What this is
What is a lock removal authorization?
What is a lock removal authorization?
A lock removal authorization is the record used when a lockout or tagout device must be removed by someone other than the authorized employee who applied it. It documents why the owner cannot remove it themselves, the attempts made to contact them, a physical verification nobody is in a danger zone, and the manager-level authorisation that permits removal.
Who can authorise a lock removal?
A manager, not a supervisor or shift lead. OSHA requires the removal to be directed by the employer and to provide equivalent safety to the owner removing it themselves, which is why the form treats authorisation level as a checked condition rather than an assumption.
What has to happen before the lock actually comes off?
Reasonable efforts to contact the owner, a physical search for them on site, and inspection of the equipment and any confined space or guarded area they could be in. All three exist independently: contacting them does not substitute for looking, and looking does not substitute for trying to reach them.
Scope
When is a lock removal authorization required?
This record sits at one specific point in the Lockout and Tagout programme: the moment a lock cannot be removed by the person who applied it. It is not the isolation procedure, the inspection of that procedure, or the test that proves energy is gone.
Use this template when
- The authorized employee who applied a lock is not available to remove it and the equipment is genuinely needed
- Normal removal is impossible: the owner cannot be reached and the work cannot reasonably wait
- A manager is available to direct and authorise the removal in person
- The equipment can be physically inspected before the lock is removed
- The event is happening now; this is not a record to reconstruct after the fact
Do not use it for
- Lockout/Tagout Procedure (Machine Specific), which sets out how to isolate a specific machine and is what the removed lock was protecting
- LOTO Periodic Inspection, which checks that an energy control procedure is being followed, not a one-off removal event
- Energy Isolation Verification, the physical test proving stored energy is gone, separate from confirming nobody is at risk from a lock coming off
- Group Lockout Record, where a lock is shared under a group procedure with its own release rules; this template is for an individual lock whose owner cannot remove it
- Any situation where the owner can be reached and remove the lock themselves within a reasonable time; that is not an exception
Compliance mapping
Which OSHA 1910.147(e)(3) requirements does this satisfy?
OSHA 1910.147(e)(3) is short and specific: it permits removal by someone other than the owner only under a documented procedure providing equivalent safety, and it names the three elements that procedure must contain. The form's sections map to those elements directly.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| OSHA 1910.147(c)(1) | Employer establishes an energy control programme so equipment is isolated before anyone is exposed to it during servicing | Header |
| OSHA 1910.147(e)(3) | Removal by other than the applying employee permitted only under a specific, documented procedure providing equivalent safety | Why the owner cannot remove it |
| OSHA 1910.147(e)(3)(i) | Verification that the authorized employee who applied the device is not at the facility | Physical verification |
| OSHA 1910.147(e)(3)(ii) | All reasonable efforts made to contact the authorized employee to inform them their device has been removed | Attempts to contact |
| OSHA 1910.147(e)(3) | Removal directed by the employer, with the procedure demonstrating equivalent safety to removal by the owner | Authorisation |
| OSHA 1910.147(e)(3)(iii) | The authorized employee has knowledge the device was removed before resuming work at the facility | Notification and follow up |
| OSHA 1910.147(c)(6) | Periodic inspection of the energy control programme, where repeated removals surface as a systemic issue | Notification and follow up |
What it does not cover
- Lockout/Tagout Procedure (Machine Specific), which lists the isolation points and steps for a given machine, independent of any removal event.
- LOTO Periodic Inspection, the review confirming an energy control procedure is actually being followed, not a single exception.
- Energy Isolation Verification, the physical test confirming stored and residual energy is at zero, which this record assumes has already happened.
- Group Lockout Record, which governs a lock applied and released under a shared group procedure rather than an individually owned one.
- Disciplinary or investigation process for a pattern of removals, which belongs outside this record; repetition is a signal a review is needed, not something this form resolves.
Global
Lock Removal Authorization requirements by country
Lockout and tagout as a named regime is a US construct, but the underlying duty to control hazardous energy and to protect anyone who might be exposed during an unplanned removal is close to universal.
OSHA 1910.147, the control of hazardous energy standard
Removal by other than the owner is permitted only under a documented, specific procedure meeting the three conditions in 1910.147(e)(3).
This is the direct legal basis for the template. Skipping any of the three conditions is a standard-specific violation, not a judgement call.
Provincial OHS regulations on lockout, closely mirroring the US model
Most provinces require a documented procedure for removal by other than the applying worker, with similar verification and notification duties.
The template transfers with little adaptation, though what counts as reasonable effort to contact the worker is set provincially.
ISO 45001 and general energy isolation good practice
No equivalent named 'lock removal' clause, but the duty to control hazardous energy and inform affected workers applies to the same event.
Outside jurisdictions using lockout tagout terminology, the same event is governed by isolation procedures under a general energy control standard, and the same three verification steps remain the defensible approach.
How to complete it
How to complete a lock removal authorization, step by step
Every field is prompted for. What separates a defensible authorisation from a fast one is whether the three conditions were met in substance, not just ticked.
A call that rings out and one answered by voicemail are different outcomes, which is why the form records each attempt separately. Time, method and response together turn 'we tried' into something checkable later.
Confirming the owner is unreachable by phone says nothing about whether somebody else is inside the machine, in a vessel, or behind a guard. The inspection has to be a genuine search, including confined spaces, verified independently by a second person.
OSHA requires equivalent safety to the owner removing the lock themselves, and the decision is meant to carry real weight. A supervisor signing because the manager is busy removes the accountability the standard is built around.
Notification is distinct from removal, not an afterthought once the job is done. A worker returning to find their lock gone without warning has lost the one thing lockout is meant to guarantee: certainty about the equipment they left secured.
What auditors find
Most common lock removal authorization findings
Because this is an exception process, the recurring findings are less about missing fields and more about steps compressed under pressure to get the equipment running again.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Equipment not physically inspected, or the inspection skips confined spaces and behind guards. | OSHA 1910.147(e)(3)(i) | Require a documented walk of every space someone could be in before authorisation, with a second person verifying it. |
| Authorisation obtained from a supervisor rather than a manager. | OSHA 1910.147(e)(3) | Restrict the authorising role to manager level in the workflow as a hard stop, not advisory. |
| Attempts to contact the owner recorded as a single tick rather than logged attempts with times and outcomes. | OSHA 1910.147(e)(3)(ii) | Record each attempt separately with method, time and response, with a minimum number required before proceeding. |
| Owner not notified before returning to work, or notification not confirmed. | OSHA 1910.147(e)(3)(iii) | Treat notification as a closed loop: raised, method recorded, confirmed received before the record can close. |
| Only the mobile phone is tried, with no attempt through a home, emergency contact or supervisor route. | OSHA 1910.147(e)(3)(ii) | Require the alternate contact routes to be attempted and recorded, not just the most convenient one. |
| Repeated removals for the same worker, machine or site never generate a review action. | OSHA 1910.147(c)(6) | Flag repeat removals for the same person or asset into the periodic inspection or an action record; repetition indicates a process problem. |
Case in point
Case in point: the exception that skipped the one step that mattered
A meat processing site needed a deboning line running again mid-shift. The worker who had locked it out for a jam clearance had gone home unwell, leaving his phone in his locker. The shift manager, under pressure to restart, called the mobile twice, got no answer, and authorised removal on those two calls and the fact the worker's car was gone.
Nobody walked the line itself. A second technician, asked earlier to help with the jam, was still partway inside the guarding checking a roller when the lock came off. He was not hurt, because the line had not yet been re-energised, but authorisation had been granted before anyone looked. The fix was not more phone calls; it was making physical inspection a hard, second-person-verified step, regardless of how confident anyone feels about where the owner has gone.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
6 sections
- Reference
- MNT-059
- Archetype
- Record
- Record ID
- LRA-2026-000
- Scoring
- Not scored
- Direction
- n/a
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- OSHA 1910.147(e)(3)
- Links
- Links Permit, Worker
- Tags
- LOTO, Energy
- Sections
- 6
- Fields
- 54
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 6
Header
16 fieldsAuthorisation ID*
Auto sequence. Format LRA-2026-000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Raised By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Area
The area within the site.
Exact Location
Drop a pin for anything hard to find.
Asset*
Asset ID*
Format AST-0000.
Links to FDN-002 Asset ID
The Most Dangerous Form In The System
Removing somebody else's lock has killed people. Every step below exists because of a fatality. If there is any doubt at all, do not proceed.
Lock Owner*
Person ID*
Links to FDN-003 Person ID
Lock Number*
Permit ID
Links to SAF-050 Permit ID
Group Lockout Record ID
Links to MNT-058 Record ID
Why the owner cannot remove it
2 fieldsReason*
Left site, off shift, unreachable, incapacitated or left employment.
When Last Seen Or Contacted
Attempts to contact
9 fieldsCalled Mobile*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Time Called
Response
Called Home Or Emergency Contact*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Contacted Their Supervisor*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Contacted Their Employer If Contractor
- Yes3 pts
- Not applicable3 pts
- No0 pts
Number Of Attempts*
Time Span Of Attempts
All Attempts Documented*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Physical verification
8 fieldsPerson Searched For On Site*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Areas Searched
Confirmed Not On Site*
- Yes3 pts
- Uncertain0 pts
Equipment Physically Inspected*
Somebody could still be inside the machine, in a vessel or behind a guard.
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Confined Spaces Checked*
- Yes3 pts
- Not applicable3 pts
- No0 pts
Nobody Found In Danger Zone*
- Confirmed clear3 pts
- Uncertain0 pts
Second Person Verified The Inspection*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Second Verifier*
Authorisation
6 fieldsAuthorised By*
Manager level. This cannot be delegated to a supervisor.
Authorisation Level Correct*
- Yes, manager or above3 pts
- No0 pts
Time Authorised*
Lock Removed By*
Removal Time*
Removal Witnessed*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Notification and follow up
13 fieldsOwner Notified Before Returning To Work*
The person must be told before they return and find their lock gone.
- Yes3 pts
- Not yet0 pts
Notification Method
Notification Confirmed
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Case ID
Every lock removal is reviewed. Repeated removals mean a process problem.
Thread key
Review Required*
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Authorising Manager*
Signature*
Second Verifier*
Second Signature*
MNT-059 · record IDs look like LRA-2026-000 · Links Permit, Worker
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The form captures a single event well. What tends to slip is noticing the pattern across events: the same worker's lock removed repeatedly, or the same site running short on managers available to authorise properly.
Holds the lock removal library against the asset and worker registers, links each authorisation to the machine's own procedure, and flags repeated removals for the same worker or asset.
Ties the authorising manager role and the second verifier requirement to competency records, so authorisation cannot fall to someone untrained for it.
Watches for a removal record left open with attempts logged but no physical verification completed, and holds it for review rather than letting it sit unresolved.
This template lives in KnowMaintain — asset maintenance. Work orders, planned maintenance, calibration, reliability and shutdowns.
Meet KnowMaintain→Glossary
Lock Removal Authorization definitions and key terms
- Authorized employee
- The worker who applies a lock or tag to control hazardous energy on a machine they are about to service, and who normally removes it when the work is done.
- Lockout device
- A physical device, typically a padlock, that holds an energy-isolating device in a safe position and cannot be removed without the key or a documented exception.
- Reasonable effort to contact
- The attempts required before removal by someone other than the owner; not a single call, but a genuine, documented attempt through the routes available.
- Equivalent safety
- The test OSHA applies to any removal-by-other procedure: it must protect the owner as well as the owner removing the lock themselves would have.
- Zero energy state
- The condition the original lockout protects: all hazardous energy isolated and, where required, verified as dissipated before work begins.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about lock removal authorization
Can a lock be removed just because the shift is ending and the owner has left?+
Not on that basis alone. Leaving at shift end is a common reason the owner is unavailable, but the standard still requires all three conditions: verification, reasonable contact attempts, and notification before they resume work.
Who counts as competent to authorise a removal?+
A manager, not a supervisor or peer. OSHA requires equivalent safety to the owner removing it themselves, which most sites read as needing genuine accountability, so this form does not let a shift lead fill the field.
Does the equipment always need a physical inspection, even if the owner answers the phone but cannot get back in time?+
Yes. Physical inspection verifies nobody else is in a danger zone, a separate question from whether the owner is reachable. A confirmed phone call does not tell you what a walk of the equipment tells you.
What happens if the owner cannot be found at all?+
The record still requires documented reasonable efforts, a physical search confirming they are not on site, and equipment inspection before removal proceeds. If doubt remains, escalate rather than authorise on uncertainty.
Does this apply to a tag-only isolation as well as a padlock?+
The same principle applies wherever removal by someone other than the applying person is considered. The requirements exist because of who applied the isolation, not the hardware used to hold it.
Why does the form ask for a second verifier on the equipment inspection?+
Because the inspection is the step most likely to be rushed or assumed, and it determines whether removal is actually safe. Independent confirmation turns one person's judgement, made under time pressure, into something reliable.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Lockout and Tagout
Audit Finding Record
Records a single audit finding with its evidence, clause reference and classification
Lockout/Tagout Procedure (Machine Specific)
Sets out exactly how to isolate a specific machine, listing every energy source and isolation point
LOTO Periodic Inspection
Checks that a specific energy control procedure is being followed correctly in practice
Energy Isolation Verification
Records the physical test proving stored energy is gone before work begins
Group Lockout Record
Records a group isolation where several people work on one machine under a single lockout
Line Breaking Permit
Controls opening pipework that has held hazardous liquid, gas or steam
More in Energy Control
Lockout/Tagout Procedure (Machine Specific)
Sets out exactly how to isolate a specific machine, listing every energy source and isolation point
LOTO Periodic Inspection
Checks that a specific energy control procedure is being followed correctly in practice
Energy Isolation Verification
Records the physical test proving stored energy is gone before work begins
Group Lockout Record
Records a group isolation where several people work on one machine under a single lockout
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- OSHA 1910.147(e)(3) — release from lockout or tagout by other than the applying employee
- OSHA 1910.147(c)(1) — purpose and scope of the energy control programme
- OSHA 1910.147(c)(6) — periodic inspection of energy control procedures
- OSHA — Occupational Safety and Health Administration, control of hazardous energy
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.