Amputations NEP Renewed: What Inspectors Will Focus On Over The Next Five Years

Machine guarding and energy control have always been table stakes in manufacturing. In June 2025, OSHA renewed its National Emphasis Program on Amputations and set the effective date as June 27, with the program running five years from that date. That decision shapes targeting, training, and inspection depth for a long time. If your operations involve presses, shears, slicers, mixers, conveyors, or any equipment with hazardous motion, you should expect continuing attention. The renewed instruction updates target industries and explains when an establishment can be removed from the inspection list because it was recently inspected and had no amputation injuries, but the core focus does not change. Inspectors will look for guarding that cannot be casually bypassed, and for lockout or tagout procedures that technicians follow during setup, cleaning, and maintenance.

The directive reads like a field checklist when you break it down. It maps NAICS codes with elevated risk to inspection planning. It calls out the hazards that lead to amputations and ties those hazards directly to the standards inspectors use. It reminds area offices to coordinate with consultation and state plans so that the program reaches a wide range of establishments. For an employer, the practical translation is simple. The first twenty minutes of any inspection in a targeted operation will reveal whether your safeguards are engineered to stay in place and whether your energy isolation steps are believable at two in the morning, not just at a training table. OSHA’s public statements frame the emphasis in the same terms. The agency has a long record showing that workers are hurt when machines are not guarded or when servicing is done without isolating energy. A renewed NEP that prioritizes those fundamentals is not a surprise. It is a commitment to keep looking where injuries happen most.

If you want to change the conversation during an inspection, start with verification. Locking and tagging are visible. Verification is often invisible until you ask technicians to describe it. An inspector will ask how they know a line is at zero energy. If the answer is a vague description of a light on a panel, expect more questions. If the answer is a physical test of an off switch that proves nothing moves and nothing flows, followed by a documented step in the procedure, the tone shifts. OSHA’s enforcement directive for the control of hazardous energy and its longstanding publication on the topic underline the requirement for procedures that match the machine and a verification step that proves isolation before hands go into a danger zone. It is the most reliable way to prevent the injuries that drive this emphasis program.

Guarding is the other half of the story. Inspectors will look for fixed or interlocked guards at points of operation and along pinch points. They will look for guards that were removed to make changeovers faster and never reinstalled. They will look for damaged interlocks, defeated light curtains, and control circuits being used as if they were energy isolation. The enforcement directive is clear that control circuits are not the same as locking out the power circuit. In a plant where production pressure is predictable, the lasting solution is to remove the need to defeat a guard at all. That often means small engineering changes like quick release fasteners that allow cleaning without disassembly, or an interlocked gate that stops motion safely for a short cleanout. It also means supervision that checks the high risk areas first and asks what really happens during minor jams.

Culture matters because many amputations occur during troubleshooting and short interventions that feel harmless until they are not. The renewed directive does not write about culture, but every seasoned inspector reads it in the residue of a shift. If operators can describe the last time they stopped a job because a guard was missing and were praised for it, you have the kind of environment that keeps people whole. If operators tell stories about getting it done at any cost, expect a deeper look. The five year window gives you time to rebuild these habits if they are weak. The right place to start is with the handful of machines that drive your near misses and your laceration statistics. Photograph the isolation points. Walk through the procedure with the person who actually performs it. Capture the steps they take when something jams at two in the morning. Then rewrite the procedure to match reality and add the verification test they already trust. That is the version people will use, and it will hold up when someone from the outside asks tough questions.

If your operation was inspected under the previous program and you have not had amputations since, the renewed instruction explains how establishments can be removed from some targeting lists. That possibility should not lull anyone into complacency. The easiest way to avoid the worst outcome is to build a simple routine that checks guarding and energy control first each week and documents what you find. If you discover a bypass, treat it as a system problem, not a worker problem. Ask why the bypass felt necessary. Adjust the job or the guarding so it is not rewarding to defeat it. The companies that chase the root cause rather than the symptom rarely see the same hazard twice.

Sources and further reading: OSHA news release announcing renewal of the Amputations National Emphasis Program. OSHA directive for the renewed NEP. OSHA directive on the control of hazardous energy and OSHA 3120 Lockout or Tagout publication at osha.gov/lockout-tagout.