Newsletter
RSS Feeds
Print This Page
Text Size
Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents |
| • Standard Number: | 1910.212; 1910.219 |
|
July 1, 1985
The Honorable Andy Ireland Dear Congressman Ireland: This is in response to your letter of June 12 to Assistant Secretary Robert A. Rowland, on behalf of Mr. Richard Bunn, regarding the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) requirements on guarding package tying machines. OSHA does not have a standard that specifically addresses package tying machines. However, there are two general standards that would apply, 29 CFR 1910.212, General requirements for all machines, and 29 CFR 1910.219, Mechanical power transmission apparatus. Copies of those standards are enclosed for Mr. Bunn's reference. It should be noted that OSHA regulates the employer at a workplace, rather than the manufacturer of the machinery and equipment used at the workplace. It is the responsibility of the employer to ensure compliance with the OSHA standards. Whether a machine is of domestic or foreign manufacture would have no impact on the guarding requirements for the machine; the design of the machine and the resulting exposure to the employee would determine the nature and extent of required guards. A specific determination regarding compliance with the provisions of the enclosed standards would require a workplace inspection of the equipment and evaluation of the hazards by a knowledgeable individual. We would suggest that your constituent contact our local staff for further guidance at the following address: U.S. Department of Labor I hope this information will assist you in your response to Mr. Bunn. If you need further assistance please have a member of your staff contact me or the Special Assistant for Congressional Relations at 523-6027.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
The Honorable Robert A. Rowland Dear Mr. Rowland: I am enclosing a copy of a letter from my constituent, Mr. Richard Bunn, of Lakeland, Florida regarding OSHA requirements on guarding of Package Tying Machines. I have directed his specific questions regarding disparate duty rates to the USTR. However, he notes that OSHA requirements do make his product more expensive and it appears that Japanese imports are not subject to the same requirements.
I would appreciate your suggestions and/or any comments you might have which
might be of assistance to Mr. Bunn.
Warmest regards,
Congressman Andy Ireland Dear Congressman Ireland: I need some assistance from you on behalf of the B. H. Bunn Company, so that we might improve our market share and increase our employment in the area. The basic competition against the Bunn Package Tying Machine comes from two manufacturers who copied our machines in the Mid-1960's in Japan. If I am correct, to ship our machines into Japan there is approximately a 15% duty, yet the copies of our designs comes into the USA at 5%. With the passage of the OSHA regulation, the B. H. Bunn Company elected to fully guard our equipment, top and bottom. Previously, we had only guarded the upper portion of the twine arm swing. We are the only sellers of tying machines who fully guard in an effort to meet OSHA regulations. Unfortunately, that creates higher costs which makes us less competitive to the Japanese models which are not fully enclosed and/or guarded. My question is: 1) To whom do I go to try to get the incoming duty of Japanese tying equalized to that of the Bunn tying machine going into Japan? 2) Whom do we contact to question why the difference that our Japanese counter-part, not guarded, is seemingly acceptable by OSHAwhen, our older machine of similar guarding was not, and therefore, we have higher costs by full guarding? Would appreciate your guidance and assistance on these problems.
Yours very truly,
|
|
Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents |