Machine Safety: Which takes precedence, a Type-B or a Type-C safety standard?

Understanding the hierarchy of Type A, B and C safety standards, isn’t a Type B safety standard to be considered precedent over a Type C safety standard?


In the hierarchy of Type A, B, and C safety standards, doesn’t a Type B safety standard take precedent over a Type C safety standard? Over the past several years Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), like ANSI, have been rolling out A, B, and C level standards here in the U.S. The European Union (EU) has been structured this way for many years. Below is a general guideline for the U.S. structure:

Machine safety standards are in levels: A) Basic safety standards apply to industry, B) Group safety standards apply to a defined group or type of machinery, and C) Specialists standards apply to one specific kind of machine, such as mechanical stamping,

Type A — basic / general safety requirements that can be applied to machinery

Examples: ANSI B11.0, OSHA 1910.212, ISO 12100, CSA Z432

Type B — generic safety standards addressing certain aspects of safeguarding across a sub-set or range of machinery types

Examples: ANSI B11.19, OSHA 1910.147, ISO 13849, IEC 60204

Type C — safety standards addressing a specific type or related group of machines

Examples: ANSI B11.1, OSHA 1910.217, ISO 10218, CSA Z434

Specific guidelines for the three types (levels) of safety standards can be obtained from the SDOs; however, it seems rather clear that a hierarchy exists between the three types of standards. So, wouldn’t it seem clear that a Type B general machine safety standard like ANSI B11.19 would require compliance priority over a Type C specific machine safety standard for mechanical metal forming machines like ANSI B11.1?

The most common understanding I’ve learned from safety experts is:

If a Type C safety standard does exist, and there are discrepancies between the related Type B and Type C safety standards, the Type C safety standard will generally take precedence over the Type B standard.

The general background behind this position, in my opinion, follows:

1. A Type B safety standard generally covers safeguarding over a range of machinery types and by definition will be a bit more generic as it relates to any specific machine type.

2. A Type C safety standard will cover a specific type of machine and all included requirements will be specific to that type of machine.


3. The working committee for a Type C safety standard will likely have members vertically involved with that type of machine, whereas the working committee for a Type B safety standard will tend to have members horizontally involved across the range of machinery types. 

What is your opinion or understanding on this issue? 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:

ASSE - Professional Safety Journal- Near-Miss Reporting, May 2013

OSHA – search for near miss

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.