a State that administers its own OSHA-approved State Plan, please contact that State for specific information on its interpretation and enforcement policy about this issue.

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA’s website. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of General Industry and Agricultural Enforcement at (202) 693-1850.

Sincerely,

Scott C. Ketcham, Director
Directorate of Enforcement Programs