The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout), 22756-22762 [2019-10247]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
22756
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
rents, or royalties received or accrued
from a foreign corporation as received or
accrued from a controlled foreign
corporation payor if a principal purpose
of the use of an option to acquire stock
or an equity interest, or an interest
similar to such an option, that causes
the foreign corporation to be a
controlled foreign corporation payor is
to qualify dividends, interest, rents, or
royalties paid by the foreign corporation
for the section 954(c)(6) exception. For
purposes of this paragraph
(f)(2)(iv)(B)(2), an interest that is similar
to an option to acquire stock or an
equity interest includes, but is not
limited to, a warrant, a convertible debt
instrument, an instrument other than
debt that is convertible into stock or an
equity interest, a put, a stock or equity
interest subject to risk of forfeiture, and
a contract to acquire or sell stock or an
equity interest.
(3) Neither section 318(a)(4), nor
§ 1.958–2(e) or the principles thereof,
applies to treat a person that has an
option to acquire stock or an equity
interest, or an interest similar to such an
option, as owning the stock or equity
interest if a principal purpose for the
use of the option or similar interest is
to treat a person as a related person with
respect to a controlled foreign
corporation under this paragraph (f). For
purposes of this paragraph
(f)(2)(iv)(B)(3), an interest that is similar
to an option to acquire stock or an
equity interest includes, but is not
limited to, a warrant, a convertible debt
instrument, an instrument other than
debt that is convertible into stock or an
equity interest, a put, a stock or equity
interest subject to risk of forfeiture, and
a contract to acquire or sell stock or an
equity interest.
(3) Applicability dates—(i) General
rule. Except as otherwise provided in
this paragraph (f)(3), paragraph (f)(2)(iv)
of this section applies to taxable years
of controlled foreign corporations
ending on or after the date of
publication in the Federal Register of
the Treasury decision adopting these
rules as final regulations, and taxable
years of United States shareholders in
which or with which such taxable years
end.
(ii) Option rule in paragraph
(f)(2)(iv)(B)(2) of this section. Paragraph
(f)(2)(iv)(B)(2) of this section applies to
taxable years of controlled foreign
corporations beginning after December
31, 2006, and ending before the date of
publication in the Federal Register of
the Treasury decision adopting these
rules as final regulations, and taxable
years of United States shareholders in
which or with which such taxable years
end.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 May 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
(iii) Anti-abuse rule. Paragraphs
(f)(2)(iv)(B)(1) and (3) of this section
apply to taxable years of controlled
foreign corporations ending on or after
May 17, 2019, and to taxable years of
United States shareholders in which or
with which such taxable years end, with
respect to amounts that are received or
accrued by a controlled foreign
corporation on or after May 17, 2019 to
the extent the amounts are received or
accrued in advance of the period to
which such amounts are attributable
with a principal purpose of avoiding the
application of paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B)(1)
or (3) of this section with respect to
such amounts.
*
*
*
*
*
■ Par. 4. Section 1.954–2 is amended
by:
■ 1. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(B)
and (c)(2)(iv)(A).
■ 2. Revising the heading of paragraph
(i).
■ 3. Redesignating paragraph (i)(2) as
paragraph (i)(3).
■ 4. Adding new paragraph (i)(2).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 1.958–2
stock.
Constructive ownership of
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) * * * Except as otherwise
provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section and § 1.954–1(f)—
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * * Except as otherwise
provided in § 1.954–1(f), if any person
has an option to acquire stock, such
stock shall be considered as owned by
such person. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Applicability date. Paragraphs
(d)(1) and (e) of this section apply for
taxable years of controlled foreign
corporations ending on or after the date
of publication in the Federal Register of
the Treasury decision adopting these
rules as final regulations, and for the
taxable years of United States
shareholders in which or with which
such taxable years end.
Kirsten Wielobob,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2019–10464 Filed 5–17–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
§ 1.954–2 Foreign personal holding
company income.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) Deductions for amounts (including
rents and royalties) paid or incurred by
the lessor for the right to use the
property (or a component thereof) that
generated the rental income;
*
*
*
*
*
(iv) * * *
(A) Amounts (including rents and
royalties) paid or incurred by the lessor
for the right to use the property (or a
component thereof) that generated the
rental income;
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Applicability dates. * * *
(2) Paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(B) and
(c)(2)(iv)(A) of this section. Paragraphs
(c)(2)(iii)(B) and (c)(2)(iv)(A) of this
section apply for taxable years of
controlled foreign corporations ending
on or after the date of publication in the
Federal Register of the Treasury
decision adopting these rules as final
regulations, and for the taxable years of
United States shareholders in which or
with which such taxable years end.
*
*
*
*
*
■ Par. 5. Section 1.958–2 is amended by
revising paragraph (d)(1) introductory
text and the first sentence of paragraph
(e) and adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. OSHA–2016–0013]
RIN 1218–AD00
The Control of Hazardous Energy
(Lockout/Tagout)
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), DOL.
ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).
AGENCY:
The control of hazardous
energy is regulated under OSHA’s
control of hazardous energy (Lockout/
Tagout) standard. The standard’s
purpose is to protect workers from the
dangers of hazardous energy. This RFI
seeks information regarding two areas
where modernizing the Lockout/Tagout
standard might better promote worker
safety without additional burdens to
employers: control circuit type devices
and robotics. OSHA’s Lockout/Tagout
standard currently requires that all
sources of energy, including energy
stored in the machine itself, be
controlled during servicing and
maintenance of machines and
equipment using an energy-isolating
device (EID). Control circuit type
devices are specifically excluded from
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
OSHA’s definition of an EID and are
thus not a compliant method of
controlling hazardous energy during
service and maintenance activities. But
technological advances since the
standard was issued in 1989 suggest
that, at least in some circumstances,
control circuit type devices may be at
least as safe as EIDs. OSHA requests
information, data, and comments that
would assist the agency in determining
under what conditions control circuit
type devices could safely be used for the
control of hazardous energy. OSHA may
also consider changes to the Lockout/
Tagout standard that address hazardous
energy control for new robotics
technologies. Employers are
increasingly using robots and robotic
components in their workplaces. OSHA
would like to know more about what
hazards and benefits this presents with
respect to control of hazardous energy,
safeguards that can be used, increased
efficiencies that result, and any other
information related to ensuring
employee safety in interfacing with
robots. OSHA will use the information
received in response to this RFI to
determine what action, if any, it may
take to reduce regulatory burdens while
maintaining worker safety.
Submit comments on or before
August 19, 2019. All submissions must
bear a postmark or provide other
evidence of the submission date.
DATES:
Submit comments and
additional materials, identified by
Docket No. OSHA–2016–0013, by any of
the following methods:
Electronically: Submit comments and
attachments electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the
instructions online for making
electronic submissions.
Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile
transmission of comments and
additional material that are 10 pages or
fewer in length (including attachments).
Send these documents to the OSHA
Docket Office at (202) 693–1648. OSHA
does not require hard copies of these
documents. Instead of transmitting
facsimile copies of attachments that
supplement these documents (for
example, studies, journal articles),
commenters must submit these
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office,
Technical Data Center, Room N3653,
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20210. These
attachments must identify clearly the
sender’s name, the date, subject, and
docket number (OSHA–2016–0013) so
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 May 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
that the Docket Office can attach them
to the appropriate document.
Regular mail, express mail, hand
delivery, or messenger (courier) service:
Submit comments and any additional
material (for example, studies or journal
articles) to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket No. OSHA–2016–0013 or RIN
1218–AD00, Technical Data Center,
Room N3653, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202)
693–2350. (OSHA’s TTY number is
(877) 889–5627). All additional
materials must clearly identify your
electronic submission by name, date,
and docket number so that OSHA can
attach them to your comments. Due to
security procedures, there may be
delays in receiving materials that are
sent by regular mail. For more
information about security procedures
concerning the delivery of materials by
express delivery, hand delivery, and
messenger or courier service, please
contact the OSHA Docket Office. The
hours of operation for the OSHA Docket
Office are 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency’s name and the
docket number for this RFI (OSHA–
2016–0013). When submitting
comments or recommendations on the
issues that are raised in this RFI,
commenters should explain their
rationale and, if possible, provide data
and information to support their
comments or recommendations.
Comments and other material, including
any personal information, will be placed
in the public docket without revision,
and will be publicly available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should not submit
statements that they do not want made
available to the public or include any
comments that may contain personal
information (either about themselves or
others) such as Social Security
Numbers, birth dates, and medical data.
Docket: To read or download
submissions or other material in the
docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or the OSHA
Docket Office at the above address. The
https://www.regulations.gov index lists
all documents in the docket. However,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not available to publicly
read or download through the website.
All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection at
the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the
OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Press Inquiries: Frank Meilinger,
Director, OSHA Office of
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22757
Communications; telephone: 202–693–
1999; email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
General and technical information:
Lisa Long, OSHA Directorate of
Standards and Guidance; email:
long.lisa@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Copies of this Federal Register notice:
Electronic copies are available at
https://www.regulations.gov. This
Federal Register notice, as well as news
releases and other relevant information,
is also available at OSHA’s web page at
https://www.osha.gov.
References and Exhibits (optional):
Documents referenced by OSHA in this
RFI, other than OSHA standards and
Federal Register notices, are in Docket
No. OSHA–2016–0013 (Lock-out/Tagout Update). The docket is available at
https://www.regulations.gov, the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. For additional
information on submitting items to, or
accessing items in, the docket, please
refer to the ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ section of
this RFI. Most exhibits are available at
https://www.regulations.gov; some
exhibits (e.g., copyrighted material) are
not available to download from that web
page. However, all materials in the
dockets are available for inspection at
the OSHA Docket Office.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Background
A. Control Circuit Type Devices and Other
Alternative Methods to Lockout/Tagout
B. Addressing New Robotics Technology
C. Economic Impacts
III. Request for Information, Data, and
Comments
IV. Authority and Signature
I. Introduction
OSHA is considering whether to
initiate rulemaking to revise its control
of hazardous energy standard for general
industry. One aim of this RFI is to seek
public comment on modernization of
the control of hazardous energy
standard without compromising worker
safety. OSHA is requesting information
from the public on its control of
hazardous energy standard to help the
agency determine how to best protect
employees.
OSHA’s control of hazardous energy
(Lockout/Tagout) standard covers the
servicing and maintenance of machines
and equipment in which the unexpected
energization or start-up of machines or
equipment, or release of stored energy,
could harm employees.1 These hazards
exist not only for the employees
working directly with the machines or
equipment, but also for the employees
nearby. The Lockout/Tagout standard
1 29
CFR 1910.147(a)(1)(i).
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
22758
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
was developed to address these hazards
by establishing minimum performance
requirements for the control of
hazardous energy.2
The Lockout/Tagout standard
currently requires that all hazardous
energy from power sources and energy
stored in the machine itself be
controlled using energy isolating
devices (EIDs) when an employee is
performing servicing or maintenance of
a machine or equipment.3 OSHA’s
definition of EIDs excludes push
buttons, selector switches, and other
control circuit type devices.4
Nevertheless, OSHA recognizes that
there have been safety advancements to
control circuit type devices since OSHA
adopted the standard in 1989.
Accordingly, OSHA is revisiting the
Lockout/Tagout standard to consider
whether to allow the use of control
circuit type devices instead of EIDs for
some tasks or under certain conditions.
OSHA seeks information, data, and
comments that would help the agency
determine under which conditions, if
any, control circuit type devices could
safely be used. OSHA is also
considering changes to the Lockout/
Tagout standard that would reflect new
industry best practices and
technological advances for hazardous
energy control in the robotics industry.
OSHA invites information, data, and
comments on these and any other issues
or concerns that regulated employers,
affected employees, and other interested
parties may have regarding the existing
Lockout/Tagout standard.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Background
A. Control Circuit Type Devices and
Other Alternative Methods to Lockout/
Tagout
The OSHA standard currently
requires employers to use an EID to
control hazardous energy during the
servicing and maintenance of machines
and equipment. Over the years, some
employers have stated that they believe
that control circuit type devices that use
approved components, redundant
systems, and control-reliable circuitry
are as safe as EIDs. OSHA recognizes
that recent technological advances may
have resulted in safety improvements to
control circuit type devices.
In April 2016, OSHA granted a
permanent variance to Nucor Steel
Connecticut Incorporated (NSCI),
permitting the use of a control circuit
type device for the control of hazardous
energy under the specific conditions
2 Id.
1910.147(a)(1)(i).
1910.147(a)(2)(i); 1910.147(a)(3)(i);
1910.147(c)(i).
4 Id. 1910.147(b).
3 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 May 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
presented in NSCI’s request for a
variance.5 NSCI, a manufacturer of steel
wire rod and coiled rebar, had proposed
the implementation of a complete
system that would provide an
alternative means of compliance to the
requirements of 1910.147(d)(4)(i) and
(ii) with regard to grinding rolls on a roll
mill stand. The engineered system used
a ‘‘trapped key’’ concept and monitored
safety-rated power relays in
combination with administrative
procedures. The trapped key system was
designed to replace a locked out EID
and to function similarly to a lockout
device, in that only the employee in
possession of the key could restart the
machine undergoing maintenance. The
single key was controlled through
administrative group lockout
procedures that NSCI asserted matched
the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.147.6
OSHA evaluated whether the device
provided an equivalent level of
employee personal control over
machine re-energization, ability to
account for exposed employees, and
verification of isolation to that required
by the OSHA standard.7 OSHA reached
three conclusions. First, OSHA
concluded that the alternate device
allowed energy control measures to
remain under the personal control of the
exposed employee through control of
the trapped key using a group lockbox.
Second, OSHA concluded that
employees were able to verify deenergization. Third, OSHA concluded
that authorized employees were easily
identified before equipment restart.
After reviewing the alternative safety
measures proposed in NSCI’s
application, and its responses to
OSHA’s follow-up questions,8 OSHA
granted the employer a variance
permitting use of this device exclusively
for this task. 81 FR 20680. OSHA
granted the variance based on a safety
evaluation of the complete system, not
just its individual components.
Specifically, OSHA evaluated whether
the alternative system could, as a whole,
be considered as protective as an energy
isolating device. OSHA concluded that
the proposed trapped key system was as
effective as full lockout during this task
in ensuring against internal and external
failures that could lead to the release of
hazardous energy. The agency
determined that internal failures, such
as welded relay contacts or errors in the
5 OSHA–2014–0022–0013/FR
2016–08004.
2015–30483.
7 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(8); 1910.147(d)(4);
1910.147(d)(6).
8 https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=OSHA-2014-0022-0007, https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-20140022-0009.
6 OSHA–2014–0022/FR
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
safety relays, would not cause a critical
failure without alerting employees. With
respect to vulnerability from outside
failures, such as attempts to bypass the
system, OSHA determined that the
system also provided equivalent
protection to full lockout for these types
of failures.
Although control circuit type devices
may not permit easy visual confirmation
of their application, in this instance, the
system allowed the exposed employee
to verify the effectiveness of the system
through attempted startup of the
machine. In addition, the safety system
was designed to revert to a safe mode in
the event of a failure, the status of the
safety system was monitored by
multiple safety relays, and any faults
would be signaled to operators. After
completing an analysis of the company’s
variance request and accompanying
documentation, OSHA determined the
proposed system was an effective
alternative to full lockout for the task
identified in the request.
As a result of the evaluation of this
recent variance request, OSHA has
determined that there may be a basis for
amending the Lockout/Tagout standard
to allow the use of control circuit type
devices for hazardous energy control
under certain conditions. Based on
preliminary research and alliancepartner feedback, OSHA believes the
use of control circuit type devices is
typically limited to the types of tasks
that do not meet the minor servicing
exception in the Lockout/Tagout
standard but that also do not require
either extensive disassembly of the
machine or worker entrance into
hazardous areas that may be difficult to
escape quickly. An example of such a
task is machine setup. OSHA is
requesting information about how
employers have been using these
devices, including information about
the types of circuitry and safety
procedures being used and the
limitations of their use, to determine
under what other conditions control
circuit type devices could safely be
used.
As part of this RFI, OSHA is also
evaluating criteria used by consensus
standards to determine the safety
effectiveness of control circuits. For
example, the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) and
International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) both have standards
with detailed requirements for control
circuit devices used for protection from
machine hazards.9 The ISO and IEC
9 See, e.g., ANSI/ISO 12100:2012 Safety of
machinery—General principles for design—Risk
assessment and risk reduction; ISO 13849–
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
standards evaluate the safety of a
control system by considering its design
and function. The IEC standards
evaluate whether a system can achieve
a certain ‘‘safety integrity level,’’ while
the ISO 13849–1 consensus standard
evaluates ‘‘performance levels’’ for each
safety function. The ISO 13849–2
consensus standard also has safety
categories that describe both the
performance level required for that
category and the characteristics of the
error-checking of a system in that
category. The highest safety category
requires both the highest performance
level of the control system and the most
extensive error checking. Additionally,
to determine the level of safety of a
control system, both the IEC and the ISO
standards consider the reliability of the
system as a whole and its components,
the operating environment, and the
effects of failure.
OSHA promulgated the current
version of 29 CFR 1910.147 on
September 1, 1989. OSHA relied heavily
on a 1982 consensus standard published
by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI).10 The 1989 preamble
stated that the ANSI standard was ‘‘[o]f
great assistance to OSHA’’ and that
‘‘[t]he consensus standard was utilized
by OSHA as the primary basis for
development of its proposed standard.’’
54 FR 36645. ANSI reaffirmed the 1982
consensus standard ‘‘without any
changes in content’’ in 1988 and again
in 1992.
But by 2014, the Z244.1 committee
recognized that, with the rapid
advancement of technology,
‘‘[a]dvanced control systems provide
new opportunities for addressing energy
control where conventional lockout is
1:2015(E) Safety of machinery—Safety-related parts
of control systems—Part 1: General principles for
design; ISO 13849–2:2012(E) Safety of machinery—
Safety-related parts of control systems—Part 2:
Validation; ISO/TR 22100–1:2015(E) Safety of
machinery—Relationship with ISO 12100—Part 1:
How ISO 12100 relates to type-B and type-C
standards; ISO/TR 22100–2:2013(E) Safety of
machinery—Relationship with ISO 12100—Part 2:
How ISO 12100 relates to ISO 13849–1; ISO
14118:2000(E) Safety of machinery—Prevention of
unexpected start-up; ISO/TR 14121–2:2012(E)
Safety of machinery—Risk assessment— Part
2:Practical guidance and examples of methods; IEC
62040–1:2017–04 PRV(en-fr) FINAL DRAFT
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD Uninterruptible
power systems (UPS)—Part 1: Safety requirements;
IEC 62061:2005–01+AMD1:2012–11+AMD2:2015–
06 CSV(en-fr) CONSOLIDATED VERSION Safety of
machinery—Functional safety of safety-related
electrical, electronic and programmable electronic
control systems; IEC 61508–1:2010
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD Functional safety of
electrical/electronic/programmable electronic
safety-related systems—Part 1: General
requirements.
10 See ANSI Z244.1, American National Standard
for Personnel Protection—Lockout/Tagout of Energy
Sources—Minimum Safety Requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 May 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
not feasible, where energy is required to
perform a task, where repetitive cycling
of an energy-isolating device increases
risk, and where energy is required to
maintain equipment in a safe state, etc.’’
As a result, ANSI revised its standard to
include ‘‘distinct requirements for
controlling hazardous energy through
three different approaches: lockout (the
primary approach), tagout and
alternative methods.’’
In 2016, the committee released a new
consensus standard, ANSI/ASSPP
Z244.1—2016 The Control of Hazardous
Energy Lockout, Tagout and Alternative
Methods. The standard’s Introduction
states that it ‘‘provides for decisionmaking flexibility regarding hazardous
energy control methodology. Alternative
methods, when used, are based upon
risk assessment and application of the
classic hazard control hierarchy (clause
8.1.2). However, lockout continues to be
emphasized as the primary hazardous
energy control method.’’ The ANSI
standard requires that lockout or tagout
‘‘be used unless the user can
demonstrate an alternative method will
provide effective protection for persons.
When lockout or tagout is not used, then
alternative methods shall be used only
after the hazards have been assessed and
risks documented.’’ Thus, before using
an alternative method, the employer is
required to complete a practicability/
justification analysis, a risk assessment,
and other applicable evaluations. An
accompanying chart and table in the
standard go through the risk assessment
process and the hazard control
hierarchy.
OSHA is seeking information,
comments, and data on the effectiveness
of these approaches to control system
safety and any limitations or potential
issues regarding their use for some tasks
that currently require lockout/tagout.
B. Addressing New Robotics Technology
in Relation to Lockout/Tagout
Because robots may contain
hazardous energy, the Lockout/Tagout
standard can apply to their servicing
and maintenance. OSHA has previously
focused on industrial robots, defined as
‘‘programmable multifunctional
mechanical devices designed to move
material, parts, tools, or specialized
devices through variable programmed
motions to perform a variety of tasks.’’ 11
OSHA is now studying the evolution of
the use of robots in the workplace and
how this affects employee protections
related to the control of hazardous
11 OSHA, Robotics: Overview, available at https://
www.osha.gov/SLTC/robotics/.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22759
energy in the context of the Lockout/
Tagout standard.
The traditional robot model involves
a large device that welds metal pieces or
moves panels or assemblies. This type
of robot has a fixed base and an arm that
moves freely. It is kept separate from
workers during its operating stage and
stays behind a locked door or within a
locked compartment as it works. During
periods of maintenance or adjustment,
these robots’ movements are supposed
to be limited or greatly slowed to reduce
or eliminate the potential for worker
injury.
The technological innovations of a
new generation of robots, however,
suggest that this may be changing.
Unlike traditional robots, newer robots
are more mobile and may be allowed to
roam freely in a specified area, even if
that area is separate from employees.
Collaborative robots go a step further by
working with human workers. In some
cases, such robots are worn directly by
the employees themselves, for example,
as exoskeletons.
Due to these advances in robotics,
OSHA is seeking information,
comments, and data about any new risks
of exposure to hazardous energy that
employees may face as a result of
increased interaction with robots. OSHA
is seeking information, comments, and
data on whether the agency should
consider changes to the Lockout/Tagout
standard that would address these new
risks, as well as to account for any
reduction in risks or other benefits to
worker safety, associated with using
robots.
C. Economic Impacts
In addition to the specific questions
posed in Part III of this RFI, OSHA
welcomes data and information on the
potential economic impacts should
OSHA decide to make changes to the
Lockout/Tagout standard. When
responding to the questions in this RFI,
OSHA requests, whenever possible, that
stakeholders discuss potential economic
impacts in terms of:
a. Quantitative benefits (e.g.,
reductions in injuries, fatalities, and
property damage);
b. Costs (e.g., compliance costs or
decreases in productivity); and
c. Offsets to costs (e.g., increases in
productivity, less need for maintenance
and repairs).
OSHA also invites comment on any
unintended consequences and
consistencies or inconsistences with
other policies or regulatory programs
that might result if OSHA revises the 29
CFR 1910.147 standard.
OSHA welcomes all comments but
requests that stakeholders discuss
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
22760
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
economic impacts in as specific terms as
possible. For example, if a provision or
policy change would necessitate
additional employee training, it is most
helpful to OSHA to receive information
on the following:
1. The training courses necessary;
2. The topics training would cover;
3. The types of employees who would
need training and what percent (if any)
of those employees currently receive the
training;
4. The length and frequency of
training;
5. Any retraining necessary; and
6. The training costs, whether
conducted by a third-party vendor or by
an in-house trainer.
For discussion of equipment-related
costs, OSHA is interested in all relevant
factors including:
1. The prevalence of current use of the
equipment;
2. The purchase price;
3. Cost of installation and training;
4. Cost of equipment maintenance and
operation and upgrades; and
5. Expected life of the equipment.
The agency also invites comment on
the time and level of expertise required
if OSHA were to implement potential
changes this RFI discusses, even if
dollar-cost estimates are not available.
III. Request for Information, Data, and
Comments
OSHA is seeking information, data,
and comments to help the agency
determine what action, if any, it should
take to modernize the control of
hazardous energy standard while
maintaining or improving worker safety.
OSHA also seeks information, data, and
comments that will inform the agency’s
analysis of the technological and
economic feasibility of any such action.
OSHA would like data, information,
and comments on the following
questions:
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Control Circuit Type Devices
1. In what work processes should
OSHA consider allowing the use of
control circuit type devices for
hazardous energy control?
2. What are the limitations to using
control circuit type devices? Do they
have specific weaknesses or failure
points that make them unsuitable for
hazardous energy control?
3. If OSHA were to allow the use of
control circuit type devices or other
methods to control hazardous energy,
would your firm choose to use them?
Why or why not? Do you anticipate that
these devices would save your firm
money? For example, would these
devices simplify operations or
maintenance? Are there fewer steps
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 May 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
needed to implement the controls? How
frequently do you employ some form of
lockout/tagout system in your facility?
4. Are there any specific conditions
under which the use of control circuit
type devices would not be advisable?
5. When the Lockout/Tagout standard
was originally drafted, OSHA rejected
the use of control circuit type devices
for hazardous energy control due to
concerns that the safety functions of
these devices could fail as a result of
component failure, program errors,
magnetic field interference, electrical
surges, or improper use or maintenance.
Have new technological advances to
control circuit type devices resolved
these concerns? How so?
6. Are there issues with physical
feedback for control circuit type
devices?
7. What are the safety and health
issues involving maintenance,
installation, and use of control circuit
type devices? Have you found that
alternative safety measures themselves
cause any new or unexpected hazards or
safety problems? Please provide any
examples if you have them.
8. Do control circuit type devices
address over-voltage or under-voltage
conditions that may signal power-off,
power-on, or false negatives on error
checking?
9. How do control circuit systems
detect if a component of a control
circuit device breaks, bends, or
otherwise goes out of specification?
How do the systems signal this to the
exposed employee? Could these types of
failures create a hazard while the system
continues to signal that conditions are
safe?
10. What level of redundancy is
necessary in determining whether a
control circuit type device could be
used instead of an EID?
11. Lockout/tagout on EIDs ensures
that machines will not restart while an
employee is in a hazardous area. How
do control circuit type devices similarly
account for employees working in areas
where they are exposed to hazardous
machine energy?
12. How do control circuit type
devices permit an employee to maintain
control over his/her own safety?
13. How do control circuit type
devices permit employees to verify that
energy has been controlled before
beginning work in danger zones? How
do the devices account for exposed
employees before equipment is
restarted?
14. Control circuit type devices have
a number of claimed benefits compared
to energy isolating devices, including
workers’ greater willingness to use such
devices, better efficiency, less
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
downtime, and the lack of a requirement
to clear programming on computer
controlled devices. Are there any other
benefits to using control circuit type
devices? Are there certain situations
where these devices are especially
advantageous? For example, where
machine tasks require frequent
repetitive access, is the process faster
and/or less physically demanding than
applying mechanical lock(s)?
15. What other methods or devices, if
any, are being used with control circuit
type devices to control the release of
hazardous energy, especially in cases
where the control circuit devices are
only used to prevent machine start-up?
Are there control circuit type devices
that require additional methods or
devices to fully control the release of
hazardous energy? What improvements
to safety or health does the use of these
devices or methods provide?
16. What are the unit costs for
installing and using control circuit type
devices or other alternative methods of
hazardous energy control? Are the costs
of installing and using control circuit
type devices or other alternative
methods of controlling hazardous
energy dependent on the capacity or
efficiency of the devices? If so, please
include details on the effects of capacity
on these unit costs including the
capacity of any equipment you use in
your facility. Are these devices
generally integrated into newly
purchased machinery, or are they
purchased and installed separately?
What steps need to be taken, and how
long do those steps take, for these
systems to be engaged in a manner that
fully protects workers from the release
of hazardous energy?
17. What additional actions is your
firm taking to protect workers when
they are servicing machinery with
control circuit type devices in order to
meet OSHA’s Lockout/Tagout standard
requirements? For example, does your
firm purchase and use physical devices
that you feel do not enhance worker
protections but nonetheless are required
by the OSHA standard? What are these
items and how much do they cost?
Please explain why you feel these items
do not enhance worker protections.
18. The American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO),
and the International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) all have standards
that may be applicable to control circuit
type devices.12 Should OSHA consider
12 These include, but are not limited to, ANSI
B11.19–2010 American National Standard for
Machines—Performance Criteria for Safeguarding,
ISO 12100, ISO 14118, ISO 14121, IEC 62040, IEC
62061, and IEC 61508.
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
adopting portions of any ANSI, ISO, or
IEC standard that specifies requirements
for control circuit devices as part of an
updated OSHA standard? Are there
recommendations in the consensus
standards that you choose not to follow?
If so, please explain why. Are there any
requirements in these standards that
would impose significant cost burdens
if OSHA were to include those
requirements in a revised Logout/Tagout
standard? Are there provisions of one
consensus standard when compared to
the others that you perceive as having
lower costs to implement and use on a
day-to-day basis while providing
protection to workers that is equal to or
greater than that provided by the other
standards? If so, please explain.
19. ISO categorizes ‘‘the ability of
safety-related parts of control systems to
perform a safety function under
foreseeable conditions’’ into one of five
levels, called performance levels.13
These performance levels ‘‘are defined
in terms of probability of dangerous
failures per hour.’’ Should OSHA
consider requiring a specific
performance level in determining
whether a control circuit type device
could be a safe alternative to an EID?
20. Can System Isolation Equipment,
as discussed in the UL consensus
standard UL6420 Standard for
Equipment Used for System Isolation
and Rated as a Single Unit,14 provide
protection equal to that obtained
through lockout/tagout?
21. The ANSI/ASSE Z244.1 consensus
standard encourages the use of risk
assessment and hazard control
hierarchy as alternative methods of
hazardous energy control. Should
OSHA consider incorporating these
methods in any new standard with
respect to the use of control circuit type
devices?
22. Do you currently utilize the
services of a specialized safety engineer
or employment safety administrator to
test for competency and/or ensure that
the hazardous energy control system is
operational? If so, how many hours does
this individual spend on these tasks? Do
you anticipate you would need to make
13 See ISO 13849–1:2015 Safety of Machinery—
Safety-Related Parts of Control Systems—Part 1:
General Principles of Design.
14 UL6420 ‘‘applies to isolating equipment
incorporating electromechanical contactors
remotely controlled and monitored to provide
remote isolation status indication with a defined
integrity level. This equipment is intended for use
as an additional isolating means on the load side
of the required supply-disconnecting device and
over current protection. This standard applies to
isolating equipment that is to be used in circuits of
which the rated voltage does not exceed 1000 Vac
or 1500 Vdc.’’ See https://standardscatalog.ul.com/
standards/en/standard_6420.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 May 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
use of these services if OSHA revised
the Lockout/Tagout requirements to
align with the consensus standards?
Based on data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, OSHA estimates that an
occupational health and safety specialist
makes $33.14 an hour or $68,930
annually plus benefits.15 If you have
used the services of such specialists,
how does this compare with your
experience?
23. How much training do you
currently provide on Lockout/Tagout
requirements? How long does training
on this subject take and how often do
employees receive training on the
subject? If OSHA were to revise the
Lockout/Tagout standard to permit use
of control circuit type devices in some
circumstances, would newly hired
workers require more training or less
than under the current standard? What
format do you use to provide training on
the Lockout/Tagout standard at your
facility (i.e., small group classroom
session, self-guided computer modules,
etc.)? If you have used third-party
training vendors to provide similar
training, what are the costs? If training
is provided in-house, what sort of
employee provides the training (i.e., a
first-line supervisor, a safety and health
specialist, etc.)?
Robotics
24. Should OSHA consider making
revisions to the Lockout/Tagout
standard that address advances to
robotics technology with respect to
hazardous energy control? If so, what
revisions should OSHA consider?
25. What are the aspects of design and
build, the features, or the specifications
of modern robots that are relevant to an
evaluation of whether a robot has the
potential to release hazardous energy
while in the presence of employees?
How do you use robotics? Are robotics
isolated from nearby employees? Near
employees? Directly employed or worn
by employees?
26. Are you aware of any instances
where workers have been injured or
killed by the release of hazardous
energy when working with robotic
technologies? Please provide examples
if you have them.
27. Robots operate using software.
What processes or tools exist to ensure
that this software is safely operating
(including protection from malware,
tampering, and other threats) or
15 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational
Employment Statistics, May 2016 National
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimate for
SOC 29–9010 Occupational Health and Safety
Specialists and Technicians,
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
Accessed March 14, 2018.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22761
displaying signs that a robot could
malfunction and lead to a release of
hazardous energy while in the presence
of employees? Should OSHA consider
making revisions to the Lockout/Tagout
standard with respect to the safe
functioning of robotics software? If so,
what revisions should OSHA consider?
To the extent that there are such
revisions, how much would they
increase the costs of or development
hours for the software?
28. Are you currently using some
form of lockout/tagout to control
hazardous energy in robots? What steps
do you take? How long do those steps
take? Do you use any specially
purchased equipment or materials for
this process? How frequently do you
take steps to control hazardous energy
releases in your industrial robots? How
does the process compare to the steps
undertaken to comply with OSHA’s
Lockout/Tagout standard? How many
labor hours do these additional steps
require? Do these steps require any
additional equipment? If so, what does
this equipment cost?
29. Should OSHA consider adopting
portions of the ANSI/RIA R15.06–2012
standard on Industrial Robots and Robot
Systems, which outlines the safety
requirements for risk assessments of
robotic system installations? Are there
any requirements in the ANSI/RIA
standard that would be prohibitively
expensive for your company to
implement? Are there any requirements
that do not provide sufficient
protections for workers?
30. Is there another standard, besides
ANSI/RIA R15.06–2012 Industrial
Robots and Robot Systems—Safety
Requirements, that OSHA should
consider in developing requirements for
the control of hazardous energy
involving robotics?
Specific Questions Regarding Economic
Impacts
31. Please describe in detail how a
standard for the control of hazardous
energy that incorporates the use of
control circuit type devices or new
robotic technology could create more
jobs; eliminate outdated, unnecessary,
or ineffective requirements; or produce
other economic benefits. Please provide
information supporting your view,
including data, studies and articles.
32. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601, as amended) requires OSHA
to assess the impact of proposed and
final rules on small entities. OSHA
requests comments, information, and
data on how many and what kinds of
small businesses, or other small entities,
in general industry employment could
be affected if OSHA decides to revise
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
22762
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2019 / Proposed Rules
provisions in 29 CFR 1910.147. Describe
any such effects. Where possible, please
provide detailed descriptions of the size
and scope of operation for affected small
entities and the likely technical,
economic, and safety impacts for those
entities.
33. In addition, are there any reasons
that the benefits of reducing exposure to
hazardous energy might be different in
small firms than in larger firms? Are
there any reasons why the costs for
controlling hazardous energy would be
higher for small employers than they
would be for larger employers? Are
there provisions that would be
especially costly to small employers?
Please describe any specific concerns
related to potential impacts on small
entities that you believe warrant special
attention from OSHA. Please describe
alternatives that might serve to
minimize those impacts while meeting
the requirements of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C.
651 et seq.
IV. Authority and Signature
Loren Sweatt, Acting Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the
preparation of this notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, Secretary’s
Order 1–2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, on May 7, 2019.
Loren Sweatt,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019–10247 Filed 5–17–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
registration of multiple musical works
and/or sound recordings distributed
together, regardless of whether such
distribution occurs via physical or
digital media.
Comments on the proposed rule
must be made in writing and received
by the U.S. Copyright Office no later
than 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 19, 2019.
DATES:
For reasons of government
efficiency, the Copyright Office is using
the regulations.gov system for the
submission and posting of public
comments in this proceeding. All
comments are therefore to be submitted
electronically through regulations.gov.
Specific instructions for submitting
comments are available on the
Copyright Office website at https://
copyright.gov/rulemaking/gram. If
electronic submission of comments is
not feasible due to lack of access to a
computer and/or the internet, please
contact the Office using the contact
information below for special
instructions.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and
Associate Register of Copyrights, by
email at regans@copyright.gov, Robert
Kasunic, Associate Register of
Copyrights and Director of Registration
Policy and Practice, by email at rkas@
copyright.gov, Erik Bertin, Deputy
Director, Registration Policy & Practice,
by email at ebertin@copyright.gov, or
John R. Riley, Attorney-Advisor, by
email at jril@copyright.gov. All can be
reached by telephone at 202–707–8040.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
I. Background
U.S. Copyright Office
The U.S. Copyright Office (‘‘Office’’)
is proposing to create a new group
registration option for musical works,
sound recordings, and associated
literary, pictorial, and graphic works
contained on an album. When Congress
enacted the Copyright Act, it authorized
the Register of Copyrights to specify by
regulation the administrative classes of
works for the purpose of seeking a
registration and the nature of the
deposit required for each such class. In
addition, Congress gave the Register the
discretion to allow registration of groups
of related works with one application
and one filing fee, a procedure known
as ‘‘group registration.’’ 1 Pursuant to
this authority, the Register issued
regulations permitting the Office to
issue group registrations for certain
37 CFR Parts 201 and 202
[Docket No. 2019–4]
Group Registration of Works on an
Album of Music
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Copyright Office is
proposing to create a new group
registration option for musical works,
sound recordings, and certain other
works contained on an album. The
proposed rule will expand the
registration options currently available
to register multiple musical works or
sound recordings under one application.
In particular, this proposed group
registration option will permit the
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 May 17, 2019
Jkt 247001
1 See
PO 00000
17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1).
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
limited categories of works, provided
that certain conditions have been met.2
As the legislative history explains,
allowing ‘‘a number of related works to
be registered together as a group
represent[ed] a needed and important
liberalization of the law.’’ 3 Congress
recognized that requiring applicants to
submit separate applications for certain
types of works may be so burdensome
and expensive that authors and
copyright owners may forgo registration
altogether, since copyright registration
is not a prerequisite to copyright
protection, although registration must
be made before instituting a civil
infringement action.4 For musical
works, not appearing in the Office’s
records can have additional
repercussions, as ‘‘the copyright owner
must be identified in the registration or
other public records of the Copyright
Office’’ to be entitled to certain statutory
royalties for the reproduction and
distribution of non-digital phonorecords
under the section 115 license.5 Further,
if copyright owners do not submit their
works for registration, the public record
will lack information concerning those
works, diminishing the value of the
Office’s records.
When multiple works are included in
one submission, however, it can be
more difficult to adequately capture
information about each work,
particularly within the technological
constraints of the current electronic
registration system. The Office must
also consider the potential effect any
group registration option may have on
its overall administration of the
copyright registration system, to avoid
an adverse effect on the timeframe for
examining other types of works.6
Therefore, group registration options
require careful balancing of the
copyright owners’ desire for more
liberal registration options, the need for
an accurate public record, and the need
for an efficient method of facilitating the
examination of each work.
2 See generally 37 CFR 202.3(b)(5), 202.4; see also
83 FR 65612 (Dec. 21, 2018) (proposed group
registration of short online literary works).
3 H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 154 (1976), reprinted
in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5770; S. Rep. No. 94–
473, at 136 (1975).
4 See 17 U.S.C. 411(a); Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit
Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881, 886
(2019).
5 17 U.S.C. 115(c)(1)(A).
6 See 84 FR 3693, 3694 (Feb. 13, 2019)
(establishing limit on number of works in the group
of unpublished works in light of projected
examination costs); 83 FR 2542, 2544 (Jan. 18, 2018)
(establishing limit on number of photographs that
may be included in a group in light of the projected
costs of examining claims for that group).
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22756-22762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10247]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. OSHA-2016-0013]
RIN 1218-AD00
The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOL.
ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The control of hazardous energy is regulated under OSHA's
control of hazardous energy (Lockout/Tagout) standard. The standard's
purpose is to protect workers from the dangers of hazardous energy.
This RFI seeks information regarding two areas where modernizing the
Lockout/Tagout standard might better promote worker safety without
additional burdens to employers: control circuit type devices and
robotics. OSHA's Lockout/Tagout standard currently requires that all
sources of energy, including energy stored in the machine itself, be
controlled during servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment
using an energy-isolating device (EID). Control circuit type devices
are specifically excluded from
[[Page 22757]]
OSHA's definition of an EID and are thus not a compliant method of
controlling hazardous energy during service and maintenance activities.
But technological advances since the standard was issued in 1989
suggest that, at least in some circumstances, control circuit type
devices may be at least as safe as EIDs. OSHA requests information,
data, and comments that would assist the agency in determining under
what conditions control circuit type devices could safely be used for
the control of hazardous energy. OSHA may also consider changes to the
Lockout/Tagout standard that address hazardous energy control for new
robotics technologies. Employers are increasingly using robots and
robotic components in their workplaces. OSHA would like to know more
about what hazards and benefits this presents with respect to control
of hazardous energy, safeguards that can be used, increased
efficiencies that result, and any other information related to ensuring
employee safety in interfacing with robots. OSHA will use the
information received in response to this RFI to determine what action,
if any, it may take to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining
worker safety.
DATES: Submit comments on or before August 19, 2019. All submissions
must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments and additional materials, identified by
Docket No. OSHA-2016-0013, by any of the following methods:
Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and
additional material that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including
attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648. OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents. Instead
of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these
documents (for example, studies, journal articles), commenters must
submit these attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data
Center, Room N3653, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
These attachments must identify clearly the sender's name, the date,
subject, and docket number (OSHA-2016-0013) so that the Docket Office
can attach them to the appropriate document.
Regular mail, express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments and any additional material (for example,
studies or journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA-2016-0013 or RIN 1218-AD00, Technical Data Center, Room N3653,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202) 693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-5627). All additional
materials must clearly identify your electronic submission by name,
date, and docket number so that OSHA can attach them to your comments.
Due to security procedures, there may be delays in receiving materials
that are sent by regular mail. For more information about security
procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery,
hand delivery, and messenger or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office. The hours of operation for the OSHA Docket Office
are 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this RFI (OSHA-2016-0013). When submitting
comments or recommendations on the issues that are raised in this RFI,
commenters should explain their rationale and, if possible, provide
data and information to support their comments or recommendations.
Comments and other material, including any personal information, will
be placed in the public docket without revision, and will be publicly
available online at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters
should not submit statements that they do not want made available to
the public or include any comments that may contain personal
information (either about themselves or others) such as Social Security
Numbers, birth dates, and medical data.
Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. The https://www.regulations.gov index lists all
documents in the docket. However, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not available to publicly read or download through the
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Press Inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications; telephone: 202-693-1999; email:
[email protected].
General and technical information: Lisa Long, OSHA Directorate of
Standards and Guidance; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at https://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice,
as well as news releases and other relevant information, is also
available at OSHA's web page at https://www.osha.gov.
References and Exhibits (optional): Documents referenced by OSHA in
this RFI, other than OSHA standards and Federal Register notices, are
in Docket No. OSHA-2016-0013 (Lock-out/Tag-out Update). The docket is
available at https://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. For additional information on submitting items to, or accessing
items in, the docket, please refer to the ``ADDRESSES'' section of this
RFI. Most exhibits are available at https://www.regulations.gov; some
exhibits (e.g., copyrighted material) are not available to download
from that web page. However, all materials in the dockets are available
for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Background
A. Control Circuit Type Devices and Other Alternative Methods to
Lockout/Tagout
B. Addressing New Robotics Technology
C. Economic Impacts
III. Request for Information, Data, and Comments
IV. Authority and Signature
I. Introduction
OSHA is considering whether to initiate rulemaking to revise its
control of hazardous energy standard for general industry. One aim of
this RFI is to seek public comment on modernization of the control of
hazardous energy standard without compromising worker safety. OSHA is
requesting information from the public on its control of hazardous
energy standard to help the agency determine how to best protect
employees.
OSHA's control of hazardous energy (Lockout/Tagout) standard covers
the servicing and maintenance of machines and equipment in which the
unexpected energization or start-up of machines or equipment, or
release of stored energy, could harm employees.\1\ These hazards exist
not only for the employees working directly with the machines or
equipment, but also for the employees nearby. The Lockout/Tagout
standard
[[Page 22758]]
was developed to address these hazards by establishing minimum
performance requirements for the control of hazardous energy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 29 CFR 1910.147(a)(1)(i).
\2\ Id. 1910.147(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lockout/Tagout standard currently requires that all hazardous
energy from power sources and energy stored in the machine itself be
controlled using energy isolating devices (EIDs) when an employee is
performing servicing or maintenance of a machine or equipment.\3\
OSHA's definition of EIDs excludes push buttons, selector switches, and
other control circuit type devices.\4\ Nevertheless, OSHA recognizes
that there have been safety advancements to control circuit type
devices since OSHA adopted the standard in 1989. Accordingly, OSHA is
revisiting the Lockout/Tagout standard to consider whether to allow the
use of control circuit type devices instead of EIDs for some tasks or
under certain conditions. OSHA seeks information, data, and comments
that would help the agency determine under which conditions, if any,
control circuit type devices could safely be used. OSHA is also
considering changes to the Lockout/Tagout standard that would reflect
new industry best practices and technological advances for hazardous
energy control in the robotics industry. OSHA invites information,
data, and comments on these and any other issues or concerns that
regulated employers, affected employees, and other interested parties
may have regarding the existing Lockout/Tagout standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id. 1910.147(a)(2)(i); 1910.147(a)(3)(i); 1910.147(c)(i).
\4\ Id. 1910.147(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. Control Circuit Type Devices and Other Alternative Methods to
Lockout/Tagout
The OSHA standard currently requires employers to use an EID to
control hazardous energy during the servicing and maintenance of
machines and equipment. Over the years, some employers have stated that
they believe that control circuit type devices that use approved
components, redundant systems, and control-reliable circuitry are as
safe as EIDs. OSHA recognizes that recent technological advances may
have resulted in safety improvements to control circuit type devices.
In April 2016, OSHA granted a permanent variance to Nucor Steel
Connecticut Incorporated (NSCI), permitting the use of a control
circuit type device for the control of hazardous energy under the
specific conditions presented in NSCI's request for a variance.\5\
NSCI, a manufacturer of steel wire rod and coiled rebar, had proposed
the implementation of a complete system that would provide an
alternative means of compliance to the requirements of
1910.147(d)(4)(i) and (ii) with regard to grinding rolls on a roll mill
stand. The engineered system used a ``trapped key'' concept and
monitored safety-rated power relays in combination with administrative
procedures. The trapped key system was designed to replace a locked out
EID and to function similarly to a lockout device, in that only the
employee in possession of the key could restart the machine undergoing
maintenance. The single key was controlled through administrative group
lockout procedures that NSCI asserted matched the requirements of 29
CFR 1910.147.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ OSHA-2014-0022-0013/FR 2016-08004.
\6\ OSHA-2014-0022/FR 2015-30483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA evaluated whether the device provided an equivalent level of
employee personal control over machine re-energization, ability to
account for exposed employees, and verification of isolation to that
required by the OSHA standard.\7\ OSHA reached three conclusions.
First, OSHA concluded that the alternate device allowed energy control
measures to remain under the personal control of the exposed employee
through control of the trapped key using a group lockbox. Second, OSHA
concluded that employees were able to verify de-energization. Third,
OSHA concluded that authorized employees were easily identified before
equipment restart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 29 CFR 1910.147(c)(8); 1910.147(d)(4); 1910.147(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing the alternative safety measures proposed in NSCI's
application, and its responses to OSHA's follow-up questions,\8\ OSHA
granted the employer a variance permitting use of this device
exclusively for this task. 81 FR 20680. OSHA granted the variance based
on a safety evaluation of the complete system, not just its individual
components. Specifically, OSHA evaluated whether the alternative system
could, as a whole, be considered as protective as an energy isolating
device. OSHA concluded that the proposed trapped key system was as
effective as full lockout during this task in ensuring against internal
and external failures that could lead to the release of hazardous
energy. The agency determined that internal failures, such as welded
relay contacts or errors in the safety relays, would not cause a
critical failure without alerting employees. With respect to
vulnerability from outside failures, such as attempts to bypass the
system, OSHA determined that the system also provided equivalent
protection to full lockout for these types of failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-2014-0022-0007,
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-2014-0022-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although control circuit type devices may not permit easy visual
confirmation of their application, in this instance, the system allowed
the exposed employee to verify the effectiveness of the system through
attempted startup of the machine. In addition, the safety system was
designed to revert to a safe mode in the event of a failure, the status
of the safety system was monitored by multiple safety relays, and any
faults would be signaled to operators. After completing an analysis of
the company's variance request and accompanying documentation, OSHA
determined the proposed system was an effective alternative to full
lockout for the task identified in the request.
As a result of the evaluation of this recent variance request, OSHA
has determined that there may be a basis for amending the Lockout/
Tagout standard to allow the use of control circuit type devices for
hazardous energy control under certain conditions. Based on preliminary
research and alliance-partner feedback, OSHA believes the use of
control circuit type devices is typically limited to the types of tasks
that do not meet the minor servicing exception in the Lockout/Tagout
standard but that also do not require either extensive disassembly of
the machine or worker entrance into hazardous areas that may be
difficult to escape quickly. An example of such a task is machine
setup. OSHA is requesting information about how employers have been
using these devices, including information about the types of circuitry
and safety procedures being used and the limitations of their use, to
determine under what other conditions control circuit type devices
could safely be used.
As part of this RFI, OSHA is also evaluating criteria used by
consensus standards to determine the safety effectiveness of control
circuits. For example, the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission
(IEC) both have standards with detailed requirements for control
circuit devices used for protection from machine hazards.\9\ The ISO
and IEC
[[Page 22759]]
standards evaluate the safety of a control system by considering its
design and function. The IEC standards evaluate whether a system can
achieve a certain ``safety integrity level,'' while the ISO 13849-1
consensus standard evaluates ``performance levels'' for each safety
function. The ISO 13849-2 consensus standard also has safety categories
that describe both the performance level required for that category and
the characteristics of the error-checking of a system in that category.
The highest safety category requires both the highest performance level
of the control system and the most extensive error checking.
Additionally, to determine the level of safety of a control system,
both the IEC and the ISO standards consider the reliability of the
system as a whole and its components, the operating environment, and
the effects of failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., ANSI/ISO 12100:2012 Safety of machinery--General
principles for design--Risk assessment and risk reduction; ISO
13849-1:2015(E) Safety of machinery--Safety-related parts of control
systems--Part 1: General principles for design; ISO 13849-2:2012(E)
Safety of machinery--Safety-related parts of control systems--Part
2: Validation; ISO/TR 22100-1:2015(E) Safety of machinery--
Relationship with ISO 12100--Part 1: How ISO 12100 relates to type-B
and type-C standards; ISO/TR 22100-2:2013(E) Safety of machinery--
Relationship with ISO 12100--Part 2: How ISO 12100 relates to ISO
13849-1; ISO 14118:2000(E) Safety of machinery--Prevention of
unexpected start-up; ISO/TR 14121-2:2012(E) Safety of machinery--
Risk assessment-- Part 2:Practical guidance and examples of methods;
IEC 62040-1:2017-04 PRV(en-fr) FINAL DRAFT INTERNATIONAL STANDARD
Uninterruptible power systems (UPS)--Part 1: Safety requirements;
IEC 62061:2005-01+AMD1:2012-11+AMD2:2015-06 CSV(en-fr) CONSOLIDATED
VERSION Safety of machinery--Functional safety of safety-related
electrical, electronic and programmable electronic control systems;
IEC 61508-1:2010 INTERNATIONAL STANDARD Functional safety of
electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related
systems--Part 1: General requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA promulgated the current version of 29 CFR 1910.147 on
September 1, 1989. OSHA relied heavily on a 1982 consensus standard
published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).\10\ The
1989 preamble stated that the ANSI standard was ``[o]f great assistance
to OSHA'' and that ``[t]he consensus standard was utilized by OSHA as
the primary basis for development of its proposed standard.'' 54 FR
36645. ANSI reaffirmed the 1982 consensus standard ``without any
changes in content'' in 1988 and again in 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See ANSI Z244.1, American National Standard for Personnel
Protection--Lockout/Tagout of Energy Sources--Minimum Safety
Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But by 2014, the Z244.1 committee recognized that, with the rapid
advancement of technology, ``[a]dvanced control systems provide new
opportunities for addressing energy control where conventional lockout
is not feasible, where energy is required to perform a task, where
repetitive cycling of an energy-isolating device increases risk, and
where energy is required to maintain equipment in a safe state, etc.''
As a result, ANSI revised its standard to include ``distinct
requirements for controlling hazardous energy through three different
approaches: lockout (the primary approach), tagout and alternative
methods.''
In 2016, the committee released a new consensus standard, ANSI/
ASSPP Z244.1--2016 The Control of Hazardous Energy Lockout, Tagout and
Alternative Methods. The standard's Introduction states that it
``provides for decision-making flexibility regarding hazardous energy
control methodology. Alternative methods, when used, are based upon
risk assessment and application of the classic hazard control hierarchy
(clause 8.1.2). However, lockout continues to be emphasized as the
primary hazardous energy control method.'' The ANSI standard requires
that lockout or tagout ``be used unless the user can demonstrate an
alternative method will provide effective protection for persons. When
lockout or tagout is not used, then alternative methods shall be used
only after the hazards have been assessed and risks documented.'' Thus,
before using an alternative method, the employer is required to
complete a practicability/justification analysis, a risk assessment,
and other applicable evaluations. An accompanying chart and table in
the standard go through the risk assessment process and the hazard
control hierarchy.
OSHA is seeking information, comments, and data on the
effectiveness of these approaches to control system safety and any
limitations or potential issues regarding their use for some tasks that
currently require lockout/tagout.
B. Addressing New Robotics Technology in Relation to Lockout/Tagout
Because robots may contain hazardous energy, the Lockout/Tagout
standard can apply to their servicing and maintenance. OSHA has
previously focused on industrial robots, defined as ``programmable
multifunctional mechanical devices designed to move material, parts,
tools, or specialized devices through variable programmed motions to
perform a variety of tasks.'' \11\ OSHA is now studying the evolution
of the use of robots in the workplace and how this affects employee
protections related to the control of hazardous energy in the context
of the Lockout/Tagout standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ OSHA, Robotics: Overview, available at https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/robotics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The traditional robot model involves a large device that welds
metal pieces or moves panels or assemblies. This type of robot has a
fixed base and an arm that moves freely. It is kept separate from
workers during its operating stage and stays behind a locked door or
within a locked compartment as it works. During periods of maintenance
or adjustment, these robots' movements are supposed to be limited or
greatly slowed to reduce or eliminate the potential for worker injury.
The technological innovations of a new generation of robots,
however, suggest that this may be changing. Unlike traditional robots,
newer robots are more mobile and may be allowed to roam freely in a
specified area, even if that area is separate from employees.
Collaborative robots go a step further by working with human workers.
In some cases, such robots are worn directly by the employees
themselves, for example, as exoskeletons.
Due to these advances in robotics, OSHA is seeking information,
comments, and data about any new risks of exposure to hazardous energy
that employees may face as a result of increased interaction with
robots. OSHA is seeking information, comments, and data on whether the
agency should consider changes to the Lockout/Tagout standard that
would address these new risks, as well as to account for any reduction
in risks or other benefits to worker safety, associated with using
robots.
C. Economic Impacts
In addition to the specific questions posed in Part III of this
RFI, OSHA welcomes data and information on the potential economic
impacts should OSHA decide to make changes to the Lockout/Tagout
standard. When responding to the questions in this RFI, OSHA requests,
whenever possible, that stakeholders discuss potential economic impacts
in terms of:
a. Quantitative benefits (e.g., reductions in injuries, fatalities,
and property damage);
b. Costs (e.g., compliance costs or decreases in productivity); and
c. Offsets to costs (e.g., increases in productivity, less need for
maintenance and repairs).
OSHA also invites comment on any unintended consequences and
consistencies or inconsistences with other policies or regulatory
programs that might result if OSHA revises the 29 CFR 1910.147
standard.
OSHA welcomes all comments but requests that stakeholders discuss
[[Page 22760]]
economic impacts in as specific terms as possible. For example, if a
provision or policy change would necessitate additional employee
training, it is most helpful to OSHA to receive information on the
following:
1. The training courses necessary;
2. The topics training would cover;
3. The types of employees who would need training and what percent
(if any) of those employees currently receive the training;
4. The length and frequency of training;
5. Any retraining necessary; and
6. The training costs, whether conducted by a third-party vendor or
by an in-house trainer.
For discussion of equipment-related costs, OSHA is interested in
all relevant factors including:
1. The prevalence of current use of the equipment;
2. The purchase price;
3. Cost of installation and training;
4. Cost of equipment maintenance and operation and upgrades; and
5. Expected life of the equipment.
The agency also invites comment on the time and level of expertise
required if OSHA were to implement potential changes this RFI
discusses, even if dollar-cost estimates are not available.
III. Request for Information, Data, and Comments
OSHA is seeking information, data, and comments to help the agency
determine what action, if any, it should take to modernize the control
of hazardous energy standard while maintaining or improving worker
safety. OSHA also seeks information, data, and comments that will
inform the agency's analysis of the technological and economic
feasibility of any such action.
OSHA would like data, information, and comments on the following
questions:
Control Circuit Type Devices
1. In what work processes should OSHA consider allowing the use of
control circuit type devices for hazardous energy control?
2. What are the limitations to using control circuit type devices?
Do they have specific weaknesses or failure points that make them
unsuitable for hazardous energy control?
3. If OSHA were to allow the use of control circuit type devices or
other methods to control hazardous energy, would your firm choose to
use them? Why or why not? Do you anticipate that these devices would
save your firm money? For example, would these devices simplify
operations or maintenance? Are there fewer steps needed to implement
the controls? How frequently do you employ some form of lockout/tagout
system in your facility?
4. Are there any specific conditions under which the use of control
circuit type devices would not be advisable?
5. When the Lockout/Tagout standard was originally drafted, OSHA
rejected the use of control circuit type devices for hazardous energy
control due to concerns that the safety functions of these devices
could fail as a result of component failure, program errors, magnetic
field interference, electrical surges, or improper use or maintenance.
Have new technological advances to control circuit type devices
resolved these concerns? How so?
6. Are there issues with physical feedback for control circuit type
devices?
7. What are the safety and health issues involving maintenance,
installation, and use of control circuit type devices? Have you found
that alternative safety measures themselves cause any new or unexpected
hazards or safety problems? Please provide any examples if you have
them.
8. Do control circuit type devices address over-voltage or under-
voltage conditions that may signal power-off, power-on, or false
negatives on error checking?
9. How do control circuit systems detect if a component of a
control circuit device breaks, bends, or otherwise goes out of
specification? How do the systems signal this to the exposed employee?
Could these types of failures create a hazard while the system
continues to signal that conditions are safe?
10. What level of redundancy is necessary in determining whether a
control circuit type device could be used instead of an EID?
11. Lockout/tagout on EIDs ensures that machines will not restart
while an employee is in a hazardous area. How do control circuit type
devices similarly account for employees working in areas where they are
exposed to hazardous machine energy?
12. How do control circuit type devices permit an employee to
maintain control over his/her own safety?
13. How do control circuit type devices permit employees to verify
that energy has been controlled before beginning work in danger zones?
How do the devices account for exposed employees before equipment is
restarted?
14. Control circuit type devices have a number of claimed benefits
compared to energy isolating devices, including workers' greater
willingness to use such devices, better efficiency, less downtime, and
the lack of a requirement to clear programming on computer controlled
devices. Are there any other benefits to using control circuit type
devices? Are there certain situations where these devices are
especially advantageous? For example, where machine tasks require
frequent repetitive access, is the process faster and/or less
physically demanding than applying mechanical lock(s)?
15. What other methods or devices, if any, are being used with
control circuit type devices to control the release of hazardous
energy, especially in cases where the control circuit devices are only
used to prevent machine start-up? Are there control circuit type
devices that require additional methods or devices to fully control the
release of hazardous energy? What improvements to safety or health does
the use of these devices or methods provide?
16. What are the unit costs for installing and using control
circuit type devices or other alternative methods of hazardous energy
control? Are the costs of installing and using control circuit type
devices or other alternative methods of controlling hazardous energy
dependent on the capacity or efficiency of the devices? If so, please
include details on the effects of capacity on these unit costs
including the capacity of any equipment you use in your facility. Are
these devices generally integrated into newly purchased machinery, or
are they purchased and installed separately? What steps need to be
taken, and how long do those steps take, for these systems to be
engaged in a manner that fully protects workers from the release of
hazardous energy?
17. What additional actions is your firm taking to protect workers
when they are servicing machinery with control circuit type devices in
order to meet OSHA's Lockout/Tagout standard requirements? For example,
does your firm purchase and use physical devices that you feel do not
enhance worker protections but nonetheless are required by the OSHA
standard? What are these items and how much do they cost? Please
explain why you feel these items do not enhance worker protections.
18. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) all have standards that
may be applicable to control circuit type devices.\12\ Should OSHA
consider
[[Page 22761]]
adopting portions of any ANSI, ISO, or IEC standard that specifies
requirements for control circuit devices as part of an updated OSHA
standard? Are there recommendations in the consensus standards that you
choose not to follow? If so, please explain why. Are there any
requirements in these standards that would impose significant cost
burdens if OSHA were to include those requirements in a revised Logout/
Tagout standard? Are there provisions of one consensus standard when
compared to the others that you perceive as having lower costs to
implement and use on a day-to-day basis while providing protection to
workers that is equal to or greater than that provided by the other
standards? If so, please explain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ These include, but are not limited to, ANSI B11.19-2010
American National Standard for Machines--Performance Criteria for
Safeguarding, ISO 12100, ISO 14118, ISO 14121, IEC 62040, IEC 62061,
and IEC 61508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. ISO categorizes ``the ability of safety-related parts of
control systems to perform a safety function under foreseeable
conditions'' into one of five levels, called performance levels.\13\
These performance levels ``are defined in terms of probability of
dangerous failures per hour.'' Should OSHA consider requiring a
specific performance level in determining whether a control circuit
type device could be a safe alternative to an EID?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See ISO 13849-1:2015 Safety of Machinery--Safety-Related
Parts of Control Systems--Part 1: General Principles of Design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Can System Isolation Equipment, as discussed in the UL
consensus standard UL6420 Standard for Equipment Used for System
Isolation and Rated as a Single Unit,\14\ provide protection equal to
that obtained through lockout/tagout?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ UL6420 ``applies to isolating equipment incorporating
electromechanical contactors remotely controlled and monitored to
provide remote isolation status indication with a defined integrity
level. This equipment is intended for use as an additional isolating
means on the load side of the required supply-disconnecting device
and over current protection. This standard applies to isolating
equipment that is to be used in circuits of which the rated voltage
does not exceed 1000 Vac or 1500 Vdc.'' See https://standardscatalog.ul.com/standards/en/standard_6420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. The ANSI/ASSE Z244.1 consensus standard encourages the use of
risk assessment and hazard control hierarchy as alternative methods of
hazardous energy control. Should OSHA consider incorporating these
methods in any new standard with respect to the use of control circuit
type devices?
22. Do you currently utilize the services of a specialized safety
engineer or employment safety administrator to test for competency and/
or ensure that the hazardous energy control system is operational? If
so, how many hours does this individual spend on these tasks? Do you
anticipate you would need to make use of these services if OSHA revised
the Lockout/Tagout requirements to align with the consensus standards?
Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, OSHA estimates that
an occupational health and safety specialist makes $33.14 an hour or
$68,930 annually plus benefits.\15\ If you have used the services of
such specialists, how does this compare with your experience?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment
Statistics, May 2016 National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimate for SOC 29-9010 Occupational Health and Safety Specialists
and Technicians,
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. Accessed March 14,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. How much training do you currently provide on Lockout/Tagout
requirements? How long does training on this subject take and how often
do employees receive training on the subject? If OSHA were to revise
the Lockout/Tagout standard to permit use of control circuit type
devices in some circumstances, would newly hired workers require more
training or less than under the current standard? What format do you
use to provide training on the Lockout/Tagout standard at your facility
(i.e., small group classroom session, self-guided computer modules,
etc.)? If you have used third-party training vendors to provide similar
training, what are the costs? If training is provided in-house, what
sort of employee provides the training (i.e., a first-line supervisor,
a safety and health specialist, etc.)?
Robotics
24. Should OSHA consider making revisions to the Lockout/Tagout
standard that address advances to robotics technology with respect to
hazardous energy control? If so, what revisions should OSHA consider?
25. What are the aspects of design and build, the features, or the
specifications of modern robots that are relevant to an evaluation of
whether a robot has the potential to release hazardous energy while in
the presence of employees? How do you use robotics? Are robotics
isolated from nearby employees? Near employees? Directly employed or
worn by employees?
26. Are you aware of any instances where workers have been injured
or killed by the release of hazardous energy when working with robotic
technologies? Please provide examples if you have them.
27. Robots operate using software. What processes or tools exist to
ensure that this software is safely operating (including protection
from malware, tampering, and other threats) or displaying signs that a
robot could malfunction and lead to a release of hazardous energy while
in the presence of employees? Should OSHA consider making revisions to
the Lockout/Tagout standard with respect to the safe functioning of
robotics software? If so, what revisions should OSHA consider? To the
extent that there are such revisions, how much would they increase the
costs of or development hours for the software?
28. Are you currently using some form of lockout/tagout to control
hazardous energy in robots? What steps do you take? How long do those
steps take? Do you use any specially purchased equipment or materials
for this process? How frequently do you take steps to control hazardous
energy releases in your industrial robots? How does the process compare
to the steps undertaken to comply with OSHA's Lockout/Tagout standard?
How many labor hours do these additional steps require? Do these steps
require any additional equipment? If so, what does this equipment cost?
29. Should OSHA consider adopting portions of the ANSI/RIA R15.06-
2012 standard on Industrial Robots and Robot Systems, which outlines
the safety requirements for risk assessments of robotic system
installations? Are there any requirements in the ANSI/RIA standard that
would be prohibitively expensive for your company to implement? Are
there any requirements that do not provide sufficient protections for
workers?
30. Is there another standard, besides ANSI/RIA R15.06-2012
Industrial Robots and Robot Systems--Safety Requirements, that OSHA
should consider in developing requirements for the control of hazardous
energy involving robotics?
Specific Questions Regarding Economic Impacts
31. Please describe in detail how a standard for the control of
hazardous energy that incorporates the use of control circuit type
devices or new robotic technology could create more jobs; eliminate
outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective requirements; or produce other
economic benefits. Please provide information supporting your view,
including data, studies and articles.
32. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, as amended)
requires OSHA to assess the impact of proposed and final rules on small
entities. OSHA requests comments, information, and data on how many and
what kinds of small businesses, or other small entities, in general
industry employment could be affected if OSHA decides to revise
[[Page 22762]]
provisions in 29 CFR 1910.147. Describe any such effects. Where
possible, please provide detailed descriptions of the size and scope of
operation for affected small entities and the likely technical,
economic, and safety impacts for those entities.
33. In addition, are there any reasons that the benefits of
reducing exposure to hazardous energy might be different in small firms
than in larger firms? Are there any reasons why the costs for
controlling hazardous energy would be higher for small employers than
they would be for larger employers? Are there provisions that would be
especially costly to small employers? Please describe any specific
concerns related to potential impacts on small entities that you
believe warrant special attention from OSHA. Please describe
alternatives that might serve to minimize those impacts while meeting
the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29
U.S.C. 651 et seq.
IV. Authority and Signature
Loren Sweatt, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, Secretary's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912,
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, on May 7, 2019.
Loren Sweatt,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019-10247 Filed 5-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
