Skip to main content

FAT and SAT Under IEC 62381:2024: What to Test and When to Test It

A factory acceptance test (FAT) and a site acceptance test (SAT) are where the buyer of a custom handling machine checks it against its specification, first on the builder's floor and again after installation. UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for aerospace and heavy industry from its Spokane Valley, WA facility, integrating Allen-Bradley PLC and motion control with in-house CNC machining, heat treating, and stress relief. This article sets out what to test at each stage and how the tests are prepared, witnessed, repeated and recorded, using IEC 62381:2024 and the public test guidance of DHS, the DoD, DOE, the FAA and NASA, applied by analogy to heavy machinery. Along the build chain, design → engineering → parts machining → fabrication → assembly → weld fatigue → stress relief → drives → controls → tuning → monitoring, the acceptance tests check the drives, controls and tuning links under power, and the earlier structural links through their records.

What does IEC 62381:2024 cover, and how does it apply to a custom machine?​

IEC 62381:2024 is the third edition (Ed. 3.0), published on 2024-07-30, and the IEC webstore lists TC 65/SC 65E as its committee. The webstore gives 83 pages and a stability date of 2029. The URS article summarizes the publisher's abstract: the FAT, factory integration test (FIT), SAT and site integration test (SIT), the owner, buyer and vendor as parties, and the 2024 changes. Two further points in that abstract matter to a buyer:

  • the activities it specifies "can be used to develop test plans adapted to the specific requirements of the process/plant/equipment";
  • its annex checklists "are available for consideration when preparing specific test procedures and documentation for a specific automation system".

The title names process-industry automation systems, so applying the standard to a heavy handling machine's controls is an analogy.

Two related IEC standards cover other site work. IEC 62381:2024's scope, in Clause 1, leaves out the electrical and instrumentation loop check and the commissioning phases, which IEC 62382:2024 and IEC 62337:2012 address. The project lifecycle article places the loop check and commissioning in the site sequence (IEC 62381:2024, publisher abstract and product details, and Clause 1; IEC 62382:2024; IEC 62337:2012).

How do public federal documents define FAT and SAT?​

Three federal documents, none of them a standard, define one or both tests in their own sectors. The DHS Cyber Security Procurement Language for Control Systems says it is "not intended to be a policy or standard", and that its terms "Factory Acceptance Test" and "Site Acceptance Test" "are used generically; the testing cycles are described by regulatory agencies and are different for each sector." Its glossary defines:

  • FAT: "A test conducted at the Vendor's premise usually by a third party to verify operability of a system according to specifications."
  • SAT: "A test conducted at the customer location, often by a third party, to verify operability of a system according to specifications immediately prior to commissioning."

DOE G 413.3-23, guidance for DOE nuclear-facility projects that describes "acceptable, but not mandatory" means, defines FATs as "Inspection and static or dynamic testing of systems or major system components to support the qualification of an equipment system conducted and documented at the supplier site or facility."

The FAA's Test and Evaluation (T&E) Process Guidelines list both within development testing, which "demonstrates whether all specified functional and performance requirements are met as the basis for Government Acceptance (GA)". In that list, FAT "Verifies that hardware, firmware, and COTS/Non-Developmental Item (NDI) subsystem components satisfy allocated requirements", and SAT "Verifies that installed hardware and software components satisfy contract requirements for GA at each site". The FAA calls these "typical test activities (which are tailorable based on program needs)". As engineering reasoning, the shared thread is place and purpose: the FAT is run at the supplier against the specification, and the SAT at the owner's site after installation (DHS Cyber Security Procurement Language for Control Systems, 2009, §1, §1.1 and Terminology; DOE G 413.3-23, 2019, App. C; FAA T&E Process Guidelines, 2020, §2.3).

What has to be in place before a FAT starts?​

UFGS-25 08 10, the DoD guide specification for testing utility monitoring and control systems, includes optional requirements for a factory test and says not to begin that test "until the Factory Test Plan submittal is accepted." The plan documents the test setup with, at a minimum:

  • a one-line block diagram of the equipment used, including sensors, actuators, test signal generators and meters;
  • descriptions of the hardware and the software used in the test;
  • points schedules for each controller showing the configuration used during the test;
  • the required passwords for each operator access level;
  • a list of other test equipment.

Two more preconditions concern software. The DHS example procurement language says that "In general, prior to initiation of each FAT, the Vendor shall install all operating systems and application patches, service packs, or other updates certified for use with the provided system by the time of test, and documentation of the configuration baseline." DOE G 413.3-23 describes FAT as "conducted through approved final software", and adds that "Engineering defines the functional acceptance criteria for testing."

IEC 62381:2024, in Clause 5, sets out what has to be in place before a formal FAT begins: approved, frozen specifications, such as the functional design specification and I/O lists; an agreed test plan and procedures with responsibilities, witnesses and pass/fail criteria; a system the vendor has assembled, wired and pre-tested; and the documentation needed at the test. As engineering reasoning, the failure mode these preconditions guard against is a FAT run on a PLC or HMI revision that is not the one that ships; recording the program revision and configuration baseline in the test record closes that gap (UFGS-25 08 10, 2021, §3.2 and §3.2.2.1; DHS Cyber Security Procurement Language for Control Systems, 2009, §1.1; DOE G 413.3-23, 2019, p. 4 and §3.5.3 item 1; IEC 62381:2024, Clause 5).

How closely must the FAT setup match the machine as it will be installed?​

UFGS-25 08 10 sets the rule for a control system: design the factory test setup "to represent the system as it will be fielded" and to demonstrate that it meets the specification. At a minimum the setup includes:

  • at least one of each model of DDC (direct digital control) hardware, instrumentation and control device used on the project;
  • at least one network of each type used on the project;
  • a programmable controller "programmed as it will be installed".

In the FAA's list, development system testing verifies integrated software and hardware against the system specification "under conditions that emulate the projected operational conditions and configurations". DOE G 413.3-23 gives the reason in cost terms: "Exercising equipment during FAT to the maximum extent possible can significantly reduce testing problems and rework during the commissioning phase", and resolving issues at the vendor's facility "compresses the project schedule and minimizes costs".

The UFGS section covers building and utility control systems, and its use for a machine is an analogy. As engineering reasoning, for a heavy machine this means running the real drives, sensors and PLC on the assembled machine wherever the shop allows it. Examples are a coil car for an aluminum mill run on a short length of test rail, or an aerospace positioner rotated with a test mass in place of the flight part. Where a signal from plant equipment has to be simulated, the test record lists every simulated signal, and the SAT plan then shows what remains unproven (UFGS-25 08 10, 2021, §3.2.1; FAA T&E Process Guidelines, 2020, §2.3 item 6; DOE G 413.3-23, 2019, §3.5.3 item 1).

What should a FAT test on a heavy handling machine?​

UFGS-25 08 10 requires factory test procedures that "test all requirements of the specification" and that "consist of detailed instructions for test setup, execution, and evaluation of test results". Its factory test procedures must also include testing of surge protection "by introducing a surge to the equipment and demonstrating that the equipment survives."

A federal rule gives a model function list. OSHA 29 CFR 1910.179(k)(1)(i) requires that, prior to initial use, "all new and altered cranes shall be tested to insure compliance with this section", including hoisting and lowering, trolley travel, bridge travel, and "Limit switches, locking and safety devices." Under (k)(1)(ii), the hoist limit-switch trip setting is "determined by tests with an empty hook traveling in increasing speeds up to the maximum speed." Under (k)(2), "Test loads shall not be more than 125 percent of the rated load unless otherwise recommended by the manufacturer," and the test reports are placed on file "where readily available to appointed personnel." The section covers overhead and gantry cranes only. As engineering reasoning, the same structure (every motion, every limit, every locking device, a filed report) transfers to a transfer car or a positioner.

For NASA ground support equipment, NASA-STD-5005D, whose use is "at the discretion of each program", requires that "Testing requirements shall be specified in engineering documentation" and that critical components undergo qualification testing "to verify compliance with the applicable specifications and the ability to perform required design functions in the intended environment". It requires structural GSE, such as access platforms and workstands, to be load tested to a minimum of 125 percent of the design or working load. The examinations and tests it recommends "may include" "Verification, with specific criteria, of workmanship". As engineering reasoning, that is how the machining, fabrication, weld and stress-relief links reach the FAT: as dimensional, weld-inspection and stress-relief records reviewed at the test, not re-run on the floor (UFGS-25 08 10, 2021, §3.2.2.2; OSHA 29 CFR 1910.179-2016, §1910.179 paragraph k; NASA-STD-5005D w/Change 2, §1.2, §4.6, §4.6.2 and §4.6.2.1).

How are the electrical equipment and safety functions verified before acceptance?​

IEC 60204-1 applies to the application of "electrical, electronic and programmable electronic equipment and systems to machines not portable by hand while working, including a group of machines working together in a co-ordinated manner", starting at the point of connection of the supply. The IEC webstore lists its current consolidated version as Ed. 6.1, IEC 60204-1:2016+A1:2021, published 2021-09-15. Its Clause 18, Verification, sets out the tests on a machine's electrical equipment: continuity of the protective bonding circuit, insulation resistance, voltage tests, protection against residual voltages and functional tests, with retesting after a modification. NFPA describes NFPA 79 (2024 edition, issued 12/1/2023) as providing "safeguards for industrial machinery to protect operators, equipment, facilities, and work-in-progress from fire and electrical hazards." Its testing and verification chapter, Chapter 18, sets out the corresponding verification of a machine's electrical equipment before use.

For safety functions, ISO 13849-2:2012 "specifies the procedures and conditions to be followed for the validation by analysis and testing of the specified safety functions, the category achieved, and the performance level achieved by the safety-related parts of a control system (SRP/CS) designed in accordance with ISO 13849-1." Its clauses cover a validation plan, validation by analysis and validation by testing. The iso.org page marks it "to be revised" and "Expected to be replaced by ISO/DIS 13849-2 within the coming months." ISO 13849-1:2023 "specifies a methodology and provides related requirements, recommendations and guidance for the design and integration of safety-related parts of control systems (SRP/CS) that perform safety functions". It applies to SRP/CS "for high demand and continuous modes of operation" and "does not apply to low demand mode of operation". Its Clause 10 now carries validation requirements.

As engineering reasoning, any circuit that is disconnected for shipping or wired for the first time at site has not been verified by the FAT, and it is verified at the SAT together with the safety functions that use it (IEC 60204-1:2016+AMD1:2021, Ed. 6.1, publisher abstract and Clause 18; NFPA 79-2024, publisher page and Chapter 18; ISO 13849-2:2012, abstract; ISO 13849-1:2023, abstract and Clause 10).

How long should a FAT or SAT run, and what counts as a pass?​

Neither test is a single pass. The DHS language says "FAT is a process, not an event, and could in fact extend over several weeks or months", and that the SAT "may extend several weeks or months and may occur at multiple locations."

UFGS-25 08 10 builds a timed run into its test of the installed system, the performance verification test (PVT):

  1. Phase I is field testing of devices, components, subsystems and the overall system using the approved procedures.
  2. Phase II is "A one-week endurance test during which the system is operated continuously". The bracketed text, "[one-week][_____]", makes the duration an editable project choice.

During the endurance run, every point marked for trending is trended for the whole period. If the system experiences any failure, the contractor repairs it and repeats the endurance portion "until the system operates continuously and without failure for the specified endurance test period". The UFGS test template has lines for the contractor's and the Government's representatives and gives each step four columns: Item, Action, Expected Results and Approved. As engineering reasoning, for a continuous-duty machine such as a log-sorting line in a lumber mill or the feed conveyor of a drum dryer, a run at rated cycle rate is what exposes heat-related and intermittent faults that a single pass does not; the pass criterion is the expected result written against each step before the test starts (DHS Cyber Security Procurement Language for Control Systems, 2009, §1.1; UFGS-25 08 10, 2021, §3.1.2, §3.1.2.2 and App. A).

Who witnesses the tests, and who decides whether a failed test is repeated?​

UFGS-25 08 10 states that "The Government will witness the factory test" and that, if the system fails a portion of a test, "the Government will determine whether the entire test or only the portion that failed must be repeated." The factory test report identifies, for each test, the Government representative "who witnessed and approved the test", and documents any failure and its corrective action.

FAR 52.209-3, the first-article clause used when the contractor tests, gives a contract model:

  • the contractor notifies the contracting officer in writing, at least a stated number of calendar days before testing begins, of its time and location "so that the Government may witness the tests";
  • the contracting officer then gives conditional approval, approval or disapproval, and an approval "shall not relieve the Contractor from complying with all requirements of the specifications";
  • after a disapproval, the contractor repeats "any or all first article tests" on request, at its own cost.

IEC 62381:2024's test plan, under its Clause 5, assigns the scope of activities and the responsibilities to the owner, the buyer and the vendor. As engineering reasoning, none of these federal clauses applies to a private purchase unless the purchase order writes it in. The order then names the witnesses, the notice period, who decides the scope of a retest, and who pays for it (UFGS-25 08 10, 2021, §3.2.3 and §3.2.4; FAR 52.209-3, SEP 1989, paragraphs a to c; IEC 62381:2024, Clause 5).

How are punchlist items, fixes and retests handled between FAT and handover?​

DOE G 413.3-23 defines a punchlist as "A list of incomplete or unacceptable work and malfunctioning equipment or systems tracked through resolution." For turnover from construction to operations for testing, it calls for documentation of incomplete installations tracked through punchlists divided into:

  • "A items" resolution of which must occur prior to turnover;
  • "B items" resolution of which may occur after turnover.

Its footnotes add that "Incomplete encompasses work that fails to meet specifications including quality standards", and that "A lengthy punchlist log may indicate an unpreparedness for turning over scope."

The FAA guidelines state that "During testing, changes made to software or hardware requires [sic] regression testing", which "verifies the integrity of solutions to anomalies" and ensures the solutions "do not introduce any new problems or issues"; it "may require the participation of site personnel." Under IEC 62381:2024, Clause 5, each failure or deviation found in testing goes on a punch list with its severity and failed test step; the vendor corrects it, and the vendor and the buyer's witness sign off its closure. A correction that alters logic, configuration or wiring triggers a retest of what it affects, and a failed safety function or core control loop requires a broader re-run before FAT approval.

As engineering reasoning, the A/B split for a heavy machine is agreed before the FAT, not argued at the end of it. An open item that affects a safety function, a rated-load motion or a brake is an A item for shipment, while a screen label or a spare-parts list can be a B item. A PLC change made to clear one punchlist item reruns the tests for every routine the change touches, plus the safety-related sequences (DOE G 413.3-23, 2019, §3.5.1 item 2 and App. C; FAA T&E Process Guidelines, 2020, Regression Testing; IEC 62381:2024, Clause 5).

What does a SAT repeat from the FAT, and what does it add?​

The DHS language describes the purchaser's SAT as one that "typically repeats a subset of a FAT after system installation with additional integrated functions", and adds: "Typically, the SAT is performed before the cutover or commissioning to validate that the site installation is equivalent to the system tested at the factory." Both sentences are hedged, and written for control-system cyber security.

UFGS-25 08 10 contrasts its two tests: the factory test "is similar to the PVT, but performed at the factory prior to system installation while the PVT is performed on the installed system." The PVT "must be proceeded [sic] by successful and accepted 'contractors field testing' or 'start-up and start-up testing'". Its Phase I then demonstrates "all physical and functional requirements of the project", showing step by step that the control systems "fully and correctly implement the sequences of operation."

IEC 62381:2024 specifies, in Clause 6, the SAT activities after installation, including which FAT tests are repeated at site. Its SIT, in Clause 7, tests the automation system's integration with the other plant systems at the site. UTEC Industrial performs factory acceptance testing and on-site commissioning, and as engineering reasoning, one test plan can then carry each FAT step, marked as repeated, sampled or not repeated, into the SAT (DHS Cyber Security Procurement Language for Control Systems, 2009, §1.1; UFGS-25 08 10, 2021, section note, §1.2.1 and §3.1.2.1; IEC 62381:2024, Clauses 6 and 7).

How are the drives checked once the machine is on its foundation?​

NASA LLIS Lesson 845, submitted by Kennedy Space Center, is a maintainability lesson on vibration analysis of rotating machinery that covers a check after installation. It is based on Maintainability Technique AT-8 from NASA Technical Memorandum 4628. It says that imbalance and misalignment "can be present after initial installation of a new piece of machinery", and that "Vibration analysis can be used to validate that the new equipment has been properly installed." It describes machine-train components as a primary driver, such as an electric motor or turbine; intermediate drives, such as couplings, belts and gearboxes; and driven components, such as fans, pumps and drums. Its baseline guidance: "Experience has proven that on new or refurbished equipment, vibration data should be collected once a week for four consecutive weeks. This will enable a trend to be established for future comparison."

As engineering reasoning, the SAT is where the first readings at each bearing of a rotary drum, a heavy conveyor drive or a transfer-car gearbox are taken. The rest of the four-week series runs into early operation and belongs in the handover plan (NASA LLIS Lesson No. 845, 1994, Implementation Method and Recommendations).

Which PLC tests can run on an emulated controller before the FAT?​

Rockwell's FactoryTalk Logix Echo guide describes a software application that emulates the behavior of ControlLogix 5580 and 5590 and CompactLogix 5380 controllers, among others, and says to use it "to test, debug and optimize application code without physical hardware." It also sets limits:

  • "Do not use FactoryTalk Logix Echo to control physical machines, devices, or processes!" The application blocks outgoing CIP Class 3 and Class 0/1 communications through the Ethernet port.
  • "Do not depend on the emulated controller to match the performance or operation of the physical controller. Execution times for instructions and programs might be different".
  • Emulated controllers "cannot control physical inputs and outputs and cannot establish a connection to a physical device".
  • They "gather only controller instance diagnostics and detect connection loss. Diagnostics for modules and external devices are not supported."

Logix 5000 tasks can be configured as continuous, periodic, or event. As engineering reasoning from those limits, emulation can prove sequence logic, interlock logic and HMI behavior before the FAT. Task timing, physical I/O, and module and device diagnostics then have to be proven on the real controller and panel at the FAT. The AI-drafted code validation article covers virtual commissioning and the test order from simulation to SAT (Rockwell Automation 9310-GR001D-EN-P, 2025, pp. 5-7; Rockwell Automation 1756-RM094N-EN-P-2025, Ch. 5 p. 39).

Which controls and sensing checks belong in the FAT and SAT?​

Federal guidance gives two measurable checks for the sensors and the network. UFGS-25 08 10 requires test equipment with "current calibration traceable to" NIST, and a test method whose overall accuracy is "at least 50 percent better than the accuracy specified for the sensor": for a temperature sensor with an accuracy requirement of ±0.5 °C, the overall accuracy of the test method must be 0.25 °C or better.

For the network, the DHS example language for system hardening makes cyber security scans, "as a minimum a vulnerability and active port scan, with the most current signature files", "a primary activity of the FAT". The results are compared with an inventory of required services, patching status and documentation, and the comparison is repeated as a primary activity of the SAT. "At the conclusion of the SAT and before cutover or commissioning", the scans "must be run again." The DHS scope is critical-infrastructure control systems, and applying it to a machine's PLC and HMI network is an analogy.

As engineering reasoning, the hardware checks that close the gaps emulation leaves on a heavy machine are:

  • each encoder's count direction and scaling, checked against a measured move;
  • each load cell checked against a known mass, with a test method more accurate than the cell's specification;
  • limit and position sensors tripped at their mechanical set points;
  • zone interlocks broken one at a time, with the drive stopping as designed;
  • VFD and servo fault responses, and I/O module and device diagnostics such as a broken wire.

UTEC Industrial is a Rockwell Automation Recognized System Integrator and builds UL 508A control panels (UFGS-25 08 10, 2021, §1.4; DHS Cyber Security Procurement Language for Control Systems, 2009, §2.1.4 and §2.1.5).

How is testing kept safe when lockout and guards are part of the work?​

OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147 covers the servicing and maintenance of machines "in which the unexpected energization or start up of the machines or equipment, or release of stored energy could cause injury to employees." Within that scope, paragraph (f)(1) applies "In situations in which lockout or tagout devices must be temporarily removed from the energy isolating device and the machine or equipment energized to test or position" it. The required sequence is:

  1. clear the machine or equipment of tools and materials;
  2. remove employees from the machine or equipment area;
  3. remove the lockout or tagout devices;
  4. "Energize and proceed with testing or positioning";
  5. "Deenergize all systems and reapply energy control measures" to continue the servicing or maintenance.

Paragraph (f)(2) covers outside personnel. Whenever outside servicing personnel are to be engaged in activities covered by the standard, "the on-site employer and the outside employer shall inform each other of their respective lockout or tagout procedures." As engineering reasoning, at a SAT the builder's technicians are outside personnel in the owner's plant, and where their work falls within the standard's scope the two programs are exchanged before the first energization. The lockout/tagout article covers the procedure itself (OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147-1989, §1910.147 paragraphs a.1.i, f.1 and f.2).

What records should the FAT and SAT leave with the owner?​

NASA-STD-5005D's Appendix B gives information on the contents of a GSE acceptance data package. The provider is responsible for delivering the documentation "when the GSE is delivered for use, regardless of who 'owns' the GSE at the time of delivery". Its examples "include, but are not limited to", certification records, a "Master Verification Matrix (indicates which GSE requirements were met and how)", validation and verification compliance records, maintenance and operating manuals, a "Software/Firmware Version Description document", and hazard analyses.

UFGS-25 08 10's factory test report holds a short summary, a copy of the test plan, and the executed procedures separated by test, each with its date and witness, plus any failure and its corrective action. IEC 62381:2024 sets out the records each test produces in Clauses 5, 6 and 7, for the FAT, SAT and SIT: signed checklists and procedures recording actual against expected results; the punch list, tracked to closure; and a signed acceptance certificate or test report stating any agreed exceptions.

In federal contracts, under 48 CFR 46.501, acceptance "constitutes acknowledgment that the supplies or services conform with applicable contract quality and quantity requirements, except as provided in this subpart and subject to other terms and conditions of the contract", and it "may take place before delivery, at the time of delivery, or after delivery, depending on the provisions of the terms and conditions of the contract" (NASA-STD-5005D w/Change 2, App. B; UFGS-25 08 10, 2021, §3.2.3; 48 CFR Part 46, §46.501; IEC 62381:2024, Clauses 5 to 7).

Related Articles

References​

  • IEC 62381:2024: Automation systems in the process industry — Factory acceptance test (FAT), site acceptance test (SAT), and site integration test (SIT). IEC, 2024 (Ed.3).
  • ANSI/ISA-62382-2026 / IEC 62382:2024: Control systems in the process industry — Electrical and instrumentation loop check. ISA, 2026.
  • IEC 62337:2012: Commissioning of electrical, instrumentation and control systems in the process industry — Specific phases and milestones. IEC, 2012 (Ed.2).
  • U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Cyber Security Procurement Language for Control Systems. DHS, 2009.
  • DOE G 413.3-23: Nuclear Facilities Commissioning. U.S. Department of Energy, 2019.
  • Federal Aviation Administration. Test and Evaluation (T&E) Process Guidelines, Version 1.0. FAA Acquisition Management System, 2020.
  • UFGS-25 08 10: Utility Monitoring and Control System Testing. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NAVFAC and AFCEC (Unified Facilities Guide Specifications), 2021.
  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.179-2016: Overhead and Gantry Cranes. U.S. Department of Labor, 2016.
  • NASA. NASA-STD-5005D w/Change 2: Standard for the Design and Fabrication of Ground Support Equipment. NASA, 2013 (Change 2, 2024).
  • IEC 60204-1:2016+AMD1:2021 CSV (Ed. 6.1): Safety of Machinery -- Electrical Equipment of Machines -- Part 1: General Requirements. International Electrotechnical Commission, 2021.
  • NFPA 79: Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery. National Fire Protection Association, 2024.
  • ISO 13849-2:2012: Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems — Part 2: Validation. International Organization for Standardization, 2012.
  • ISO 13849-1:2023: Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems — Part 1: General principles for design. International Organization for Standardization, 2023.
  • FAR 52.209-3 (SEP 1989): First Article Approval—Contractor Testing. U.S. General Services Administration, 1989.
  • NASA Lessons Learned Information System. Vibration Analysis of Rotating Ground Support Machinery, Lesson No. 845. NASA Kennedy Space Center, 1994.
  • Rockwell Automation 9310-GR001D-EN-P: FactoryTalk Logix Echo Getting Results Guide. Rockwell Automation, 2025.
  • Rockwell Automation 1756-RM094N-EN-P-2025: Logix 5000 Controllers Design Considerations. Rockwell Automation, 2025.
  • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147-1989: The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout). Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1989.
  • 48 CFR Part 46: Quality Assurance. GSA, DoD and NASA (FAR), as amended 2021.

Ready to Discuss a Material Handling System?​

UTEC Industrial designs, engineers, machines, fabricates, and installs custom material handling systems for heavy industry, from the stress-relieved structure and drives to the Allen-Bradley PLC controls, tuning, and monitoring that run them, at its Spokane Valley, WA facility. Send UTEC the application, loads, and duty cycle to start a system review.

Request a Quote →

Questions? Call (509) 922-1832 or email sales@utec.co

Last updated on