Machine Safety: what is the value of ISO 13849-1 for U.S. domestic compliance?

ISO 13849 clearly states that it is a standard for designers. If these designers work for U.S. original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), does the OEM have an enforceable legal requirement for compliance? Under the European Machinery Directive (MD), common opinion is no, but there may be exceptions.


ISO 13849 clearly states that it is a standard for designers. If these designers work for U.S. original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), does the OEM have an enforceable legal requirement for compliance? Under the European Machinery Directive (MD), common opinion is no, but there may be exceptions. Blinders off everyone, there are so many tails on this dog!

Those involved include OEMs, engineering firms, large, medium and small manufacturers (end-users), domestic only and international companies… just to mention a few. But, who has compliance responsibility? The legal answer to this question is often associated with OSHA regulations, which require employers to provide safe working conditions for every employee. That said, and in contrast to the MD, OSHA does not typically inspect or approve a machine’s safety before its sold and commissioned for production. OSHA most likely assesses the safety of a machine following an incident and tells the owner what needs corrected, assesses fines and establishes a required time frame for all identified corrective measures. Because of OSHA, I believe that a simple “copy paste” of ISO 13849 into the U.S. system for domestic compliance is difficult at best.

This position is illuminated as I follow various forum groups on this subject. LinkedIn has a great forum group on this topic called “IEC 62061 and ISO 13849 machinery functional safety.” A related discussion thread was started by Heinz Knachstedt, Mgr. of Safety Products at C&E Sales Inc. What impresses me is that many of the great contributors go into discussions about the European MD, things designers should do and shouldn’t do, statistical reports and lots more great stuff. At the end of discussion the question still remains: what is the “practical” value from ISO 13849-1 for U.S. domestic compliance? I would like to see some effort by forum responders to answer the questions in view of our U.S. enforcement model.

Many of my colleagues describe OEM compliance responsibility in the U.S. as “best practices” and/or “liability,” but not the “law." Let’s follow the flow! After an OEM manufacturer’s a machine (compliant with ISO 13849-1) it is sold, installed and commissioned at a manufacturer’s end-user facility in the U.S. Excepting union agreements, insurance requirements, purchase order terms and conditions, policy issues, and the like, there is generally no requirement to prove compliance in our model of enforcement.

Next is a rule I have become fond of: 80/20. In the broad brush around 20% of all types of U.S. companies in industry have designers. Conversely, 80% of all types of U.S. companies in industry will not have designers. If I were a betting man I’d bet that in most cases the safety circuit of a machine built to ISO 13849-1 after it’s sold and commissioned would never have that circuit re-calculated for verification to design compliance. The reason why: there’s no one in place with the skill set! Of course the first exception would be in the event of an unfortunate incident and resulting liability.

So, are we by default in a mode to discover what pieces and parts of ISO 13849-1 that we can “copy paste” into our domestic standards, best practices, and company based requirements? If the answer is yes, than I believe we dilute the full value of ISO 13849-1 as a standalone machine safety standard. On the other hand, I believe a lot of the requirements built into ISO 13849-1 are truly enhancements for machine safety. Perhaps the “practical value” is to adopt those requirements that work within our model and simultaneously enhance machine safety for reduced injuries.

Will a U.S. MD replace OSHA? Not in my life time!

Has this presented you with any new perspectives? Do you have some specific topic or interest that we could cover in future blog posts? Add your comments or thoughts to the discussion by submitting your ideas, experiences, and challenges in the comments section below.

Related articles:

The increasing role of functional safety in complex machine design by Mark Nehrkorn, a Control Engineering article.

Machine Safety: Can end user companies comply with ISO 13849-1: 2006 without design engineering resources?

Inside Machines: Does adopting ISO 13849-1:2006 change the U.S. model for compliance and enforcement?

Contact: for “Solutions for Machine Safety”.

No comments
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2013 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Engineering Leaders Under 40 program identifies and gives recognition to young engineers who...
A cool solution: Collaboration, chemistry leads to foundry coat product development; See the 2015 Product of the Year Finalists
Raising the standard: What's new with NFPA 70E; A global view of manufacturing; Maintenance data; Fit bearings properly
Sister act: Building on their father's legacy, a new generation moves Bales Metal Surface Solutions forward; Meet the 2015 Engineering Leaders Under 40
Cyber security cost-efficient for industrial control systems; Extracting full value from operational data; Managing cyber security risks
Drilling for Big Data: Managing the flow of information; Big data drilldown series: Challenge and opportunity; OT to IT: Creating a circle of improvement; Industry loses best workers, again
Pipeline vulnerabilities? Securing hydrocarbon transit; Predictive analytics hit the mainstream; Dirty pipelines decrease flow, production—pig your line; Ensuring pipeline physical and cyber security
Upgrading secondary control systems; Keeping enclosures conditioned; Diagnostics increase equipment uptime; Mechatronics simplifies machine design
Designing positive-energy buildings; Ensuring power quality; Complying with NFPA 110; Minimizing arc flash hazards
Building high availability into industrial computers; Of key metrics and myth busting; The truth about five common VFD myths

Annual Salary Survey

After almost a decade of uncertainty, the confidence of plant floor managers is soaring. Even with a number of challenges and while implementing new technologies, there is a renewed sense of optimism among plant managers about their business and their future.

The respondents to the 2014 Plant Engineering Salary Survey come from throughout the U.S. and serve a variety of industries, but they are uniform in their optimism about manufacturing. This year’s survey found 79% consider manufacturing a secure career. That’s up from 75% in 2013 and significantly higher than the 63% figure when Plant Engineering first started asking that question a decade ago.

Read more: 2014 Salary Survey: Confidence rises amid the challenges

Maintenance and reliability tips and best practices from the maintenance and reliability coaches at Allied Reliability Group.
The One Voice for Manufacturing blog reports on federal public policy issues impacting the manufacturing sector. One Voice is a joint effort by the National Tooling and Machining...
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals an organization devoted...
Join this ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis...
IMS Research, recently acquired by IHS Inc., is a leading independent supplier of market research and consultancy to the global electronics industry.
Maintenance is not optional in manufacturing. It’s a profit center, driving productivity and uptime while reducing overall repair costs.
The Lachance on CMMS blog is about current maintenance topics. Blogger Paul Lachance is president and chief technology officer for Smartware Group.