Electrical safety requirements

OSHA does not automatically require NFPA 70E as a regulation, but the standard is a recognized industry consensus that OSHA may rely on for safe work practices and inspectors may consider it when evaluating compliance. See the July 25, 2003 Letter of Interpretation which explains that NFPA 70E is a consensus standard for workplace electrical safety and may be used as guidance; employers remain obligated to meet OSHA requirements found in 1926SubpartK.

• Employers should use NFPA 70E to develop safe work practices, but compliance is ultimately judged against OSHA standards.
• A general contractor may be responsible under OSHA’s multi-employer policy depending on its role at the site (see the multi-employer analysis in the same interpretation).

A general contractor can be cited if it fits one of the multi-employer roles (exposing, creating, correcting, or controlling) and did not take sufficient steps to meet its obligations at the worksite. The July 25, 2003 Letter of Interpretation summarizes OSHA’s multi-employer policy and the two-step analysis used by compliance officers: first determine the employer role, then determine if the employer took sufficient action.

• If the general contractor is a "controlling" employer (has supervisory authority), OSHA evaluates whether it made reasonable inspections and enforcement given the project's scale and pace.
• If the contractor is a "creating" or "exposing" employer, a higher degree of care is expected and a citation is more likely if hazards remain uncorrected.

Only an employer whose own employees are exposed (an "exposing" employer) can be cited for a violation of the General Duty Clause, so an owner would be cited under that clause only if its employees were exposed; otherwise, the owner’s responsibility depends on its role under the multi-employer policy. The July 25, 2003 Letter of Interpretation explains that the General Duty Clause applies to exposing employers and that multi-employer roles determine citation exposure. Also consult 1926SubpartK for applicable standards.

• Owners may still be cited under OSHA standards (not the General Duty Clause) if they have controlling responsibilities and fail to take reasonable steps to correct hazards.

No — the requirement in 1926.432(a) that equipment be identified for use by testing laboratories was not intended to apply to power generation installations. The February 20, 1987 Letter of Interpretation states that 1926.432 was taken from the National Electrical Code and OSHA did not intend it to apply to installations for generation, transmission, or distribution of electrical energy. See also 1926SubpartK for the construction electrical standard framework.

No — 1926.417(b) does not require that all disconnects be locked in all instances for the electric utility industry where locking is infeasible, provided that an equivalent level of employee safety is achieved through tagging and procedures. The February 20, 1987 Letter of Interpretation clarifies that tagging and alternative procedures are acceptable when locks are infeasible; employers should follow 1926SubpartK requirements and applicable Subpart V tagging provisions when relevant.

• Tagging must be combined with procedures that provide the same level of protection as lockout and employees must be trained in those procedures.

If locking out is infeasible, the employer must use an equivalent tagging procedure and ensure it provides the same level of employee protection, and employees must be trained in those procedures. The February 20, 1987 Letter of Interpretation explains that tagging procedures consistent with 1926SubpartK and the tagging guidance in Subpart V (see cited sections 1926.950(d) and 1926.957(b) for tagging procedures in transmission/distribution work) are acceptable alternatives when locks cannot be used.

• Documented procedures and employee training are essential to demonstrate the alternative achieves equivalent safety.

OSHA uses a two-step analysis: first determine the employer’s role at the site (exposing, creating, correcting, or controlling), then determine whether that employer took sufficient steps to meet its obligations given that role. The July 25, 2003 Letter of Interpretation summarizes this approach and refers to compliance directive CPL 2-0.124. See 1926SubpartK for the electrical standards evaluated under that policy.

• If the employer fits a role and did not take reasonable precautions, a citation may be issued; the required degree of care varies by role.

The four employer role categories are "exposing," "creating," "correcting," and "controlling." The July 25, 2003 Letter of Interpretation describes these roles and how they affect citation decisions under OSHA policy; see 1926SubpartK for the electrical standards that may be enforced under that policy.

• "Exposing": employer whose employees are exposed to a hazard.
• "Creating": employer that creates the hazard.
• "Correcting": employer brought in to correct the hazard.
• "Controlling": employer with supervisory authority over the worksite.

OSHA considers factors such as the scale of the project, the nature and pace of the work, inspection frequency, and subcontractors’ safety history to determine if a controlling employer met its responsibilities. The July 25, 2003 Letter of Interpretation lists these factors as part of assessing whether periodic inspections and other steps were adequate; review 1926SubpartK for applicable electrical requirements.

• Documented inspection schedules and corrective actions help show the employer took sufficient steps.

No — only an exposing employer (one whose own employees are exposed) can be cited under Section 5(a)(1), the General Duty Clause. The July 25, 2003 Letter of Interpretation explicitly states this limitation; see 1926SubpartK for the electrical standards that may be enforced through other means.

• Employers who create or control hazards can still be cited under specific OSHA standards if they fail to meet their obligations.

Employers should treat NFPA 70E as a respected industry consensus that can inform safe work practices and training, but they must ensure their program meets OSHA requirements in 1926SubpartK. The July 25, 2003 Letter of Interpretation explains NFPA 70E’s relevance but makes clear that OSHA standards themselves are the legal baseline.

• Use NFPA 70E to identify hazards, set procedures, and train employees, then verify those practices comply with OSHA rules.
• Keep records showing how NFPA 70E guidance was used to meet OSHA obligations.

Yes — when tagging is used instead of lockout on power transmission, distribution, or generating installations, employers should follow the tagging procedures described in Subpart V (including 1926.950(d) and 1926.957(b)) and ensure employees are trained. The February 20, 1987 Letter of Interpretation points to those Subpart V provisions as helpful guidance, and employers must still meet the requirements of 1926SubpartK.

• Use the documented tagging steps and training from Subpart V to demonstrate equivalent protection when locks are infeasible.

OSHA indicated that 1926.432(a) was not intended to apply to installations for the generation, transmission, or distribution of electrical energy because those installations are generally excluded from the National Electrical Code provisions from which 1926.432 was derived. The February 20, 1987 Letter of Interpretation states this point; refer to 1926SubpartK for the broader construction electrical requirements.

• Employers in these sectors should follow the specific construction rules applicable to power systems and any Subpart V procedures when working on energized lines or equipment.

If tagging is used instead of lockout because locks are infeasible, the employer must train employees in the tagging procedures so that the tags and associated steps provide equivalent protection to lockout. The February 20, 1987 Letter of Interpretation requires adequate training and use of tagging procedures consistent with 1926SubpartK and Subpart V tagging provisions.

• Training should cover when tags are used, the meaning of tags, responsibilities for applying/removing tags, and steps to ensure equipment remains deenergized during work.

Yes — an employer categorized as "creating" (one who creates a hazard to which other employers’ employees are exposed) can be cited if it fails to take reasonable steps to prevent or correct the hazard. The July 25, 2003 Letter of Interpretation explains the multi-employer policy roles and how they can lead to citations; see also 1926SubpartK for the electrical standards at issue.

• The compliance officer will evaluate whether the creating employer took sufficient precautions to prevent the hazard.