May 14, 2025 (Inside OSHAonline) –
The Labor Department (DOL) is urging the 6th Circuit to deny a paper company’s attempt to overturn an OSHA finding the company violated so-called lockout/tagout requirements, arguing an administrative law judge (ALJ) properly found the company exposed workers to serious hazards from unexpected machine startup.
The ALJ correctly determined that violated two different provisions in OSHA’s standard on the control of hazardous energy, generally referred to as lockout/tagout (LOTO), “and failed to establish the unpreventable employee misconduct defense,” DOL says in a May 9 reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in v. Lori Chavez-DeRemer.
At issue are two OSHA citations for “serious” violations of LOTO requirements totaling $31,250 stemming from a 2020 workplace accident involving a employee, Christian Hill, who was injured while trying to clear jammed paper from a large industrial rewinder machine at the company’s Circleville, OH, plant. The worker entered the machine to remove a jam without fully powering it down and was injured when the machine unexpectedly cycled, causing his arm to get caught.
argues that in upholding the OSHA citations, the ALJ erred in numerous ways, including the alleged misapplication of Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) precedent.
The company argues the ALJ erred in finding that unjamming and re-threading the R88 rewinder was not integral to production and that this misinterpretation could have broad effects for employers across the paper industry.
The company further claimed that its procedures were adequate under a provision in the standard that exempts certain minor servicing activities from full lockout when they are routine, repetitive, and integral to production and when alternative protection is provided.
, which contests the ALJ’s finding that the LOTO standard applies to unjamming the rewinder and that the company had knowledge of the violative conditions, is seeking oral argument in the case, claiming it presents unique and important substantive issues in the development of the law under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act.
But DOL says it believes the briefs in the case constitute a thorough presentation of the facts and legal issues and does not think oral argument would significantly assist the court in deciding the issues before it.
The ALJ properly determined that 29 C.F.R. § 1910.147(c)(4)(i) applied to unjamming the rewinder because the unjamming activities were servicing and/or maintenance under the LOTO standard and employees were exposed to potential harm from unexpected energization of the machine, DOL says.
The ALJ correctly determined that violated this section because the company failed to utilize LOTO procedures, DOL says. This “standard applies to unjamming the Rewinder because the plain text of the LOTO standard defines ‘unjamming of machines or equipment’ as an example of servicing and/or maintenance, and the unjamming activities exposed operators to the potential for an unexpected release of stored energy during both one-person and two-person jogging.”
‘Minor Servicing’
The ALJ also properly concluded that failed to establish that unjamming the rewinder was exempt from the requirements of the LOTO standard under the “minor servicing” exception because unjamming activities did not take place during normal production operations, unjamming was not “minor” servicing, and the company did not provide effective alternative protection for operators unjamming the rewinder.
“ had knowledge of the violative conditions because its policies did not require LOTO to unjam the Rewinder, and multiple company supervisors knew that operators engaged in two-person jogging to unjam the Rewinder without utilizing LOTO procedures,” DOL says.
Additionally, failed to establish the unpreventable employee misconduct defense because the company did not present sufficient evidence that its purported two-person jogging rule was a thorough safety program, DOL says. The record shows the company did not have a safety rule requiring LOTO during one-person jogging.
“ failed to prove that the program was adequately communicated through a single PowerPoint slide and a handbook that employees were not required to read,” the brief says. The company also “failed to prove that Hill’s conduct was unforeseeable, given that Hill had been taught to engage in two-person jogging by his on-the-job trainer and a prior supervisor, and the practice was rampant.”
Further, the company failed to prove its safety program was effective, given that employees regularly engaged in two-person jogging leading up to Hill’s injury, and only one employee had previously been disciplined for engaging in this common practice, DOL says.
Finally, DOL says, violated section 1910.147(c)(7)(i)(A) because it did not provide its operators with LOTO training as authorized employees.
“Because the LOTO standard applies to the unjamming activities performed by the operators, and did not prove the activities were exempt from the requirements of the standard, was required to provide the requisite LOTO training under the standard for machine operators unjamming the Rewinder,” DOL says. -- Mirika Rayaprolu (mrayaprolu@iwpnews.com)
* All content is copyrighted by Industry Intelligence, or the original respective author or source. You may not recirculate, redistribute or publish the analysis and presentation included in the service without Industry Intelligence's prior written consent. Please review our terms of use.