Record Requirements in the Mechanical Power Presses Standard, 69543-69550 [2013-27695]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations Pub. L. 101–649, 104 Stat. 4978, 5027 (8 U.S.C. 1184 note); sec. 303(a)(8), Pub. L. 102– 232, 105 Stat. 1733, 1748 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note); sec. 323(c), Pub. L. 103–206, 107 Stat. 2428; sec. 412(e), Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); sec. 2(d), Pub. L. 106–95, 113 Stat. 1312, 1316 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note); 29 U.S.C. 49k; Pub. L. 109–423, 120 Stat. 2900; 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i); and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(iii). Subparts A and C issued under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and 1184; 29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.; and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(i). Subpart C—[Removed and Reserved] 2. Remove and reserve subpart C, consisting of §§ 655.200 through 655.215. ■ Signed in Washington, DC, this 17th day of October 2013. Eric M. Seleznow, Acting Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration. [FR Doc. 2013–27693 Filed 11–19–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FP–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 1 [Docket No. FDA–2010–N–0560] Amendments to General Regulations of the Food and Drug Administration; Technical Amendments AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Final rule; technical amendments. ACTION: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) published a final rule in the Federal Register on November 30, 2010, amending certain regulations to include tobacco products, where appropriate, in light of FDA’s authority to regulate these products under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act). The final rule inadvertently deleted an authority citation and language related to the definition of ‘‘package.’’ We are restoring the inadvertent deletions and making a corresponding technical change. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: This rule is effective November 20, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Billingslea, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS– 820), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740–3835, 240–402–2371. DATES: VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Nov 19, 2013 Jkt 232001 We are making technical amendments to our regulations under 21 CFR part 1. In the Federal Register of November 30, 2010 (75 FR 73951), we amended certain regulations in part 1 (21 CFR part 1), ‘‘General Enforcement Regulations,’’ in light of our authority under the Tobacco Control Act. The final rule, among other things: • Revised the authority citation for part 1 by removing a reference to section 302 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 332); • Revised § 1.1(c), ‘‘General,’’ by removing the terms ‘‘package in § 1.20 and of’’, and • Revised § 1.20, ‘‘Presence of mandatory label information,’’ by removing the terms ‘‘package in § 1.20 and of’’. The preamble to the final rule explained that the revisions to part 1 reflected our authority over tobacco products under the Tobacco Control Act (75 FR 73951 at 73952). However, the revisions inadvertently created one inconsistency (in that other provisions in part 1 did, in fact, rely on section 302 of the FD&C Act as part of their legal authority) or created confusion over whether the definition of ‘‘package’’ was limited to the regulations in part 1 or whether it also applied to other FDA regulations. Therefore, through this rule, we are amending part 1 as follows: • We are restoring section 302 of the FD&C Act to the authority citation for part 1. Because the authority citation is expressed in terms of the U.S. Code, the amendment is to insert ‘‘332’’ in the list of U.S. Code sections. • We are revising § 1.1(c) to restore the terms ‘‘package in § 1.20 and of’’. • We are revising § 1.20 to add a cross-reference to § 1.1(c). Publication of this document constitutes final action of these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). These amendments are merely correcting inadvertent deletions. FDA, therefore, for good cause, finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and (d)(3) that notice and public comment are unnecessary. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1 Cosmetics, Drugs, Exports, Food labeling, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 1 is amended as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69543 PART 1—GENERAL ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1 is revised to read as follows: ■ Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1333, 1453, 1454, 1455, 4402; 19 U.S.C. 1490, 1491; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335a, 343, 350c, 350d, 352, 355, 360b, 362, 371, 374, 381, 382, 387, 387a, 387c, 393; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 243, 262, 264. § 1.1 [Amended] 2. Amend § 1.1 by adding the phrase ‘‘of package in § 1.20 and’’ after the word ‘‘definition’’ in the first sentence of paragraph (c). ■ 3. In § 1.20, revise the introductory text to read as follows: ■ § 1.20 Presence of mandatory label information. In the regulations specified in § 1.1(c) of this chapter, the term package means any container or wrapping in which any food, drug, device, or cosmetic is enclosed for use in the delivery or display of such commodities to retail purchasers, but does not include: * * * * * Dated: November 14, 2013. Leslie Kux, Assistant Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 2013–27773 Filed 11–19–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 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 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments. AGENCY: OSHA is making two main revisions to its Mechanical Power Presses Standard. First, OSHA is revising 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 removing the requirement from another provision that employers develop and SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\20NOR1.SGM 20NOR1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES 69544 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 proposal elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register taking the same action. DATES: This direct final rule will become effective on February 18, 2014 unless OSHA receives a significant adverse comment on this direct final rule or on the companion proposal by December 20, 2013. If OSHA receives adverse comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register. Submit comments on this direct final 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 https://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 Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must identify clearly the sender’s name, the date, subject, and docket number (OSHA– 1 The Web site https://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). VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Nov 19, 2013 Jkt 232001 2013–0010) so that the Docket Office can attach them to the appropriate document. 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 https:// 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 direct final rule. The Agency also welcomes comments on its findings that this direct final rule would have no negative economic, paperwork, or other regulatory impacts on the regulated community. This direct final rule is the companion document of a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this issue of the Federal Register. If OSHA receives no significant adverse comment on this direct final rule, the Agency will publish a Federal Register notice confirming the effective date of the final rule and withdrawing the 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 this direct final rule and proceed with the proposed rule, which addresses the same PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 revisions to its Mechanical Power Presses Standard. Docket: The electronic docket for this direct final rule established at https:// 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 https://www.osha.gov. Copies of this Federal Register notice also are available at https://www.regulations.gov. Table of Contents I. Direct Final Rulemaking II. Background III. Summary and Explanation of Revisions to the Mechanical Power Presses Standard IV. Procedural Determinations A. Legal Considerations B. Final 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. E:\FR\FM\20NOR1.SGM 20NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES 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 (Jun. 22, 2012)). For purposes of this direct final rule, 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. In the event OSHA withdraws this direct final rule because of significant adverse comment, it will consider all timely comments received in response to the direct final rule when it continues with the proposed rule. After carefully considering all comments to the direct final rule and the proposal, OSHA will decide whether to publish a new final rule. II. Background This direct final rule is revising 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 revisions will maintain the safety afforded to employees by the existing VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Nov 19, 2013 Jkt 232001 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 the 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 direct final rule are consistent with, and promote the objectives of, both PRA–95 and EO 13563. Accordingly, the revisions made by this direct final 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 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. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69545 III. Summary and Explanation of Revisions to the Mechanical Power Presses Standard This direct final 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 reorganized the 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 must follow when inspecting and testing these parts (‘‘at least once a week’’). OSHA believes these revisions will assist the regulated community in differentiating the requirements of these provisions. 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 making 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 must perform, following the periodic and regular inspections, but before operating the equipment, any necessary maintenance and repair found during the inspections, 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. E:\FR\FM\20NOR1.SGM 20NOR1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES 69546 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations and maintain certification records of the maintenance and repairs performed (in addition to the inspection certification records already required). 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 paragraph (e)(1)(i), therefore, are consistent with the requirements of ANSI’s B11.1 ‘‘Safety Requirements for Mechanical Power Presses.’’ Specifically, the 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 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 revision will provide OSHA with information that replaces information removed from revised 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Nov 19, 2013 Jkt 232001 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-ofadjustment condition. 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 making two main revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(ii). First, OSHA is revising 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 revising this paragraph to remove the requirement that employers prepare certification records for the weekly inspections and tests; 3 however, the 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 informationcollection 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 requirement that employers maintain certification PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Agency is retaining the requirement that employers maintain certification records for the maintenance work.4 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 requirement 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 revisions to § 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, paragraph (e)(1)(ii) as revised 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, records of maintenance tasks performed as a result of inspections performed under the directed component will 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 require employers 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 paragraph (e)(1)(i), and that maintenance performed as a result of weekly inspections and tests will be infrequent. E:\FR\FM\20NOR1.SGM 20NOR1 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 direct final rule, OSHA believes that employees 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 revised paragraph (e)(1)(i) and the certification records for maintenance specified by 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 required 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 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 required by the directed component of the inspection program as part of the periodic inspection required by the general VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Nov 19, 2013 Jkt 232001 component of the inspection program). In such cases, OSHA would treat the weekly inspection as part of the periodic inspection required by the general component of the inspection program, and the employer must comply with the certification requirements specified by paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) (that is, the employer must 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 § 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 revised § 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 § 1910.217(e)(1)(ii), will effectuate the purpose of these certification records. Summary. This direct final rule revises 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 direct final rule also revises 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 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 revisions to § 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. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69547 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 direct final 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. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis This direct final 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 direct final 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 rulemaking revises paragraph (e)(1)(i) of OSHA’s Mechanical Power Presses Standard at E:\FR\FM\20NOR1.SGM 20NOR1 69548 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 29 CFR 1910.217 to require employers 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 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 final 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 certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES C. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This direct final 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 informationcollection 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. 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 direct final rule revises paragraph (e)(1)(i) to require employers to perform and complete necessary maintenance and repair on the presses, and to develop and 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. VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Nov 19, 2013 Jkt 232001 maintain certification records of these tasks. The direct final rule 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 informationcollection 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: Paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) requires 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. Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) requires 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 must perform and complete necessary maintenance or repair, or both, before operating the press. This direct final rule will 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 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 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 https://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. 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. E:\FR\FM\20NOR1.SGM 20NOR1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations D. Federalism OSHA reviewed this direct final 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, StatePlan States are free to develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for safety and health standards. In summary, OSHA concluded that this direct final rule complies with EO 13132. In States without an OSHAapproved State Plan, any standard developed from this direct final 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. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Nov 19, 2013 Jkt 232001 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 privatesector 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 revisions to the Mechanical Power Presses Standard described in this direct final rule, taken as a whole, do not impose any more stringent requirements on employers than the existing standard, these revisions will provide employers with critical, updated information that will reduce unnecessary burden while maintaining employee protections. Nevertheless, this direct final rule does not require action under 29 CFR 1953.5(a), and State-Plan States do not need to adopt this 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 direct final rule, OSHA encourages them to adopt the amendments. F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act OSHA reviewed this direct final 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 (Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis), OSHA determined that this direct final rule will not impose additional costs on any private-sector or public-sector entity. Accordingly, this direct final rule requires no additional expenditures by either private or public employers. As noted earlier under Section IV.E (State-Plan States) of this notice, this direct final rule does not apply to State and local governments except in States that elected voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved by the Agency. Consequently, this direct final rule does not meet the definition of a ‘‘Federal PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 69549 intergovernmental mandate’’ (see Section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, OSHA certifies that this direct final 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 direct final rule in accordance with Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and determined that it does not have ‘‘tribal implications’’ as defined in that order. This direct final rule does 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 Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this direct final 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. Amendments to Standards For the reasons stated earlier in this preamble, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is amending 29 CFR part 1910 as set forth below: PART 1910—[AMENDED] Subpart O—[Amended] 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. E:\FR\FM\20NOR1.SGM 20NOR1 69550 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 224 / Wednesday, November 20, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 2. Amend § 1910.217 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows: ■ § 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 the 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. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES * 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 singlestroke mechanism conducted under the general component of the inspection program are not exempt from this requirement. VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:56 Nov 19, 2013 Jkt 232001 (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. 2013–27695 Filed 11–19–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–26–P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Ms. Theresa Lowery at Defense Intelligence Agency, DAN 1–C, 600 MacDill Blvd., Washington, DC 20340–0001 or by phone at (202) 231–1193. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 319 [Docket ID: DoD–2013–OS–0217] Privacy Act; Implementation AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, DoD. Direct final rule with request for comments. ACTION: Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is updating the DIA Privacy Act Program by adding the (k)(2) and (k)(5) exemptions to accurately describe the basis for exempting the records in the system of records notice LDIA 13–0001, Conflict Management Programs. This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive changes to the Defense Intelligence Agency Program rules. These changes will allow the Department to add exemption rules to the DIA Privacy Program rules that will exempt applicable Department records and/or material from certain portions of the Privacy Act. This will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DoD’s program by ensuring the integrity of the security and counterintelligence records by the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense. This rule is being published as a direct final rule as the Department of Defense does not expect to receive any adverse comments, and so a proposed rule is unnecessary. DATES: The rule will be effective on January 29, 2014 unless adverse comment is received by January 21, 2014. If adverse comment is received, Department of Defense will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods: * Federal Rulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. * Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive; East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at https:// www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves non-substantive changes dealing with DoD’s management of its Privacy Programs. DoD expects no opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule’s underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, DoD will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process. Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ and Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review’’ It has been determined that this rule is not a significant rule. This rule does not (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive orders. E:\FR\FM\20NOR1.SGM 20NOR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69543-69550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27695]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Direct final rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA is making two main revisions to its Mechanical Power
Presses Standard. First, OSHA is revising 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 removing the requirement from another provision that
employers develop and

[[Page 69544]]

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 proposal elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register taking the same action.

DATES: This direct final rule will become effective on February 18,
2014 unless OSHA receives a significant adverse comment on this direct
final rule or on the companion proposal by December 20, 2013. If OSHA
receives adverse comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register.
Submit comments on this direct final 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 https://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
Ave. 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 https://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 https://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 direct final
rule. The Agency also welcomes comments on its findings that this
direct final rule would have no negative economic, paperwork, or other
regulatory impacts on the regulated community. This direct final rule
is the companion document of a notice of proposed rulemaking published
in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this issue of the Federal
Register. If OSHA receives no significant adverse comment on this
direct final rule, the Agency will publish a Federal Register notice
confirming the effective date of the final rule and withdrawing the
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 this
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 direct final rule
established at https://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 https://www.osha.gov. Copies of this Federal Register
notice also are available at https://www.regulations.gov.

Table of Contents

I. Direct Final Rulemaking
II. Background
III. Summary and Explanation of Revisions to the Mechanical Power
Presses Standard
IV. Procedural Determinations
A. Legal Considerations
B. Final 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.

[[Page 69545]]

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 (Jun. 22, 2012)).
For purposes of this direct final rule, 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.
In the event OSHA withdraws this direct final rule because of
significant adverse comment, it will consider all timely comments
received in response to the direct final rule when it continues with
the proposed rule. After carefully considering all comments to the
direct final rule and the proposal, OSHA will decide whether to publish
a new final rule.

II. Background

This direct final rule is revising 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 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
the 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 direct final rule
are consistent with, and promote the objectives of, both PRA-95 and EO
13563. Accordingly, the revisions made by this direct final 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 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 Revisions to the Mechanical Power
Presses Standard

This direct final 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 reorganized the 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 must follow when
inspecting and testing these parts (``at least once a week''). OSHA
believes these revisions will assist the regulated community in
differentiating the requirements of these provisions.
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 making 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 must perform, following
the periodic and regular inspections, but before operating the
equipment, any necessary maintenance and repair found during the
inspections,

[[Page 69546]]

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 paragraph (e)(1)(i), therefore,
are consistent with the requirements of ANSI's B11.1 ``Safety
Requirements for Mechanical Power Presses.'' Specifically, the 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 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 revision will
provide OSHA with information that replaces information removed from
revised 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.
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 making two main revisions to paragraph
(e)(1)(ii). First, OSHA is revising 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 revising
this paragraph to remove the requirement that employers prepare
certification records for the weekly inspections and tests; \3\
however, the Agency is retaining 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 requirement that
employers maintain certification records of maintenance tasks
performed as a result of inspections performed under the directed
component will 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
require employers 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 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 requirement 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 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, paragraph (e)(1)(ii) as revised 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,

[[Page 69547]]

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 direct final rule, OSHA believes that employees 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 revised paragraph (e)(1)(i) and the
certification records for maintenance specified by 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 required 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 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 required
by the directed component of the inspection program as part of the
periodic inspection required by the general component of the inspection
program). In such cases, OSHA would treat the weekly inspection as part
of the periodic inspection required by the general component of the
inspection program, and the employer must comply with the certification
requirements specified by paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) (that is, the employer
must 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 revised 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 Sec.
1910.217(e)(1)(ii), will effectuate the purpose of these certification
records.
Summary. This direct final rule revises 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 direct final rule also revises 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 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 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 direct
final 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. Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This direct final 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 direct final
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 rulemaking revises paragraph (e)(1)(i) of OSHA's
Mechanical Power Presses Standard at

[[Page 69548]]

29 CFR 1910.217 to require employers 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 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
final 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
certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This direct final 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 direct final rule revises
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 direct final rule
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: Paragraph
(e)(1)(i)(C) requires 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.
Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) requires 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 must perform and complete necessary maintenance or
repair, or both, before operating the press. This direct final rule
will 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 https://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.

[[Page 69549]]

D. Federalism

OSHA reviewed this direct final 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 direct final rule complies
with EO 13132. In States without an OSHA-approved State Plan, any
standard developed from this direct final 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 revisions to the Mechanical Power
Presses Standard described in this direct final rule, taken as a whole,
do not impose any more stringent requirements on employers than the
existing standard, these revisions will provide employers with
critical, updated information that will reduce unnecessary burden while
maintaining employee protections. Nevertheless, this direct final rule
does not require action under 29 CFR 1953.5(a), and State-Plan States
do not need to adopt this 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 direct final
rule, OSHA encourages them to adopt the amendments.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

OSHA reviewed this direct final 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 (Final Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis), OSHA determined that this direct final rule will
not impose additional costs on any private-sector or public-sector
entity. Accordingly, this direct final rule requires no additional
expenditures by either private or public employers.
As noted earlier under Section IV.E (State-Plan States) of this
notice, this direct final rule does not apply to State and local
governments except in States that elected voluntarily to adopt a State
Plan approved by the Agency. Consequently, this direct final 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 certifies that this direct final 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 direct final rule in accordance with Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and determined that it does
not have ``tribal implications'' as defined in that order. This direct
final rule does 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 Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation
of this notice. OSHA is issuing this direct final 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.

Amendments to Standards

For the reasons stated earlier in this preamble, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration is amending 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.

[[Page 69550]]

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 the 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. 2013-27695 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.