AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002 AGENDA ITEM: 6.1.1 Preparation date: 19 February 2002 By: Gerald H. Ritterbusch Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1 Title: ANSI update and status of National Standards Strategy Statement of Issue: To provide documentation of the standards strategy of ANSI and the standards development bodies in the United States for use by all entities in the USA. Background: The standards development process in the USA has been one of diversity and done sector by sector. ANSI, American National Standards Institute, is a Federation of many standards developers, (SAE, ASME, IEEE, ASTM, etc.), industry, government and other interested parties that support the need for a voluntary, private sector led standards development process. Because of this sectoral approach, it can be difficult to understand the coherence and coordination that exists. Thus, the membership of ANSI concluded that a simple document that describes the key elements of the standards strategy in the USA would be beneficial to all. Alternatives/Options: To continue without a strategy increases the confusion for new entrants into the process. The USA system is particularly confusing to standards developer participants in other countries where there generally is a process that is clearly focused through the national standards body, (BSI, DIN, JIS, etc.). The only desired option was to prepare the strategy document so that all can gain an understanding of the standards development process. Pro’s and Con’s: The key pro elements of the strategy are that the standards development process is: one where decisions are reached through consensus, participation is open to all affected interests, there is balance between the competing interests, the process is transparent to those with an interest, there is due process such that all views are considered and appeals possible, the process is flexible to meet the needs of the sectors, the process is timely to produce standards when needed, and, there is coherence to avoid overlap and conflict. The pro results are that standards are: relevant to the needs of the market, they are responsive to the real world needs, and, they are performance-based specifying essential characteristics rather than detailed designs. The con’s are that not every aspects fits every situation in standards development. Thus, the strategy doesn’t replace intelligent thinking to produce the needed standards. Proposed Resolution: That all JTLM participants review the National Standards Strategy for use in their participation in standards development processes. Annex: The National Standards Strategy is available on the ANSI website at: http://web.ansi.org/public/nss.html Action Information X
35
Embed
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting … · AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas ... ANSI update and status of National ... AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.1.1 Preparation date: 19 February 2002 By: Gerald H. Ritterbusch Page 1 of 1
Title: ANSI update and status of National Standards Strategy
Statement of Issue: To provide documentation of the standardsstandards development bodies in the United States for use by all
Background: The standards development process in the USA hadone sector by sector. ANSI, American National Standards Institstandards developers, (SAE, ASME, IEEE, ASTM, etc.), industryinterested parties that support the need for a voluntary, private sedevelopment process. Because of this sectoral approach, it can coherence and coordination that exists. Thus, the membership osimple document that describes the key elements of the standardbe beneficial to all.
Alternatives/Options: To continue without a strategy increases into the process. The USA system is particularly confusing to stain other countries where there generally is a process that is clearstandards body, (BSI, DIN, JIS, etc.). The only desired option wadocument so that all can gain an understanding of the standards
Pro’s and Con’s: The key pro elements of the strategy are that tprocess is: one where decisions are reached through consensus,affected interests, there is balance between the competing intereto those with an interest, there is due process such that all views possible, the process is flexible to meet the needs of the sectors,produce standards when needed, and, there is coherence to avopro results are that standards are: relevant to the needs of the mthe real world needs, and, they are performance-based specifyingrather than detailed designs. The con’s are that not every aspects fits every situation in standastrategy doesn’t replace intelligent thinking to produce the neede Proposed Resolution: That all JTLM participants review the Natuse in their participation in standards development processes. Annex: The National Standards Strategy is available on the ANSI websitehttp://web.ansi.org/public/nss.html
Action Information X
Page 1 of 1
strategy of ANSI and the entities in the USA.
s been one of diversity and ute, is a Federation of many , government and other ctor led standards
be difficult to understand the f ANSI concluded that a s strategy in the USA would
the confusion for new entrants ndards developer participants ly focused through the national s to prepare the strategy development process.
he standards development participation is open to all sts, the process is transparent are considered and appeals the process is timely to id overlap and conflict. The arket, they are responsive to essential characteristics
rds development. Thus, the d standards.
ional Standards Strategy for
at:
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.1.2 Preparation date: 2002 March 11 By: Stan Mullins
Title: SAE update on national adoption of international stan
Statement of Issue: 1. US national adoption of ISO standards 2. Elimination of duplicate or conflicting SAE standards
Background: The SAE Construction, Agricultural & Off-Road Machinery (committees have work in process of adopting technically snational standards. Existing duplicate or conflicting SAE scancelled or revised. The current mode of operation is to idISO standard using the designation SAE J/ISO xxxxx with xnumber. Scope differences are being explained on a SAE ‘cpublished ISO document. Revision of Operating Procedures in the last year to streamaccelerate the pace of ‘national adoptions’. Additionally, clobetween the US ISO TAGs and the SAE committees are bein
Status: See SAE data included in report for agenda item 8.3.1 for stAlso attached is a listing of published SAE national standarSummary of national adoption progress to date is: Number ISO documents related to SAE ConAg scope of work
121
ISO documents ready for national adoption
64
ISO documents submitted to SAE
57
ISO documents approved by ConAg Council
38
J/ISO documents published by SAE
29
dards
Action Information X
Page 1 of 1
ConAg) Council and its ound ISO standards as SAE tandards are being either entically adopt an acceptable xxxx being the ISO document over page’ attached to the as-
line the process should ser working relationships g implemented.
atus of specific documents. ds.
Percentage 100
53
47
31
24
J-Report Listing for ConAg Council Committeeas of March 7, 2002
01-MAY-1987J154_199206 01-JUN-1992 Operator Space Envelope Dimensions for Off-Road Machines TECHFS5
01-JUN-1992J159_199404 01-APR-1994 Load Moment System TECORMS31
01-APR-1994J167_199204 01-APR-1992 Overhead Protection for Agricultural Tractors-Test Procedures and
Performance RequirementsTECATSC
01-APR-1992J169_198503 01-MAR-1985 Design Guidelines for Air Conditioning Systems for Off-Road Operator
EnclosuresTECHFS6
01-MAR-1985J176_199412 01-DEC-1994 Fast Fill Fueling Installation for Off-Road Self-Propelled Work Machines TECMTCS7J180_200201 31-JAN-2002 Electrical Charging Systems for Off Highway Work Machines TECCTTS2
31-JAN-2002J185_198806 01-JUN-1988 Access Systems for Off-Road Machines TECHFS5
01-JUN-1988J209_198701 01-JAN-1987 Instrument Face Design and Location for Construction and Industrial
EquipmentTECHFS2
01-JAN-1987J214_198603 01-MAR-1986 Hydraulic Cylinder Test Procedure TECCTTS1
Document Pub Date Title CommitteeJ232_199404 01-APR-1994 Industrial Rotary Mowers TECOPTCS1J276_199211 01-NOV-1992 Steering Frame Lock for Articulated Loaders and Tractors TECOPTCS1
01-NOV-1992J283_199911 22-NOV-1999 Test Procedure for Measuring Hydraulic Lift Capacity on Agricultural
Tractors Equipped with Three-point HitchTECATSC1
22-NOV-1999J284_199101 01-JAN-1991 Safety Alert Symbol for Agricultural, Construction and Industrial EquipmentTECHFS2
01-JAN-1991J297_199408 01-AUG-1994 Operator Controls on Industrial Equipment TECHFS1
01-AUG-1994J321_199905 24-MAY-1999 Tire Guards for Operator Protection--Earthmoving Haulage Machines TECOPTCS1
01-MAR-1986J371_199305 01-MAY-1993 Drain, Fill, and Level Plugs for Off-Road, Self-Propelled Work Machines TECMTCS7J375_199404 01-APR-1994 Radius-of-Load or Boom Angle Indicating Systems TECORMS31
01-APR-1994J376_198504 01-APR-1985 Load Indicating Devices in Lifting Crane Service TECORMS31
01-APR-1985J386_199711 01-NOV-1997 Operator Restraint System for Off-Road Work Machines TECHFS4
Document Pub Date Title CommitteeJ739_199106 01-JUN-1991 Cutting Edge—Curved Grader TECMTCS6J740_198607 01-JUL-1986 Countersunk Square Holes for Cutting Edges and End Bits TECMTCS6
01-JUL-1986J741_199306 08-JUN-1993 Capacity Rating—Scraper, Open Bowl TECMTCS1
08-JUN-1993J744_199606 01-JUN-1996 Hydraulic Pump and Motor Mounting and Drive Dimensions TECCTTS1
01-JUN-1996J745_199609 01-SEP-1996 Hydraulic Power Pump Test Procedure TECCTTS1
01-SEP-1996J746_199609 01-SEP-1996 Hydraulic Motor Test Procedures TECCTTS1
01-SEP-1996J747_199005 01-MAY-1990 Control Valve Test Procedure TECCTTS1
01-MAY-1990J748_198603 01-MAR-1986 Hydraulic Directional Control Valves, 3000 psi Maximum TECCTTS1
01-MAR-1986J751_199704 01-APR-1997 Off-Road Tire and Rim Classification—Construction Machines TECMTCS8
01-JAN-1972J764_199508 01-AUG-1995 Loading Ability Test Procedure--Scrapers TECOPTCS4
01-AUG-1995J765_199010 01-OCT-1990 Crane Load Stability Test Code TECORMS31
01-OCT-1990J817/1_199103 01-MAR-1991 Engineering Design Serviceability Guidelines Construction and Industrial
Machinery Serviceability Definitions Off-Road Work machinesTECMTCS7
J817/2_199103 01-MAR-1991 Engineering Design Serviceability Guidelines Construction and IndustrialMachinery Maintainability Index Off-Road Work Machines
TECMTCS7
J818_198705 01-MAY-1987 Rated Operating Load for Loaders TECMTCS101-MAY-1987
J819_199511 01-NOV-1995 Engine Cooling System Field Test (Air-to-Boil) TECOPTCS101-NOV-1995
J820_199807 01-JUL-1998 Crane Hoist Line Speed and Power Test Code TECORMS3101-JUL-1998
J821_199406 01-JUN-1994 Electrical Wiring Systems for Construction, Agricultural and TECCTTS201-JUN-1994
J833_198905 01-MAY-1989 Human Physical Dimensions TECHFS501-MAY-1989
J872_198605 01-MAY-1986 Drawbar Test Procedure for Construction, Forestry and Industrial MachinesTECMTCS101-MAY-1986
J873_199502 01-FEB-1995 Drag Force Test Procedure for Construction, Forestry, and IndustrialMachines
TECMTCS1
01-FEB-1995J881_198502 01-FEB-1985 Lifting Crane Sheave and Drum Sizes TECORMS31
01-FEB-1985J884_199103 01-MAR-1991 Liquid Ballast Table for Drive Tires of Agricultural Tractors TECATSC
01-MAR-1991J896_198305 01-MAY-1983 Mounting Flanges for Engine Accessory Drives TECMTCS5
01-MAY-1983J897_198510 01-OCT-1985 Machine Slope Operation Test Code TECMTCS1
01-OCT-1985
J-Report Listing for ConAg Council Committeeas of March 7, 2002
Document Pub Date Title CommitteeJ898_199410 01-OCT-1994 Control Locations for Off-Road Work Machines TECHFS1
01-OCT-1994J899_198812 01-DEC-1988 Operator's Seat Dimensions for Off-Road Self-Propelled Work machines TECHFS4
01-DEC-1988J919_199504 01-APR-1995 Sound Measurement--Off-Road Work Machines--Operator--Singular Type TECMTCS2
01-APR-1995J920_198509 01-SEP-1985 Technical Publications for Off-Road Work Machines TECMTCS7J925_199306 08-JUN-1993 Minimum Service Access Dimensions for Off-Road Machines TECMTCS7J930_199506 01-JUN-1995 Storage Batteries for Off-Road Self-Propelled Work Machines TECCTTS2
01-JUN-1995J931_198603 01-MAR-1986 Hydraulic Power Circuit Filtration TECCTTS1
Document Pub Date Title CommitteeJ1028_199810 01-OCT-1998 Mobile Crane Working Area Definitions TECORMS31
01-OCT-1998J1029_199609 01-SEP-1996 Lighting and Marking of Construction, Earthmoving Machinery TECOPTCS3
01-SEP-1996J1032_198704 01-APR-1987 Definitions for Machine Availability (Off-Road Work Machines) TECMTCS7J1040_199405 01-MAY-1994 Performance Criteria for Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS) for
Construction, Earthmoving, Forestry, and Mining MachinesTECOPTCS4
01-MAY-1994J1042_199306 01-JUN-1993 Operator Protection for General-Purpose Industrial Machines TECOPTCS1
01-JUN-1993J1051_199309 01-SEP-1993 Force-Deflection Measurements of Cushioned Components of seats for
off- Road Work MachinesTECHFS4
01-SEP-1993J1063_199311 18-NOV-1993 Cantilevered Boom Crane Structures Method of Test TECORMS31
18-NOV-1993J1069_198106 01-JUN-1981 Oil Change System for Quick Service of Off-Road Self-Propelled Work
MachinesTECMTCS7
J1071_198506 01-JUN-1985 Operator Controls for Graders TECHFS101-JUN-1985
J1078_199404 05-APR-1994 A Recommended Method of Analytically Determining the Competence ofHydraulic Telescopic Cantilevered Crane Booms
TECORMS31
05-APR-1994J1083_198507 01-JUL-1985 Unauthorized Starting or Movement of Machines TECOPTCS1
01-JUL-1985J1084_198004 01-APR-1980 Operator Protective Structure Performance Criteria for certain forestry
EquipmentTECMTCS4
01-APR-1980J1091_199611 01-NOV-1996 Earthmoving Machinery-Operator's Field of View TECHFS5
Document Pub Date Title CommitteeJ1265_198803 01-MAR-1988 Capacity Rating—Dozer Blades TECMTCS1J1272_199409 01-SEP-1994 Felling Head Terminology and Nomenclature TECMTCS4
01-SEP-1994J1276_198603 01-MAR-1986 Standardized Fluid for Hydraulic Component Tests TECCTTS1
01-MAR-1986J1277_199007 30-JUL-1990 Method for Assessing the Cleanliness Level of New Hydraulic Fluid TECCTTS1
30-JUL-1990J1283_200007 19-JUL-2000 Electrical Connector for Auxiliary Starting of Construction,Agricultural, and
Off-Road MachineryTECCTTS2
19-JUL-2000J1289_198104 01-APR-1981 Mobile Crane Stability Ratings TECORMS31
01-APR-1981J1295_198906 01-JUN-1989 Identification Terminology and Specification Definitions—Pipelayers and
Document Pub Date Title CommitteeJ1511_199402 01-FEB-1994 Steering for Off-Road, Rubber-Tired Machines TECOPTCS1J1518_198606 01-JUN-1986 Three Point Hitch (Type A) Backhoe Personnel Protection TECOPTCS1
01-JUN-1986J1533_199306 14-JUN-1993 Operator Enclosure Air Filter Element Test Procedure TECHFS6
14-JUN-1993J1535_199608 01-AUG-1996 Performance Test for Windshield Defrosting Systems for Off-Road, Self-
Propelled Work MachinesTECHFS6
01-AUG-1996J1544_198801 01-JAN-1988 Revolutions per Mile and Static Loaded Radius for Off-Road Tires TECMTCS8
01-JAN-1988J1559_199507 01-JUL-1995 Measurement of Solar Heating Effect TECHFS6
01-JUL-1995J1581_198909 01-SEP-1989 Cutting Edge—Optional Cross-Sections and Dimensions Loader Straight TECMTCS6
01-FEB-1998JI11169_199902 02-FEB-1999 Machinery for Forestry--Wheeled Special Machines--Vocabulary,
Performance Test Methods, and Criteria for Brake SystemsTECOPTCS2
02-FEB-1999JI11512_199603 01-MAR-1996 Machinery for Forestry - Tracked Special Machines - Performance Criteria
for Brake SystemsTECMTCS4
01-MAR-1996JI13200_199806 01-JUN-1998 Cranes-Safety Signs and Hazard Pictorial--General Principles TECHFS2
01-JUN-1998JI13333_199709 01-SEP-1997 Earthmoving Machinery-Dumper body Support and Operators Cab Tilt
SupportTECOPTCS1
01-SEP-1997JI13539_200002 08-FEB-2000 Earthmoving Machinery--Trenchers--Definitions and Commercial
SpecificationsTECMTCS9
08-FEB-2000
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.1.3 Preparation date: 11 March 2002 By: Gerald H. Ritterbusch Page 1 of 1
Title: Use of SAE J1166 – U.S. experiences
Statement of Issue: SAE J1166 is a noise measurement codecycle that is representative of the machine use for the determinan operator. Manufacturers use SAE J1166 to provide informaexposure of their machines.
Background: The OSHA and MSHA regulations require that ethat employees are not exposed to a time weighted noise expoeight hour workday. As employers look to the machine manufapotential noise exposure that can occur with the operation of a develop a standard that could be used to identify the noise exp
Alternatives/Options: The need to be able to specify the noisnecessary specification provided to the customer. As the noisedifferent operating conditions, the typical steady state noise mesufficient to determine the noise level during a working cycle ofusing one or more discreet operating conditions, SAE J 1166 clevel over a machine work cycle. This recorded noise history isrequirements of the OSHA/MSHA limits to determine the allowahour work shift. The optional approach would be for the custommeasurement and then extrapolate that value for the 8-hour wo
Pro’s and Con’s: The measurement over a work cycle provideof the noise level that will be experienced by an operator over acycle is a real working condition use of the machine under test reasonably achievable in many different locations. The con asrepresent all work applications, so that when the application vatest cycle, the customer must include those considerations in thexposure. In reality applications that are greatly different from the use of the machine and thus the test cycle overall providesnoise exposure. Proposed Resolution: As noise exposure becomes of more iworld, the JTLM needs to evaluate if there is merit in developinuse the test cycle from SAE J 1166.
Action Information X
Page 1 of 1
that uses a machine operating ation of the noise exposure of tion to customers on the noise
mployers meet the requirements sure exceeding 90 dB(A) over an cturers for information on the machine, there was a need to osure level from a machine.
e level of a machine is a of a machine can vary with asurement points are not really the machine. Thus, instead of ontinuously records the noise than analyzed according to the ble hours of operation per 8-er to take a discreet noise rk shift.
s a much better representation typical work shift. The test site conditions that are pect is that no test cycle can ries significantly from that in the e determination of the operator
the test cycle are intermittent in a representative evaluate of the
nterest in additional areas of the g an ISO standard that would
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.2.1A Preparation date: 01 March 2002 By: R. Dressler & R. Hutchison Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Title: Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) Report Statement of Issue: This 2002 update is being provided for informational purposes and does not raise any specific issues that require action from this committee. Background:
ROPS For Roller/Compactors: Current OSHA Regulations, unchanged since 1971, do not specifically mandate ROPS on roller/compactors. AEM's Compaction and Paving Machinery Technical Committee (CPMTC) is addressing this issue and has met with the OSHA Construction Directorate to urge updating of the regulations and offer industry help in developing detailed requirements.
Noise and Crystalline Silica Exposure: OSHA has placed both hearing conservation and silica exposure limits on its 2002 agenda. A hearing conservation proposal is expected by mid-year, and a consensus based process should be initiated before year's end to modernize and standardize OSHA silica limits. OSHA Crane Regulations: The Crane Technical Committee of the Power Crane & Shovel Association (PCSA) has been active in expressing its concern, and that of the crane industry, regarding OSHA's reluctance to update the Code of Federal Regulations for cranes (29CFR1926.550). The latest version (2000) of the ANSI B30.5 Crane Standard covers hydraulic cranes and current safe work practices. The OSHA regulation currently references the 1968 ANSI B30.5 Crane Standard and does little to address many critical issues which could adversely impact workplace safety. OSHA has responded to the Technical Committee's concerns: In a recent letter to PCSA, OSHA's directorate of Construction stated that the Agency has included the updating of the Crane Standard as part of their agenda for 2002. Proposed Resolution: No specific resolutions are sought. Annex: For more information, visit the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.2.1B Preparation date: 08 March 2002 By: R. Dressler/R. Hutchison Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Title: Crane Operator Certification
Statement of Issue: This 2002 update is being provided for informational purposes and does not raise any specific issues that require action from this committee. Background: The National Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators (CCO) was formed in January 1995 to develop effective performance standards for safe crane operation. Since the CCO began testing in April of 1996, the written exam has been administered to more than 14,000 crane operators in 46 states. The practical exam, which became a requirement of CCO certification in January 2000, has been offered to more than 12,000 candidates in 39 states. Their program is unique in that it is the only third-party testing program to be recognized by OSHA as meeting OSHA and ASME (ANSI) requirements for crane operator competency. The first group of crane operators certified by CCO in 1996, began preparing for 5-year re-certification in 2001. To comply with the requirements, the following components must be successfully completed:
• Pass a written examination in their specialty area. • Pass a practical examination in their specialty area. This requirement may be
waived if the candidate has previously passed the practical exam and has documentation of 1,000 hours of relevant crane operation in the last five years.)
• Meet CCO physical requirements in accordance with ANSI B30.5 physical qualifications as evidenced by a valid physical examination, or a DOT medical examiner's certificate.
Proposed Resolution: No specific resolutions are sought. Annexes: For additional information, visit the National Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators website at http://www.nccco.org/.
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.2.2 Preparation date: 08 March 2002 By: Dick Dressler/Russ Hutchison/Dan Moss Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Title: Mine Safety & Health Administration (MSHA) Report
Statement of Issue: Dust, noise and diesel particulate matter have been all recognized by MSHA as serious health hazards to miners because of their potential impact on lung diseases and acute hearing loss. An increase in mine fatalities has become a cause for concern throughout MSHA, with ten fatalities being reported for the month of January 2002, a significant increase over the single fatality that occurred during the same time period last year. Background: Within the U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA has taken a clear lead over its companion organization, OSHA, in the area of hearing conservation, hearing loss measurement and issuance of guidelines. Fatalities at mines in the United States had declined last year to a historic new low, according to MSHA statistics. The data indicates that 72 miners died in on-the-job accidents nationwide in 2001, the lowest figure on record and 13 fewer mine deaths than in calendar 2000. The nation's metal and non-metal mining sector had set a historic low record with 30 fatalities during 2001, compared with 47 in 2000. The previous metal and non-metal low fatality record was 40, in 1994. The metal and non-metal mining sector produces metals such as copper and gold, and non-metallic minerals such as salt, stone, sand and gravel. In the coal sector, mine fatalities increased by four to 42 in 2001.
Alternatives/Options: AEM will continue to monitor the actions of MSHA as it affects member companies' equipment.
Pro’s and Con’s: MSHA has implemented several new programs, including it's new Focus on Safe Work Program and the Accident Reduction Program, which is designed to address root causes of accidents and fatalities, with an emphasis toward providing engineering controls and solutions to reduce or eliminate future accidents and fatalities. Proposed Resolution: No resolution is sought. Additional information on MSHA mine safety programs and fatality statistics are available on the MSHA website: http://www.msha.gov/.
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.2.3 Preparation date: 27 February 2002 By: David B. Gamble Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Title: Oregon OSHA Operator Protection for Forestry Excavators – United States
Statement of Issue: The Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Agency (OSHA) Forestry Division requested recommendations from SAE Forestry Committee on 0perator Protection Structure for excavators used in forestry applications in the State of Oregon.
Background: Oregon OSHA conducted a review of accident information from the Pacific Northwest region of the United States in comparison with similar information from the Province of British Columbia. Base on the reduced injuries to machine operators in British Columbia, Oregon OSHA theorized that the operator protective requirements of the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) of British Columbia provided “benchmark” operator protection for forestry machines. Oregon asked the SAE Forestry Committee to advise as industry experts concerning the design of operator protective structures for forestry machines. Oregon OSHA requested SAE Forestry Committee to solicit manufacturers of forestry equipment to assist with a testing program to determine the strength of cabs built to WCB operator protection design criteria. It was believed testing to failure of two representative cabs and measuring the energy levels would provide performance-based criteria. These tests were conducted using the testing methodology of ISO 12117 EMM – Tip Over Protection Structure (TOPS) for compact excavators to determine the lateral and longitudinal energy capacity of WCB cabs. The results of these tests are given in this presentation including the SAE Forestry Committee’s recommended performance based criteria for cabs on excavators for forestry applications.
Alternatives/Options: Not applicable.
Pro’s and Con’s: While this testing approach made reasonable sense to quantify the capacity of WCB design criteria for cabs, there was much concern expressed by the SAE Forestry Committee on the Oregon OSHA comparison study. The data shared was incomplete in defining the specific configuration of the machines involved in accidents for incidents. Because of the significant differences in designs and guarding arrangements in use in the Pacific Northwest, it was not assured that injuries were related to inadequate protection or the lack of any protection. Another concern was the believe that WCB had better enforcement than Oregon OSHA and this would ensure the population of machines with appropriate protection would be higher in British Columbia than in the Pacific Northwest irrespective of the level of protection. Both of these factors could skew the accident data to inaccurately indicate that the WCB design criteria offered superior protection than the protection in use in the United States. Proposed Resolution: 1. Participants at the 12th JTL endorse the SAE recommendations. 2. Request AEM, CECE and CEMA to consider covering “Purpose Built Forestry Machinery”
(PBFM) within the scope of their technical activities.
Action Information X
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.2.4 Preparation date: 02-03-19 By: Dan Taylor Page 1 of 2
Title: Requirements for operation of Off-road equipment o
(US) Statement of Issue: Off-road equipment is subject to marking, requirements defined by each state. In addition, local municipalighting equipment or rules of operation. Equipment manufactuconcerned about the ability to find this information and the levelUS. Background: In the United States there is no "Federal Regularequired on off-road machinery so that it can be legally driven oresponsibility to define these requirements in their State Transp There are standards that have been written for agricultural and may be considered as basic requirements. The following standards apply for Agricultural Equipment: ANSI/ASAE S279.11 APR01 Lighting and marking of agricu ANSI/ASAE S276.5 May98 Slow-moving vehicle identificatio ANSI/ASAE S277.2 Mar98 Mounting brackets and socket fo
moving vehicle (S MV) identification emblem. The following standards apply for Industrial Wheeled equipmen SAE J99 Lighting and marking of industrial equipment on hi SAE J94 Combination tail and flood lamps for industrial equ SAE J95 Headlamps for industrial equipment SAE J585 Tail lamps (Rear position lamps) SAE J594 Reflex reflectors SAE J943 Slow-moving vehicle (SMV) identification emblem SAE J725 Mounting brackets and sockets for warning lamp
identification emblem Currently, SAE is considering ISO2509 earthmoving machinery lights and reflex - reflector devices, for adoption. So, states andall the equipment listed and possibly more. For example, in therequiring lights, an amber flashing warning signal must be mounrear of the vehicle. Machine size and especially weight are also subject to control olocal municipalities. These laws apply to machines driven on-rotruck as well. These Laws originate from the old "Bridge Laws" to protect bridges from damage or collapse. Again, the jurisdictupon whether the machine is driven on a state road, county roatransport a wide, long, or heavy machine numerous state, countbe needed. Indications are that municipalities are also becominmachines crossing from one side of a street to the other at hous Although there is no federal regulation or federal rules it does nSimilar to operating any other type of motor vehicle on the road
Action x Information
Page 1 of 2
n road in the 50 United States
lighting, size and weight limit lities may require additional rers are becoming increasingly of variation that may exist in the
tion" defining the equipment n the road. Each state has the ortation Laws or Codes.
other off-road machines that
ltural equipment on highways. n emblem. r warning lamp and slow-
t: ghways ipment
and slow-moving vehicle (SMV)
- lighting, signaling and marking /or municipalities may require
State of Illinois, for equipment ted as high as possible on the
f the states, counties, and then ad and machines moved by where the primary concern was ion having authority depends d, or in a municipality. To y, and municipality permits may g very strict about track-type ing development job sites.
ot mean that there are no rules. , there is an expectation that the
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.2.4 Preparation date: 02-03-19 By: Dan Taylor Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2
Background: In the United States there is no "Federal Regulation" defining the equipment required on off-road machinery so that it can be legally driven on the road. Each state has the responsibility to define these requirements in their State Transportation Laws or Codes. There are standards that have been written for agricultural and other off-road machines that may be considered as basic requirements. The following standards apply for Agricultural Equipment: ANSI/ASAE S279.11 APR01 Lighting and marking of agricultural equipment on highways. ANSI/ASAE S276.5 May98 Slow-moving vehicle identification emblem. ANSI/ASAE S277.2 Mar98 Mounting brackets and socket for warning lamp and slow-
moving vehicle (S MV) identification emblem. The following standards apply for Industrial Wheeled equipment: SAE J99 Lighting and marking of industrial equipment on highways SAE J94 Combination tail and flood lamps for industrial equipment SAE J95 Headlamps for industrial equipment SAE J585 Tail lamps (Rear position lamps) SAE J594 Reflex reflectors SAE J943 Slow-moving vehicle (SMV) identification emblem SAE J725 Mounting brackets and sockets for warning lamp and slow-moving vehicle (SMV)
identification emblem Currently, SAE is considering ISO2509 earthmoving machinery - lighting, signaling and marking lights and reflex - reflector devices, for adoption. So, states and/or municipalities may require all the equipment listed and possibly more. For example, in the State of Illinois, for equipment requiring lights, an amber flashing warning signal must be mounted as high as possible on the rear of the vehicle. Machine size and especially weight are also subject to control of the states, counties, and then local municipalities. These laws apply to machines driven on-road and machines moved by truck as well. These Laws originate from the old "Bridge Laws" where the primary concern was to protect bridges from damage or collapse. Again, the jurisdiction having authority depends upon whether the machine is driven on a state road, county road, or in a municipality. To transport a wide, long, or heavy machine numerous state, county, and municipality permits may be needed. Indications are that municipalities are also becoming very strict about track-type machines crossing from one side of a street to the other at housing development job sites. Although there is no federal regulation or federal rules it does not mean that there are no rules. Similar to operating any other type of motor vehicle on the road, there is an expectation that the operator must exercise due care while driving on the road. Again, states may define this. In the State of Illinois, lane usage requires slower traffic to drive in the right-hand lane, noting that the left lane is for passing and turning. The consequences are fines and civil litigation based on joint and several liability. This means that an equipment manufacturer could be named as a defendant in a lawsuit also, especially if a case can be made about some piece of equipment that was missing or if not available or some machine defect was the cause of an accident. Alternatives/Options: Manufacturers may locate this information through various means. The standards are readily available from the ASAE and SAE Organizations. The equipment requirements for on-road operation for each state may be obtained in several ways. Manufacturers may purchase the information directly from AEM or can search the web sites of each state to locate the detailed information. Regional equipment dealers are also a source of information, especially for local municipality differences. Information concerning machine size
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.2.4 Preparation date: 02-03-19 By: Dan Taylor Page 3 of 2
Page 3 of 2
and weight limitations is also available from J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. (1-800-327-6868, www.jjkeller.com for email or fax to 1-800-727-7516). As an option, manufacturers may choose to provide more information in Operator's Manuals concerning the need to assure the machines meet all local equipment requirements and instruction concerning safe operation on the road. Pro’s and Con’s: (Pros) The existing standards for agricultural and construction equipment provide a minimum-level set of requirements for lighting and marking of machinery in the US. Meeting individual state and local requirements are not viewed as a major problem by the industry at this time. Equipment dealers are taking action to satisfy state and local requirements in the regions where they conduct business, providing back-up equipment manufacturers. (Cons) It can be both difficult and time consuming or costly to obtain the on-road requirements for off-road machinery for each state in the US. There is variation in the requirements between the states. Manufacturers that are not providing the required equipment or providing variations of on-road equipment could be subject to legal challenges. The amount of information provided in operator's manuals on this subject may not be adequate. Population/Urban Area expansion increases the chances that equipment will be exposed to greater vehicle and pedestrian traffic, resulting in more accidents. Thus, increasing the expectation that manufacturers provide on road equipment from the point of manufacture. Proposed Resolution: Manufacturers are encouraged to review how they meet the basic requirements in the standards, the per-state requirements and local requirements to be sure no gaps exist. Further, it is recommended that the manufacturers review the content of their operator's manuals to determine if there is sufficient content concerning required equipment and operating instruction for safe on-road operation. Finally, monitor ISO12509 for adoption in SAE and it's effects on the various machine types provided in North America. Annexes (if any) None
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.3 Preparation date: 21 February 2002 By: Dan Roley Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2
Title: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Activities
Statement of Issue: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Activities (NIOSH) in the USA is a research organization that supports the Mining Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). NIOSH is currently working with mining and road construction customers and with machine manufacturers to reduce lost time accidents. The current NIOSH research includes projects to: - reduce back pain complaints due to the vibrations and shock on mining trucks - evaluate hazard detection systems for mining machines - measure the visibility of road construction machines and evaluate the risks associated with the visibility maskings.
Background: The objective of most mining and earthmoving machinery customers in the USA is to achieve zero lost time accidents. To achieve this goal, customers are asking for the help of machine manufacturers and regulatory organizations. We have participated in three of the NIOSH research projects by providing test machines, testing facilities and data acquisition support.
Alternatives/Options: The three NIOSH research projects are: 1. A large USA mine ask NIOSH to help reduce the number of back pain complaints from dumper operators. NIOSH measured ride vibration data on dumpers and worked with a medical expert to evaluate the risks from the vibration exposure, especially from jars, jolts and shocks. Significant vibration and shock input to the operator was not found. 2. MSHA is considering a regulation to require hazard detection and visual aids on mining machines. NIOSH evaluated CCTV visual aids and ultrasound and radar hazard detection systems. Evaluations at mine sites are continuing. The preliminary results from mine operators are mixed on the value of hazard detection systems and visual aids. Many operators are annoyed by the false signals for the hazard detection systems. 3. NIOSH is starting a project to evaluate the risks from the visibility maskings of machines used on road construction sites, primarily trucks, motor graders and wheel loader, along with pavers and paving profilers. The current plan is to define when workers are in the masked areas and can hazard detection systems and visual aids be used effectively to minimize any risks. NIOSH would like to obtain visibility measurements from manufacturers to show the visibility maskings around machines.
Pro’s and Con’s: In general, NIOSH is very thorough in their research and by working directly with customers and machine manufacturers; they are realistic in addressing jobsite risks. Proposed Resolution: JTLM participants are requested to let Dan Roley know if they would be willing to provide visibility masking data to NIOSH for their machines.
Action X Information
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.4 Preparation date: 01 March 2002 By: R. Hutchison Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 3
Title: U.S. Labor-Driven Noise Activities
Statement of Issue: Following is a description of the Construction Noise Control Partnership (the "CNCP"). The CNCP is a broad-based coalition whose efforts are focused on improving hearing conservation practices and reducing hearing loss through voluntary measures in the American construction industry. Background: The CNCP was formed in July 2000 through the efforts of the Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA), led by Scott Schneider, the LHSFNA’s Director of Occupational Safety & Health and a certified industrial hygienist. Mr. Schneider has been actively involved with hearing loss issues for many years. The CNCP members include representatives from the following construction related groups:
1) Contractors - both individually and through trade associations 2) Equipment Manufacturers – both individually and through trade associations
(including AEM) 3) Labour Unions 4) Medical Professionals and Academics 5) A variety of Governmental Agencies
The CNCP is committed to strengthening hearing conservation programs in the construction industry in America through voluntary means. Construction sites are identified as characteristically noisy environments whose affects, in the absence of appropriate protective measures, have the potential to lead to premature and potentially significant hearing impairment for those who work there. Hearing loss is present in this employee population, in spite of the availability of effective personal protective equipment and relevant occupational safety and health regulations. Anecdotally, the presence of hearing loss in this group is attributed to a variety of causes, some of which are: Construction sites tend to be constantly changing work environments (as compared, for
example, with general industry) Noise is not an acute or life-threatening hazard Limited enforcement efforts by regulatory agencies Belief on the part of some employers that noise control efforts are difficult, costly and
produce limited results Failure to properly maintain noise producing construction equipment
Alternatives/Options: With this in mind, the CNCP is looking at the means and methods to change the construction site noise culture, with emphasis on educating:
♦ Construction Workers; ♦ Employers; and ♦ Site owners.
Education will include efforts to:
Action Information X
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.4 Preparation date: 01 March 2002 By: R. Hutchison Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 3
♦ Increase worker awareness of the significance and seriousness of construction site noise,
and encourage them to take appropriate steps to use available personal protection; ♦ Encourage employers to reduce equipment noise levels (engineering controls) and adopt
site practices that will reduce construction workers' exposure to existing noise levels (administrative controls);
♦ Motivate site owners to include the lowering of construction site noise levels as a condition in the contracting process; and,
♦ Encourage equipment manufacturers to continue noise reduction efforts for new equipment.
Proposed Resolution: The CNCP has established three working groups to implement the partnership’s focus. They include:
♦ A Best Practices Work Group, tasked with creating a best practices guide which will suggest methods employers can follow to control and reduce noise at the job site;
♦ A Communications Work Group, tasked with developing and implementing a communications strategy to effectively advance the CNCP's message and distribute the material in the Best Practices Guide; and,
♦ A Noise Measurement Work Group, tasked with gathering and organizing noise level measurements from a variety of construction activities and equipment, to be used as a resource to educate equipment users, and to develop and compare enhanced noise control solutions.
In addition, the LHSFNA has established a web page for the CNCP at the following web address: http://www.lhsfna.org/html/_noise_partnership.html. This site includes a description of the CNCP, a list of members, copies of meeting minutes, noise control presentations and related Internet links. Also, the LHSFNA is seeking grant support in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the CNCP communications strategies and their impact on the current construction industry noise culture. AEM will continue to monitor and report on CNCP activities. Observation: The CNCP leadership has concluded that efforts at worker education regarding the construction noise hazard and the importance of using personal protective equipment, while important, has so far met with only limited success. There continues to be what some have concluded is a significant hearing loss present in the construction industry employee population. Therefore, a major focus of the CNCP will be the mitigation of construction site noise levels by encouraging manufacturers to reduce equipment noise emissions and encouraging employers to buy or lease quiet equipment, follow up with proper and timely maintenance procedures, and adopt work site practices that reduce noise levels and worker exposure.
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.5 Preparation date: 11 March 2002 By: Dan Moss Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Title: 2001 Product Safety Seminars and Future AEM Plans
Statement of Issue: The Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) has scheduled the first AEM Product Safety Seminar for 22-23 January, 2002, in St. Louis, Missouri. A 25 member planning committee, co-chaired by Mr. Dan Taylor (CNH) and Mr. Joe Vig (Kolberg Pioneer) has been formed to discuss and develop the seminar format, evaluate possible session topics and speakers, and discuss general meeting logistical issues to best meet the needs of AEM members. The committee plans to hold its next planning meeting in late April 2002.
Background: For over ten years, the industry trade associations formerly known as EMI and CIMA, have held separate safety seminars. The EMI Safety Seminar had recently focused on educating engineers and product safety specialists on the fundamental principles of creating a successful product safety program. The CIMA Safety Seminar had significant focus on products liability and legal defense issues. In August 2001, CIMA held its Annual Safety Seminar in Milwaukee, Wisconsin with the theme: "What is Your Weakest Link?" Presenters offered strategies and advice on design and liability issues and other presentations covered subjects such as ergonomics, online training and service report communications. The two-day session was culminated by a well received "mock trial" held at the Milwaukee County Courthouse which featured interactive audience polling. In October 2001, EMI held its 12th Annual Product Safety Seminar in Orlando, Florida. The theme chosen for this seminar was "Effective Safety Solutions...Enhancing Value." The program began with an inspiring general session featuring Mr. Roger Boisjoly, an ethics lecturer and engineering manager, involved with the Challenger spacecraft explosion. This session was followed by a series of breakout sessions on operator training, effective safety signs, hazard analysis, along with several other topics. The closing exercise was titled "On the Horns of a Dilemma, which depicted an infighting scenario between two of the parties on the defense side and how this aids the plaintiff.
Alternatives/Options: In addition to an annual seminar, AEM is exploring holding a series of e-seminars to focus on specific product safety issues. A "Product Safety Fundamentals" e-seminar is tentatively scheduled to be held in 2002.
Pro’s and Con’s: Continuation of association safety and training efforts are believed to provide benefit to the entire off-road industry. Proposed Resolution: No resolution is sought. Additional information on the AEM Product Safety Seminar and other educational programs are available on the association's website: http://www.aem.org/. The 2003 seminar is open to all employees of manufacturing companies. International participation is encouraged.
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.6 Preparation date: 22 February By: Dan Roley Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Title: Equipment Useful Life and Recycling Initiatives
Statement of Issue: Earthmoving machines generally have a long useful life, which means that machines manufactured today may have to meet the recycling expectations 20 years from now. Currently, there are few regulations and standards for recycling the materials that are used in earthmoving machines. The question for the earthmoving machinery industry needs to consider is “when should an ISO TC 127 standard be initiated to provide guidance for recycling earthmoving machines”.
Background: Useful life and recycling initiatives have been popular topics of discussion for many years. Europe recently implemented a new directive on end-of-life vehicles (2000/53/EC) aimed at the prevention of waste from vehicles and at the recycling of end-of-life vehicles. This directive asks manufacturers to limit the use of hazardous substances, to facilitate the dismantling, re-use and recycling of materials and to use component and material coding standards. It also requires that member states set up systems for collecting end-of-life vehicles and treatment facilities for removing recyclable materials. Two ISO standards already address material coding of plastic products (ISO 11469 and ISO 1043-1 to 4).
Alternatives/Options: With the EU directive for end-of-life vehicles already in place, there will probably be pressure in the future to have a similar directive for earthmoving machines. ISO TC 127 could be proactive and develop an international standard with end-of-life recommendations for earthmoving machines.
Pro’s and Con’s: Most of the materials for earthmoving machines can already be recycled. As more plastic materials are used on earthmoving machines, these materials could also be easily recycled if the materials are properly marked. An ISO TC 127 standard could be prepared to provide guidance for the use of materials in earthmoving machines, for labeling materials and for manufacturers to provide general recycling guidelines. Proposed Resolution: JTLM participants are requested to review the need to develop an ISO TC 127 standard to address end-of-life and recycling of earthmoving machines.
Action X Information
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.7 Preparation date: 8 March 2002 By: Darrin Drollinger Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 1
Title: U.S. Department of Commerce Committee on Standards and Regulations (IFAC 2)
Statement of Issue: In December 2001, Darrin Drollinger received word that he had been granted the security clearance required by the U.S. Department of Commerce to sit on the Industry Functional Advisory Committee on Standards (IFAC 2). This appointment provides the off road industry another “set of eyes and voice” on standards and trade issues impacting the U.S.
Background: IFAC 2 provides input on standards or technical barriers to trade matters related to proposed trade agreements and the operation of current U.S. trade agreements. Representatives serving on IFAC-2 provide advice on a broad range of trade policy matters covering a number of industries. Members offer advice on a range of issues including: the Second Triennial Review of the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Committee on Standards-Related Measures, Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) Negotiations, the Asia Pacific Economic Community (APEC) Subcommittee on Standards and Conformance, the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD), and the Transatlantic Economic Partnership. IFAC-2 also provides guidance on bilateral standards measures and regional harmonization standards work that impact US industry. Most recently, this forum served as a useful tool to address Mexican product certification procedures. US input in the ongoing discussions in APEC on standards and conformance has been reportedly enhanced by IFAC-2 involvement.
Alternatives/Options: It is the author’s plans to participate in the IFAC 2 activities. Since I have only attended one meeting thus far, it is my expectation that I will have more to report in the coming months.
Pro’s and Con’s: It is anticipated that a number of issues and subjects will be reviewed and commented on at the IFAC 2 level, which will be of potential interest to JTL members. Although many of the documents are restricted from circulation, documents and issues that are believed to be of interest to JTL members, and are cleared for circulation, will be shared.
Proposed Resolution: Darrin Drollinger to circulate relevant IFAC-2 information to the JTL members as appropriate between JTL meetings and give future status reports.
Annex: The Department of Commerce’s Industry Consultation website at: http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/icp/ifac.html Technical and Safety\Joint Technical Liaison (CECE, CEMA, CIMA, EMI)\2002 Joint Technical Meeting\Reports\06.7 IFAC-2.doc
AEM/CECE/CEMA/KOCEMA Joint Technical Liaison Meeting Las Vegas – 25 & 26 March 2002
AGENDA ITEM: 6.8 Preparation date: 21February 2002 By: Dan Roley Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Title: Presentation of Products Liability and Its Impact on Business
Statement of Issue: The risk of products liability is an important consideration during the product development of earthmoving machines. The best way to minimize the risks of product liability is to design machines to comply with all of the applicable ISO standards, to evaluate and address the risks and then to provide the appropriate instructions and warnings. A short video will be shown on the products liability risks in the USA.
Background: The regulations in the USA are specific in some areas, such as for seat belts and for operator protective structures. However, many of the requirements for machines are only covered by the OSHA general duty clause, which states that “each employer shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” With this general requirement, it is a challenge for machine manufacturers to establish acceptable machine development criteria.
Alternatives/Options: The Video “When Products Harm – Product Liability Awareness” shows what can happen when a lawsuit strikes. It demonstrates the need for defensive thinking at every stage of product design, manufacturing, testing, marketing, recall, etc.
Pro’s and Con’s: Products liability defense experience in the USA has shown that machines that do not comply with all the applicable standards will probably lose lawsuit challenges, while machines that comply with the standards have a good chance of defending lawsuit challenges successfully. Proposed Resolution: It is essential to design machines to comply with the applicable standards to be able to defend lawsuit challenges in the USA.
Action Information X
1 AUG 00
SALEABILITYSALEABILITYEs
sent
ial
Req
uire
men
tsC
usto
mer
Req
uire
men
tsM
anda
tory
Reg
ulat
ions
Stan
dard
sDE
FEN
DA
BIL
ITY
DE
FEN
DA
BIL
ITY
Planning Design Verification Documentation Implementation Field Life
1 AUG 00
SALEABILITYSALEABILITYEs
sent
ial
Req
uire
men
tsC
usto
mer
Req
uire
men
tsM
anda
tory
Reg
ulat
ions
Stan
dard
s
DE
FEN
DA
BIL
ITY
DE
FEN
DA
BIL
ITY
Planning Design Verification Documentation Implementation Field Life
INDUSTRY CONSENSUS
1 AUG 00
SALEABILITYSALEABILITYEs
sent
ial
Req
uire
men
tsC
usto
mer
Req
uire
men
tsM
anda
tory
Reg
ulat
ions
Stan
dard
s
DE
FEN
DA
BIL
ITY
DE
FEN
DA
BIL
ITY
Planning Design Verification Documentation Implementation Field Life
INDUSTRY CONSENSUS
MANDATORY (EUROPE)
1 AUG 00
SALEABILITYSALEABILITYEs
sent
ial
Req
uire
men
tsC
usto
mer
Req
uire
men
tsM
anda
tory
Reg
ulat
ions
Stan
dard
s
DE
FEN
DA
BIL
ITY
DE
FEN
DA
BIL
ITY
Planning Design Verification Documentation Implementation Field Life
INDUSTRY CONSENSUS
MANDATORY (EUROPE)
REST OF WORLD
1 AUG 00
SALEABILITYSALEABILITYEs
sent
ial
Req
uire
men
tsC
usto
mer
Req
uire
men
tsM
anda
tory
Reg
ulat
ions
Stan
dard
s
DE
FEN
DA
BIL
ITY
DE
FEN
DA
BIL
ITY
Planning Design Verification Documentation Implementation Field Life
INDUSTRY CONSENSUS
MANDATORY (EUROPE)
REST OF WORLD
PRODUCT LITIGATION (USA)
1 AUG 00
SALEABILITYSALEABILITYEs
sent
ial
Req
uire
men
tsC
usto
mer
Req
uire
men
tsM
anda
tory
Reg
ulat
ions
Stan
dard
s
DE
FEN
DA
BIL
ITY
DE
FEN
DA
BIL
ITY
Planning Design Verification Documentation Implementation Field Life
- Hazard List- Accident History Review- Define Use
- Competitive Bench Mark- Define Markets- Define Design Life