[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)][Proposed Rules][Pages 69606-69612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27694]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010]
RIN 1218-AC80
Record Requirements in the Mechanical Power Presses Standard
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to make two main revisions to its Mechanical
Power Presses Standard. First, OSHA is proposing to revise a provision
that requires employers to develop and maintain certification records
of periodic inspections performed on the presses by adding a
requirement that they develop and maintain certification records of any
maintenance and repairs they perform on the presses during the periodic
inspections. Second, OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement from
another provision that employers develop and maintain certification
records of weekly inspections and tests performed on the presses.
This rulemaking is part of the Department of Labor's initiative to
reduce paperwork burden; it will remove 613,600 hours of unnecessary
paperwork burden for employers, while maintaining employee protection.
OSHA is publishing a companion direct final rule elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register taking this same action.
DATES: Submit comments on this proposed rule (including comments to the
information-collection (paperwork) determination (described under the
section titled "Procedural Determinations"), hearing requests, and
other information by December 20, 2013. All submissions must bear a
postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date. The
following section describes the available methods for making
submissions.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, hearing requests, and other material,
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010, by any of the following
methods:
Electronically: Submit comments and attachments, as well as hearing
requests and other information, electronically to
http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.\1\
Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and
hearing requests that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including
attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648. OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents. Instead
of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these
documents (for example, studies, journal articles), commenters must
submit these attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data
Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must identify
clearly the sender's name, the date, subject, and docket number (OSHA-
2013-0010) so that the Docket Office can attach them to the appropriate
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Web site http://www.regulations.gov refers to the docket
as a "docket folder." Access the electronic docket for this
rulemaking by searching with the docket number (OSHA-2013-0010) or
RIN (1218-AC80).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular mail, express mail, hand delivery, and messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments, hearing requests, and any additional material
(for example, studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010 or RIN 1218-AC80, Technical Data Center, Room
N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is
(877) 889-5627.) Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express mail,
hand delivery, and messenger service. The hours of operation for the
OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency's name and
the docket number (that is, OSHA-2013-0010). OSHA will place comments
and other material, including any personal information, in the public
docket without revision, and these materials will be available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public and submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
OSHA requests comment on all issues related to this proposed rule.
The Agency also welcomes comments on its findings that this proposed
rule would have no negative economic, paperwork, or other regulatory
impacts on the regulated community. This proposed rule is the companion
document to a direct final rule published in the "Rules" section of
this issue of the Federal Register. If OSHA receives no significant
adverse comment on the proposal or direct final rule, the Agency will
publish a Federal Register notice confirming the effective date of the
final rule and withdrawing this companion proposed rule. The final rule
may include minor editorial or technical corrections of the direct
final rule. For the purpose of judicial review, OSHA considers the date
that the Agency confirms the effective date of the final rule to be the
date of issuance. If, however, OSHA receives significant adverse
comment on the direct final rule or proposal, the Agency will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and proceed with the
proposed rule, which addresses the same revisions to its Mechanical
Power Presses Standard.
Docket: The electronic docket for this proposed rule established at
http://www.regulations.gov lists most of the documents in the docket.
However, some information (for example, copyrighted material) is not
available publicly to read or download through this Web site. All
submissions, including copyrighted material, are accessible at the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General information and press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA
Office of Communications, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
1999.
Technical inquiries: Mr. Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, Room N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1941; fax: (202)
693-1663.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Copies of this Federal Register notice and news releases:
Electronic copies of these documents are available at OSHA's Web page
at http://www.osha.gov. Copies of this Federa
Register notice also are available at http://www.regulations.gov.
Table of Contents
I. Direct Final Rulemaking
II. Background
III. Summary and Explanation of Proposed Revisions to the Mechanical
Power Presses Standard
IV. Procedural Determinations
A. Legal Considerations
B. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Federalism
E. State-Plan States
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
V. Authority and Signature
I. Direct Final Rulemaking
In direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a direct final rule
in the Federal Register with a statement that the rule will become
effective unless the agency receives a significant adverse comment
within a specified period. The agency publishes concurrently with the
direct final rule a companion proposed rule. If the agency receives no
significant adverse comment, the direct final rule will become
effective. However, should the agency receive a timely significant
adverse comment, it will withdraw the direct final rule and treat the
comment as a submission to the proposed rule.
OSHA uses direct final rulemaking because it expects the rulemaking
to: Be noncontroversial; provide protection to employees that is at
least equivalent to the protection afforded to them by the previous
standard; and impose no significant new compliance costs on employers
(69 FR 68283, 68285 (Nov. 24, 2004)). OSHA used direct final rules
previously to update and revise other OSHA rules (see, for example, 69
FR 68283 (Nov. 24, 2004); 70 FR 76979 (Dec. 29, 2005); 76 FR 75782
(Dec. 5, 2011); and 77 FR 37587 (June 22, 2012)).
For purposes of this rulemaking, a significant adverse comment is
one that "explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including
challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or why it
would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change" (see 60 FR
43108, 43111 (Aug. 18, 1995)). In determining whether a comment
necessitates withdrawal of the direct final rule, OSHA will consider
whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a
substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. OSHA will not
consider a comment recommending additional revisions to a rule to be a
significant adverse comment unless the comment provides a reasonable
explanation of why the direct final rule would be ineffective without
the revisions. If OSHA receives a timely significant adverse comment,
it will publish a Federal Register notice withdrawing the direct final
rule no later than 90 days after the publication date of this current
notice.
This notice of proposed rulemaking furthers the objectives of
Executive Order 13563, which requires that the regulatory process
"promote predictability and reduce uncertainty" and "identify and
use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving
regulatory ends." As described later in this Federal Register notice,
the proposed revisions will reduce paperwork burden, by removing
613,600 hours of unnecessary paperwork burden for employers, while
maintaining employee protection. Therefore, the Agency believes this
proposed rule is consistent with, and promotes the objectives of,
Executive Order 13563.
II. Background
This proposed rule would revise paragraph (e)(1)(i) of OSHA's
Mechanical Power Presses Standard at 29 CFR 1910.217 to require
employers to perform and complete necessary maintenance and repair on
the presses, and to develop and maintain certification records of these
tasks. The rulemaking also removes requirements from paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) of this standard to develop and maintain certification
records for weekly inspections and tests performed on mechanical power
presses. OSHA believes that these proposed revisions will maintain the
safety afforded to employees by the existing provisions, while
substantially reducing paperwork burden hours and cost to employers.
This rulemaking is part of the Department of Labor's initiative to
reduce paperwork burden hours and cost, consistent with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) at 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The purpose of
PRA-95 is to minimize the Federal paperwork burden and to maximize the
efficiency and usefulness of Federal information-gathering activities.
OSHA also determined that the subject of this rulemaking furthers the
objectives of Executive Order (EO) 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011).
In this regard, EO 13563 requires that the regulatory process "promote
predictability and reduce uncertainty" and "identify and use the
best, most innovative and least burdensome tools for achieving
regulatory ends." To accomplish this objective, EO 13563 states, "To
facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations,
agencies shall consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of
rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively
burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in
accordance with what has been learned."
OSHA determined that the revisions made by this proposed rule are
consistent with, and promote the objectives of, both PRA-95 and EO
13563. Accordingly, the revisions made by this proposed rule will
result in reducing the paperwork burden for employers covered by the
Mechanical Power Presses Standard. Removing the requirement to develop
and maintain weekly certification records for inspections and tests
will not affect an employer's obligation to inspect and ensure that
mechanical power presses used in the workplace are in a safe operating
condition. Revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(i) to complete necessary
maintenance and repair before operating a press after a periodic
inspection, and certifying this action, will ensure the safety of
workers while imposing minimal paperwork burden on employers. OSHA
estimates that these proposed revisions will result in a paperwork
burden reduction of 613,600 hours. Accordingly, the Agency believes the
regulated community will support this effort to reduce unnecessary
paperwork burden and to remove outdated certification requirements,
while maintaining employee safety.
III. Summary and Explanation of Proposed Revisions to the Mechanical
Power Presses Standard
This proposed rule revises paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of
OSHA's Mechanical Power Presses Standard at 29 CFR 1910.217. This
rulemaking also reorganizes these paragraphs by dividing the
requirements into discrete provisions, and redrafted the provisions in
plain language to make them easier to understand than the existing
provisions. The first two provisions, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and
(e)(1)(ii), cover periodic and weekly tasks associated with the
mechanical power-press inspection program. To further delineate the
tasks covered by these two provisions, OSHA refers to the requirements
of paragraph (e)(1)(i) as the "general component of the inspection
program," and to the requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(ii) as the
"directed component of the inspection program." In this regard, the
requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(i), the general component of the
inspection program, cover all parts of the
equipment and stipulate a nonspecific interval ("periodic") for
meeting these requirements. However, the requirements of paragraph
(e)(1)(ii), the directed component of the inspection program, address
specific parts of the equipment and define the frequency employers
would have to follow when inspecting and testing these parts ("at
least once a week"). OSHA believes these revisions would assist the
regulated community in differentiating the requirements of these
provisions.
Proposed revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(i). Paragraph (e)(1)(i)
currently requires employers to inspect all parts, auxiliary equipment,
and safeguards of mechanical power presses on a periodic and regular
basis and to maintain certification records of these inspections. The
main revision OSHA is proposing to make to this paragraph is to require
that employers perform necessary maintenance or repair, or both, on
presses before operating them, and maintain certification records of
any maintenance and repairs performed.\2\ Therefore, employers would be
required to perform, following the periodic and regular inspections but
before operating the equipment, any necessary maintenance and repair
found during the inspections, and maintain certification records of the
maintenance and repairs performed (in addition to the inspection
certification records already required).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The requirement for employers to perform maintenance and
repair necessary for the safe operation of the entire press is
implicit in the requirement in existing paragraph (e)(1)(i), which
specifies that the employer's inspection program ensure that presses
"are in a safe operating condition and adjustment." An inspection
program that found, but did not correct, unsafe conditions would not
meet this existing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A national consensus standard, American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) B11.1-2009 ("American National Standard for Safety
Requirements for Mechanical Power Presses"), has requirements that are
similar to paragraph (e)(1)(i). In this regard, paragraph 9.4.1
("Program") of this ANSI standard requires employers to "establish a
systematic program of periodic and regular inspection of press
production systems to ensure that all their parts, auxiliary equipment,
and safeguarding are in safe operating condition and adjustment." In
addition, paragraph 9.4.2 ("Documentation") of ANSI B11.1-2009 states
that the "user shall document the press inspections are made as
scheduled and that any necessary follow-up repair work has been
performed." A nonmandatory appendix to the ANSI standard, Annex K
("Press Inspection Report, Checklist, & Maintenance Record
(Informative))," supplements these requirements by providing a
checklist detailing the parts, components, and equipment subject to
inspection and maintenance.
The revisions and reorganization of proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i),
therefore, are consistent with the requirements of ANSI's B11.1
"Safety Requirements for Mechanical Power Presses." Specifically, the
proposed revision to paragraph (e)(1)(i) to certify maintenance and
repairs performed on mechanical power presses are similar to the
requirement in the ANSI standard to "document that press inspections
are made as scheduled, and that any necessary follow-up repair work has
been performed." Not only does this proposed revision represent the
usual and customary practice of general industry, but OSHA believes
that adding an explicit requirement to perform necessary maintenance
and repair will ensure that employers perform such maintenance and
repair on all of the parts, auxiliary equipment, and safeguards of each
press, and not just the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and
single-stroke mechanism delineated in existing paragraph (e)(1)(ii). In
addition, the proposed revision will provide OSHA with information that
replaces information removed from proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) (see
the following discussion of that paragraph), notably the name of the
individuals who perform maintenance and repair work on the presses.
This information will not only verify that the employer performed the
requisite maintenance and repair on presses, but will enable the
Agency, during compliance inspections, to identify and interview the
individuals responsible for maintaining and repairing the presses so
that it can determine whether employees are operating safe equipment.
Further, if employers maintain these certification records at or near
the equipment or in a nearby office, employees would be able to examine
those records and determine whether mechanical power presses are safe
before they operate them, which will increase employee safety. These
records also will provide employers with information they can use to
determine when more substantial maintenance or repairs, instead of
minor maintenance and adjustment, would provide better, and more cost-
effective, safety. For example, making too frequent adjustments of the
pullout devices, as shown by maintenance records, can indicate the need
to replace parts, such as bearings, that are causing the out-of-
adjustment condition.
Proposed revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(ii). Existing paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) requires employers to conduct weekly inspections and tests
on the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke
mechanism of each mechanical power press, and to perform any necessary
maintenance and repair on the equipment before operating it. Employers
also must maintain a certification record of the inspection, testing,
and maintenance tasks. OSHA is proposing to make two main revisions to
paragraph (e)(1)(ii). First, OSHA is proposing to revise the
requirement that "[e]ach press shall be inspected and tested no less
than weekly" to require explicitly that employees conduct these weekly
inspections and tests on a "regular basis at least once a week."
Second, OSHA is proposing to revise this paragraph to remove the
requirement that employers prepare certification records for the weekly
inspections and tests; \3\ however, the Agency would retain the
requirement that employers maintain certification records for the
maintenance work.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ OSHA believes that the burden to maintain certification
records of maintenance tasks resulting from either the general
component or the directed component will be a small fraction of the
overall recordkeeping burden. First, the information-collection
burden resulting from the inspections performed under the general
component include not only the certification record but the time it
takes to perform the inspection. Thus, the time employers take to
maintain a certification record of the maintenance tasks (which does
not include the time taken for the maintenance operations
themselves) should be only a small fraction of the time taken for
inspection records. Second, for well-maintained presses, which
should result when employers follow the standard, the inspections
should uncover the need to perform maintenance relatively
infrequently. Accordingly, in most instances, inspections should
determine that presses are operating safely and are, therefore, not
in need of maintenance.
The Agency also believes that retaining the proposed requirement
that employers maintain certification records of maintenance tasks
performed as a result of inspections performed under the directed
component would ensure that employers do not postpone performing
maintenance needs uncovered when performing inspections under the
general component. In this regard, if the directed component did not
specify that employers would have to maintain certification records
of maintenance tasks uncovered during inspections, employers
uncovering the need for maintenance during an inspection under the
general component could postpone the maintenance task until the next
weekly inspection when the standard would not require them to
maintain a certification record.
\4\ OSHA believes that employers will perform most maintenance
tasks associated with mechanical power presses under proposed
paragraph (e)(1)(i), and that maintenance performed as a result of
weekly inspections and tests will be infrequent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The certification records for the weekly inspections and tests
required by existing paragraph (e)(1)(ii) serve the following
functions: (i) Remind employers to inspect and test
mechanical power presses; (ii) inform employees that the employer
performed these tasks and that the equipment is safe to operate; and
(iii) provide a record of compliance, which OSHA representatives can
use to verify that the employer meets the inspection and testing
requirements set forth in the standard. However, OSHA determined that
certifications records for weekly inspections and tests of mechanical
power presses are not necessary to achieve these functions. In making
this determination, the Agency noted that the proposed revisions to
Sec. 1910.217(e)(1)(ii) do not remove or lessen the requirement to
inspect, test, maintain, and repair presses--tasks that are essential
to ensuring that the equipment is functioning properly and that working
conditions are safe for employees. In addition, OSHA believes that
employers do not need certification records to remind them to perform
weekly inspections and tests. The Agency believes that employers
generally perform inspections and tests on a regular basis, for
example, at the start of the first shift each Monday, and, therefore,
do not need certification records to remind them to complete these
tasks. In this regard, under the existing standard, employers may refer
to the required records directly, use computer-generated prompts, or
simply perform the tasks the same time every week.
To ensure that these tasks are part of the employer's usual and
customary practice, proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) specifies that
employers perform the inspections and tests "on a regular basis at
least once a week" to emphasize the importance of establishing a
consistent, systematic schedule for completing the tasks. OSHA believes
as well that requiring completion of the tasks weekly, on a regular
basis approximately the same time each week, will ensure that employers
remember to inspect and test mechanical power presses.
Under the proposed rule, OSHA believes that employees would confirm
weekly inspections and tests by observing the performance of these
tasks, since employees will know when the tasks occur, or by speaking
with the individual who performed the tasks. Additionally, employees
will still have the certification records for maintenance to obtain
information that the employer completed this task and that the
equipment is in safe operating condition.
For compliance purposes, OSHA compliance officers can use the
information provided by proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i) and the
certification records for maintenance specified by proposed paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) to identify the individuals responsible for conducting the
inspections and tests, and then interview those individuals regarding
these tasks. Compliance officers also can interview employees who
operate the presses and who should have firsthand knowledge regarding
whether the employer is meeting the inspection and testing
requirements. In addition, an examination of the equipment involved can
frequently reveal whether employers are performing the weekly
inspections and tests. For example, if the clutch/brake mechanism is
not working properly, OSHA can ask the press operator how long that
condition existed and can check with individuals responsible for
maintaining the press to determine the last time the mechanism was
checked and repaired.
Finally, OSHA added a note to proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii)
explicitly stating that inspections and tests of the three parts: (1)
Conducted under the directed component of the inspection program are
exempt from the certification requirements specified by paragraph
(e)(1)(i)(C); and (2) conducted under the general component of the
inspection program must comply with these certification requirements.
The question may arise, however, regarding which component of the
inspection program applies if an employer combines the inspections
required by both the general and directed components of the inspection
program (that is, if the employer performs a weekly inspection of the
three parts specified by the directed component of the inspection
program as part of the periodic inspection specified by the general
component of the inspection program). In such cases, OSHA would treat
the weekly inspection as part of the periodic inspection specified by
the general component of the inspection program, and the employer would
have to comply with the certification requirements specified by
paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) (that is, the employer would have to maintain a
certification record of the inspection, as well as each maintenance and
repair task performed on the three parts).
OSHA concludes that the requirement in existing Sec.
1910.217(e)(1)(ii) for employers to certify the weekly inspections and
tests is unnecessary because other means exist to determine whether
employers perform these tasks on a weekly basis, including the record
requirements in proposed Sec. 1910.217(e)(1)(i). OSHA determined that
mandating that weekly inspections and tests be systematic and part of
an employer's regular routine, reinforced by the new language in
proposed Sec. 1910.217(e)(1)(ii), will effectuate the purpose of these
certification records.
Summary. This proposed rule would revise the existing requirements
of paragraph (e)(1)(i) by expressly requiring employers to perform
necessary maintenance or repair, or both, on presses before operating
them, and to maintain certification records of any maintenance and
repairs they perform. The proposed rule also would revise paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) by requiring explicitly that employers conduct inspections
and tests "on a regular basis at least once a week," and by removing
the requirements to maintain certification records of any inspections
and tests they perform under this paragraph. OSHA believes that these
revisions, combined with the available means that employers, employees,
and the Agency can use to ensure that employers perform these tasks at
the specified frequency, will fulfill the functions for certification
records required by existing paragraph (e)(1)(ii). OSHA further
believes that removing the certification records for weekly inspections
and tests, along with the proposed revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(i),
will maintain employee safety while reducing the paperwork burden hours
and cost to employers. Regarding the paperwork burden, OSHA estimates
that the proposed revisions to Sec. 1910.217(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii)
will result in a net paperwork burden reduction of 613,600 hours.
IV. Procedural Determinations
A. Legal Considerations
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is "to assure so far as possible every working man
and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to
preserve our human resources." 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal,
Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate and enforce
occupational safety and health standards (29 U.S.C. 654(b), 655(b)). A
safety or health standard is a standard that "requires conditions, or
the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment or places of employment" (29
U.S.C. 652(8)). A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate
within the meaning of Section 652(8) when a significant risk of
material harm exists in the workplace and the standard would
substantially reduce or eliminate that workplace risk. (See Industrial
Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607
(1980).) OSHA already determined that requirements for inspecting,
testing, maintaining, and repairing mechanical power presses, and
certifying completion of these tasks, are reasonably necessary or
appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8). (See, for example, 39
FR 41841, 41845 (Dec. 3, 1974); 51 FR 34552, 34553-34558 (Sep. 29,
1986).)
As explained earlier in this Federal Register notice, this proposed
rule will not reduce the employee protections put in place by the
Mechanical Power Presses Standard OSHA is revising under this
rulemaking. Therefore, it is unnecessary for OSHA to determine
significant risk, or the extent to which this rulemaking would reduce
that risk, as typically required by Industrial Union Department, AFL-
CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (448 U.S. 607 (1980)).
B. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This proposed rule is not economically significant within the
context of EO 12866, or a major rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act or Section 801 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801). In addition, this proposed rule
complies with EO 13563. The rulemaking imposes no additional costs on
any private-sector or public-sector entities, and does not meet any of
the criteria for an economically significant or major rule specified by
the EO 12866 or relevant statutes.
While this proposed rule revises (e)(1)(i) of OSHA's Mechanical
Power Presses Standard at 29 CFR 1910.217 to complete necessary
maintenance and repair before operating a press after a periodic
inspection, and certify this action, it also removes the requirement in
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) that employers maintain weekly certification
records for inspections and tests (on average, for about 40 records per
year for each press). Based on the resulting reduction in paperwork
burden and cost to employers, OSHA preliminarily determined that this
rulemaking is not significant and is economically feasible to
employers.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of the
proposed rule to determine whether these requirements would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Since no employer of any size will have additional costs, the Agency
preliminarily certifies that the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule revises information-collection requirements that
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), 44 U.S.C. et seq.,
and OMB's regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. OMB approved the information-
collection requirements (paperwork) currently contained in OSHA's
Mechanical Power Presses Standard (29 CFR part 1910.217(e)(1)) under
OMB Control Number 1218-0229.\5\ The current Information Collection
Request (ICR) expires March 30, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ OSHA notes that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless OMB approves the collection of
information under PRA-95 and the agency displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The public need not respond to a collection of
information requirement unless the agency displays a currently valid
OMB control number. Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply
with a collection of information requirement if the requirement does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA requests OMB to extend and revise the information-collection
requirements contained in the Mechanical Power Press standard.
Accordingly, OSHA is seeking an extension for employers to disclose
certification records to OSHA during an inspection and requesting a
revision to 29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1). The proposal would revise paragraph
(e)(1)(i) to require employers to perform and complete necessary
maintenance and repair on the presses, and to develop and maintain
certification records of these tasks. The proposal also removes
requirements from paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this standard to develop and
maintain certification records for weekly inspections and tests
performed on mechanical power presses.
OSHA seeks comments on the proposed extension and revision of the
paperwork requirements contained in the Mechanical Power Presses
Standard (29 CFR 1910.217). OSHA has a particular interest in comments
on the following issues:
Whether the proposed information-collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information-
collection and information-transmission techniques.
Pursuant to 5 CFR part 1320.5(a)(iv), OSHA provides the following
summary of the Mechanical Power Press Information Collection Request
ICR:
1. Title: Standard on Mechanical Power Presses (29 CFR
1910.217(e)(1)).
2. OMB Control Number: 1218-0229.
3. Description of collection of information requirements: Proposed
paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) would require employers to maintain a
certification record of each inspection (other than inspections and
tests required by paragraph (e)(1)(ii)), and each maintenance and
repair task performed, which includes the date of the inspection,
maintenance, or repair work, the signature of the person who performed
the inspection, maintenance, or repair work, and the serial number, or
other identifier, of the power press inspected, maintained, and
repaired.
Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) would require employers to inspect
and test each press no less than weekly to determine the condition of
the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke
mechanism. Employers also would have to perform and complete necessary
maintenance or repair, or both, before operating the press. This
proposed rule would remove the requirement for employers to develop and
maintain a certification record of the weekly inspections and tests,
but retain the requirement to develop and maintain a certification
record for maintenance work.
Employers must still disclose inspection, maintenance and, or
repair records to OSHA during an inspection.
4. Affected Public: Business or other for profit.
5. Number of Respondents: 191,750 mechanical power presses.
6. Frequency: On occasion.
7. Time per Response: OSHA estimates a press operator takes 20
minutes to inspect and maintain a mechanical power press and to prepare
the necessary certification(s).
8. Estimated Total Burden Hours: Removing weekly inspection and
test records would reduce the burden to employers by 613,600 hours,
from 1,373,054 to 759,454 hours.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ OSHA also is reducing the estimated total burden hours by an
additional 721,363 hours to 38,091 hours. The Agency determined that
it is usual and customary for employers to conduct and document
periodic inspections of power presses. PRA-95 excludes usual and
customary activities from the definition of the term "burden" (5
CFR 1320.3(b)(2)). OSHA based this determination on discussions with
its field staff and a thorough review of ANSI's B11.1 "Safety
Requirements for Mechanical Power Presses." While OSHA identified
this reduction during the rulemaking, it is not a result of the
rulemaking. Therefore, the Agency did not include this reduction in
determining the reporting burden associated with the revisions to
the information-collection requirements specified by this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): There are no capital
costs for this collection of information requirement.
To obtain an electronic copy of the ICR requesting OMB to extend
and revise the information-collection requirements contained in the
Mechanical Power Presses Standard go to
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201309-1218-001.
If you need assistance, or to
make inquiries or request other information, contact Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone: (202) 693-2222.
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.11(a), members of the public who wish
to comment on the estimated reduction in burden hours and costs
described in this proposed rule must send their written comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OSHA Desk Officer
(RIN 1218-AC80), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. OSHA also encourages commenters to
submit their comments on this paperwork determination to the rulemaking
docket (Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010). For instructions on submitting
comments to the rulemaking docket, see the sections of this Federal
Register notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES.
D. Federalism
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Executive
Order on Federalism (EO 13132, 64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), which
requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from
limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any
actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions
only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is
national in scope. EO 13132 provides for preemption of State law only
with the expressed consent of Congress. Federal agencies must limit any
such preemption to the extent possible.
Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress expressly provides that States may
adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards. States that
obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as "State-Plan
States." Occupational safety and health standards developed by State-
Plan States must be at least as effective in providing safe and
healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal standards
(29 U.S.C. 667). Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are
free to develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for
safety and health standards.
In summary, OSHA concluded that this proposed rule complies with EO
13132. In States without an OSHA-approved State Plan, any standard
developed from this proposed rule would limit State policy options in
the same manner as every standard promulgated by OSHA. In States with
OSHA-approved State Plans, this rulemaking does not significantly limit
State policy options.
E. State-Plan States
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, the 27 States and U.S. Territories
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must
amend their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or show
OSHA why such action is unnecessary, for example, because an existing
State standard covering this area is "at least as effective" as the
new Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). The State
standard must be at least as effective as the final Federal rule, and
must be completed within 6 months of the promulgation date of the final
Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that
does not impose additional or more stringent requirements than an
existing standard, State-Plan States are not required to amend their
standards, although the Agency may encourage them to do so.
The 21 States and 1 U.S. Territory with OSHA-approved occupational
safety and health plans covering private-sector employers and State and
local government employees are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. In addition, four
States and one U.S. Territory have OSHA-approved State Plans that apply
to State and local government employees only: Connecticut, Illinois,
New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands.
OSHA believes that while the proposed revisions to the Mechanical
Power Presses Standard, taken as a whole, would not impose any more
stringent requirements on employers than the existing standard, these
proposed revisions would provide employers with critical, updated
information that would reduce unnecessary burden while maintaining
employee protections. Nevertheless, this proposed rule would not
require action under 29 CFR 1953.5(a), and State-Plan States would not
need to adopt this proposed rule or show OSHA why such action is
unnecessary. However, to the extent these State-Plan States have the
same standards as the OSHA standards affected by this proposed rule,
OSHA encourages them to adopt the amendments.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. and Executive
Order 12875 (75 FR 48130; Aug. 10, 1999)). As discussed above in
Section IV.B (Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis), OSHA determined that this proposed rule would not impose
additional costs on any private-sector or public-sector entity.
Accordingly, this proposed rule would require no additional
expenditures by either private or public employers.
As noted earlier under Section IV.E (State-Plan States) of this
notice, this proposed rule would not apply to State and local
governments except in States that elected voluntarily to adopt a State
Plan approved by the Agency. Consequently, this proposed rule does not
meet the definition of a "Federal intergovernmental mandate" (see
Section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)). Therefore, for the
purposes of the UMRA, OSHA preliminarily certifies that this proposed
rule does not mandate that State, local, or tribal governments adopt
new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or increase expenditures by the
private sector of more than $100 million in any year.
G. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and preliminarily determined that it
does
not have "tribal implications" as defined in that order. This
proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.
V. Authority and Signature
David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the
preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this proposed rule under
the following authorities: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 40 U.S.C. 3701 et
seq.; 5 U.S.C. 553; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912;
Jan. 25, 2012); and 29 CFR part 1911.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
Mechanical power presses, Occupational safety and health, Safety.
Signed at Washington, DC, on November 8, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
Proposed Amendments to Standards
For the reasons stated earlier in this preamble, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration is proposing to amend 29 CFR part 1910
as set forth below:
PART 1910--[AMENDED]
Subpart O--[Amended]
0
1. Revise the authority citation for subpart O of part 1910 to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90
(55 FR 9033), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as
applicable; 20 CFR part 1911. Sections 1910.217 and 1910.219 also
issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1910.217 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.217 Mechanical power presses.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Inspection and maintenance records. The employer shall
establish and follow an inspection program having a general component
and a directed component.
(i) Under the general component of the inspection program, the
employer shall:
(A) Conduct periodic and regular inspections of each power press to
ensure that all of its parts, auxiliary equipment, and safeguards,
including the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-
stroke mechanism, are in a safe operating condition and adjustment;
(B) Perform and complete necessary maintenance or repair, or both,
before operating the press; and
(C) Maintain a certification record of each inspection, and each
maintenance and repair task performed, under this general component of
the inspection program, that includes the date of the inspection,
maintenance, or repair work, the signature of the person who performed
the inspection, maintenance, or repair work, and the serial number, or
other identifier, of the power press inspected, maintained, and
repaired.
(ii) Under the directed component of the inspection program, the
employer shall:
(A) Inspect and test each press on a regular basis at least once a
week to determine the condition of the clutch/brake mechanism,
antirepeat feature, and single-stroke mechanism;
(B) Perform and complete necessary maintenance or repair, or both,
on the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke
mechanism before operating the press; and
(C) Maintain a certification record of each maintenance task
performed under the directed component of the inspection program that
includes the date of the maintenance task, the signature of the person
who performed the maintenance task, and the serial number, or other
identifier, of the power press maintained.
Note to paragraph (e)(1)(ii): Inspections of the clutch/brake
mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke mechanism conducted
under the directed component of the inspection program are exempt
from the requirement to maintain certification records specified by
paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) of this section, but inspections of the
clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke
mechanism conducted under the general component of the inspection
program are not exempt from this requirement.
(iii) Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section does not apply to
presses that comply with paragraphs (b)(13) and (14) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-27694 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
