[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40651-40659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15995]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0003]
RIN 1218-AC98
Mechanical Power Presses Update
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOL.
ACTION: Request for information (RFI).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA requests information and comment on issues related to the
mechanical power presses standard. The standard was issued in 1971
based upon the 1971 American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
industry consensus standard for mechanical power presses. This ANSI
standard has been updated a number of times since 1971. OSHA is seeking
information regarding whether it should update the mechanical power
presses standard and, if so, how closely the standard should follow the
current ANSI standard for mechanical power presses. It is also seeking
information on the types of presses that should be covered, the use and
certification of equipment, and other topics such as presence-sensing
device initiation (PSDI) systems, and requirements for press
modifications, training, and injury reporting. OSHA will use the
information received in response to this RFI to determine what action,
if any, it may take to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining
worker safety.
DATES: Submit comments on or before October 26, 2021. All submissions
must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted as follows:
Electronically: You may submit comments, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
OSHA will place comments and requests for a hearing, including
personal information, in the public docket, which will be available
online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting
personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through this website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Press Inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications; telephone: 202-693-1999; email:
[email protected].
General and technical information: Lisa Long, OSHA Directorate of
Standards and Guidance; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 40652]]
Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at http://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice,
as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA's web page at http://www.osha.gov.
References and Exhibits: Documents referenced by OSHA in this RFI,
other than OSHA standards and Federal Register notices, are in Docket
No. OSHA-2007-0003 (Mechanical Power Presses Update). The docket is
available at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. For additional information on submitting items to, or accessing
items in, the docket, please refer to the ADDRESSES section of this
RFI. Most exhibits are available at http://www.regulations.gov; some
exhibits (e.g., copyrighted material) are not available to download
from that web page. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions; telephone: (202) 693 2350; email:
[email protected].
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Introduction: OSHA's Existing Mechanical Power Presses
Standard
B. Regulatory History
C. Hazards and Incidents
D. Consensus Standards
E. Training and Certification
F. Economic Impacts
II. Request for Data, Information, and Comments
A. Hazards and Incidents
B. Power Presses Standard
C. Standards Other Than ANSI Consensus Standards
D. Presses Other Than Mechanical Power Presses
E. Presence-Sensing Device Initiation
F. Existing Presses
G. Modifying and Repairing Existing Presses; Records of
Maintenance
H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
I. Affected Industries and Economic Impacts
J. Other Issues
I. Background
A. Introduction: OSHA's Existing Mechanical Power Presses Standard
A mechanical power press is a mechanically powered machine that
shears, punches, forms, or assembles metal or other material by means
of cutting, shaping, or use of combination dies. A mechanical power
press is a two-part system: The first part is a movable upper part,
called the ram; and the second part is a stationary bed or anvil. A die
or punch is placed on the ram and the ram descends into a die block
attached to the anvil. The punch and die block are known as the die
set. A mechanical power press can be either full-revolution or part
revolution. A full-revolution press cannot be stopped once the cycle
begins. A part-revolution press has a brake that can stop the press
mid-cycle.
In 1971, OSHA published the standard for mechanical power presses,
Sec. 1910.217, based on the 1971 edition of ANSI B11.1, the industry
consensus standard on mechanical power presses.\1\ The OSHA standard
includes requirements for inspecting, maintaining, and modifying
mechanical power presses to ensure that they are operating safely and
includes a special reporting requirement for injuries to employees
operating mechanical power presses. The standard also includes
requirements for safeguarding the point of operation. OSHA's standard
does not cover press brakes, hydraulic and pneumatic power presses,
bulldozer presses, hot bending and hot metal presses, forging presses
and hammers, riveting machines, or similar types of fastener
applicators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 36 FR 10466, 10643 (May 29, 1971), reprinted at 39 FR
23502 (June 27, 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are numerous ways to guard mechanical power presses,
including point of operation guards, die enclosures, fixed barrier
guards, movable barrier guards, presence sensing devices (PSDs), and
presence sensing device initiation (PSDI) systems. PSDs are electronic
units designed to automatically stop the machine from cycling when an
intrusion is detected in the danger zone (point of operation) between
the fixed bed of a press and the ram. PSDs are in wide use and are
permitted under the OSHA standard as a safeguard to prevent operation
of the press when an employee's hands or other part of the body are at
the point of operation. PSDI is a system that permits the PSD to
initiate the stroke of the press when it senses that all parts of the
body are clear of the point of operation. The ability to stop the press
mid-cycle is considered essential for the safe operation of a press in
PSDI mode; when something enters the point of operation while the ram
is in motion, the PSDI system stops the press. Full-revolution power
presses cannot use PSDI because these machines cannot be stopped mid-
cycle.
As initially adopted in 1971, the OSHA standard did not permit
PSDI, but instead required that an operator physically initiate the
stroke of a power press by using hand controls or a foot pedal. In
1976, OSHA granted an experimental variance to Interlake Stamping
Company of Willoughby, Ohio, to allow the company to use PSDI on
mechanical power presses. In granting the variance, OSHA stated that
the PSDI system reduced worker fatigue, a recognized cause of
accidents.\2\ After using PSDIs for five years, Interlake Stamping
found that a PSDI improved press productivity by 30 percent.\3\ During
the 26 years of using PSDI, no Interlake Stamping workers were injured
while using the PSDI system.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 41 FR 36702 (August 31, 1976).
\3\ See 79 FR 13078 (March 7, 2014).
\4\ See https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_final2004.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1988, OSHA added paragraph (h) to Sec. 1910.217 to allow the
use of PSDI on part-revolution mechanical power presses.\5\ Among other
requirements, OSHA required that OSHA-approved third parties validate
the PSDI systems upon installation and at least annually thereafter.\6\
OSHA believed that national testing laboratories and industry
organizations would conduct the third-party validation. To date,
however, no third party has sought OSHA approval to conduct third-party
validation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 53 FR 8322 (March 14, 1988).
\6\ See Sec. 1910.217(h)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2011, Interlake applied for a permanent variance for relief from
the third party validation requirements. OSHA responded with additional
conditions for alternative means to provide additional protection to
employees operating in PSDI mode. This included descriptions of the
power press and light curtains in use; equipment guarding means and
worker training; and inspection, testing and maintenance procedures.
Due to cost concerns, Interlake withdrew its request for the permanent
variance and then removed its PSDI system in 2013.\7\ OSHA is not aware
of any remaining facility that operates mechanical power presses in
PSDI mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Interlake Stamping Corp.; Revocation of an Experimental
Variance and Interim Order, 79 FR 13078 (March 7, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory History
OSHA's Section 610 Review of the PSDI Requirements
OSHA is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 610,
to conduct periodic reviews of its safety and health standards
(``Section 610 Reviews''). The purpose of these reviews is to determine
whether OSHA should change, amend, or rescind standards consistent with
the objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant
economic impact of the standards on a substantial number of small
entities. OSHA conducted a Section 610 Review of the PSDI section of
the mechanical power press standard (29 CFR 1910.217(h)) to
[[Page 40653]]
determine why PSDI had not been implemented and to identify how the
standard could be changed to facilitate PSDI use in a manner that
protects worker safety.\8\ In the Federal Register notice (67 FR 55181,
August 28, 2002) informing the public about the Section 610 Review and
soliciting comments, OSHA sought comments on four options for revising
the standard:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The review also included a review under Section 5 of
Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1--Update all of Sec. 1910.217 to make it consistent with
ANSI B11.1-2001 or something similar.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ At the time OSHA initiated its Section 610 Review in 2002,
ANSI B11.1-2001 was the most recent version of the consensus
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2--Revise the third-party validation requirements.
Option 3--Eliminate all requirements for third-party validation and
possibly replace them with a self-certification requirement and leave
the other PSDI requirements intact.
Option 4--Replace OSHA's current PSDI requirements with the PSDI
requirements in ANSI B11.1-2001.
Responses to the Section 610 Review
Based on analyses and information obtained during the Section 610
Review, OSHA concluded it should pursue Option 1, to update all of
Sec. 1910.217 to make it consistent with ANSI B11.1-2001 or something
similar (Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0002). 2007 Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Request for Data, Information, and Comments.
In 2007, the agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) on mechanical power presses.\10\ The ANPRM discussed
a broad range of issues concerning the possible update of the
mechanical power presses standard. The issues to be considered went
beyond those of the current mechanical power presses standard and
included broadening the scope of the standard to include other types of
presses, equipment, and processes not previously addressed. OSHA
invited comments on 37 questions, which were organized into the
following six topic categories:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 72 FR 30729 (June 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Scope of the Mechanical Power Presses Standard,
2. Consensus Standards Related to Mechanical Power Presses,
3. Technical Issues,
4. Cost Issues,
5. Training Requirements, and
6. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.
Commenters were encouraged to address any aspect of power presses,
including pneumatic, hydraulic, and other presses, and provide
information that would assist the agency in its consideration of what
actions were appropriate. The agency was particularly interested in
ways to incorporate flexibility into the standard to make it more
protective, and to make compliance more straightforward.
The Scope of the Power Presses Standard
OSHA's first broad area of questioning in the 2007 ANPRM was on
whether to broaden the scope of the mechanical power press standard
including questions related to whether to:
Include other types of presses, such as hydraulic and
pneumatic power presses;
regulate all power presses under one standard or under
multiple standards; and
ensure general machine guarding requirements in Sec.
1910.212 adequately protect employees using non-mechanical power
presses.
Respondents agreed that the existing mechanical power presses
requirements in Sec. 1910.217 were outdated. However, they varied in
their comments regarding how to regulate various types of power
presses. Suggestions included the following:
Updating the standard based on the ANSI B11.1 standard;
Developing an OSHA specific standard for each type of
press;
Considering adopting ANSI standards for other types of
presses; and
Expanding Sec. 1910.212 to cover other types of presses
beyond mechanical.
Consensus Standards Related to Mechanical Power Presses
The agency also sought comment on whether the revised OSHA standard
should include information from the appendices or the explanatory
information columns contained in the ANSI B11.1 standard. Commenters
did not agree on exactly what information an OSHA standard should
contain. Some commenters suggested that explanatory material should be
non-mandatory. Others suggested that some explanatory material could be
included as regulatory text.
Technical Issues
In response to questions regarding technical issues, commenters
stated the following:
Mechanical power presses are in decline;
OSHA should consider the role of automation on safety and
production;
ANSI B11.1 permits modification and reconstruction of
presses; and
PSDI validation is useful, but third-party validation may
not be necessary.
Training Requirements
Commenters expressed widespread support for strengthened training
requirements. Many respondents stated that OSHA should require
semiannual or annual training. Commenters were split on whether OSHA
should change its existing performance-oriented approach with specific
training provisions.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
OSHA requested comment on whether to eliminate the requirement in
Sec. 1910.217(g) that employers report point-of-operation injuries to
OSHA within 30 days. One commenter questioned why OSHA singled out
injuries involving mechanical power presses and required a special
procedure for reporting injuries when there is already a general
recordkeeping and reporting standard. Other comments, including an
industry trade group, stated that OSHA should retain the requirement,
and that employers find this injury data useful.
C. Hazards and Incidents
OSHA looked at several sources of data to understand the hazards
that led to injuries involving mechanical power presses. These include
injury reports required by Sec. 1910.217(g), Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) injury data, and OSHA severe injury reporting data.
29 CFR 1910.217(g) Injury Reports
OSHA's standard (29 CFR 1910.217(g)) requires employers to report,
within 30 days of an occurrence, all point-of-operation injuries to
operators or other employees. These reports must contain, among other
things, the injury sustained (amputations, lacerations, crushes, etc.),
the task being performed (operation, set-up, maintenance, or other),
the type of safeguard being used, and the cause of the accident.
Although OSHA has collected this data, it has not been subject to any
verification for accuracy or completeness. As explained further below,
OSHA believes these reports may undercount the number of incidents.
OSHA received 204 reports of incidents related to mechanical power
presses from 2007 through 2015--an average of about 23 per year. These
incidents resulted in a reported 388 injuries (an average of 43 per
year) with finger amputations being the most
[[Page 40654]]
prevalent injury-accounting for 39 percent of all injuries over that
period.
Table 1--Mechanical Power Press Incidents and Injuries, 2007-2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total of total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crush.......................... 17 5 6 14 12 10 6 9 6 85 22
Finger Amputation.............. 29 10 16 19 26 24 9 10 10 153 39
Fingertip Amputation........... 18 6 8 11 1 6 7 8 1 66 17
Fracture....................... 3 3 8 0 1 2 5 3 1 26 7
Laceration..................... 10 6 7 0 6 2 4 3 4 42 11
Other/Unspecified.............. 4 0 2 1 2 2 3 0 2 16 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Injuries............. 81 30 47 45 48 46 34 33 24 388 .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Incidents............ 37 15 20 27 26 24 20 21 14 204 .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Multiple injuries can result from a single incident. For example, a worker that suffered a single finger amputation would be considered to have
one injury as a result of one incident. However, if a worker suffered amputation of five fingers, that would be considered five injuries as a result
of one incident.
BLS Injury Data
Using BLS data, OSHA estimated the number of injuries that result
from accidents involving mechanical power presses. BLS publishes data
on all press injuries involving days away from work, but such data do
not differentiate between mechanical or other types of power presses.
BLS reports injury data by type of press including unspecified presses,
assembly presses, brake presses, punch presses, and presses not
elsewhere classified. According to BLS, from 2011 through 2016, there
were 7,030 nonfatal occupational injuries involving days away from work
due to presses--an average of 1,172 annually. Unfortunately, BLS'
classification scheme does not allow OSHA to identify which injuries
occur during the use of mechanical power presses versus other types of
presses. OSHA believes it is possible that some occupational injuries
reported in the BLS data may be attributable to mechanical power press
operations but are not being reported to OSHA under OSHA's existing
standard at 29 CFR 1910.217(g).
OSHA Severe Injury Reporting Program
On September 18, 2014, OSHA issued a final rule that implemented a
Severe Injury Reporting Program (SIR), which requires, among other
things, that employers report all amputations resulting from a work-
related incident to OSHA within 24 hours of the employer becoming aware
of the incident (79 FR 56130). From 2015 to 2017, OSHA received about
8,200 reports of amputations under the SIR program. In 2015, OSHA
received 246 reports of amputations in the fabricated metal product
manufacturing industry (NAICS 332), 109 reports in primary metal
manufacturing (NAICS 331), 123 reports in machinery manufacturing
(NAICS 333), and 134 reports in transportation equipment manufacturing
(NAICS 334). There is no further breakdown of the data into how many
amputations occurred on power presses, much less mechanical power
presses; however, research from the late 1980s suggested that about 10
percent of all reported amputations occur among power press operators
(Injuries and Amputations Resulting from Work with Mechanical Power
Presses; https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/87-107/) (Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-
0025).
OSHA research from the late 1980s suggested that about 49 percent
of injuries on mechanical power presses resulted in an amputation
causing about 557 injuries to power press operators on average each
year (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/87-107/). Based on estimates in
the Section 610 Review of the PSDI standard, OSHA estimates that large
mechanical power presses account for 9.5 percent of power presses used
in the United States (https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_final2004.html). OSHA believes that these manufacturing industries
are likely to include power press operators and that it is possible
that some amputations attributable to mechanical power press operations
are not being reported to OSHA under OSHA's existing standard at 29 CFR
1910.217(g).
D. Consensus Standards
The American Engineering Standards Committee, a predecessor of
ANSI, released its first consensus standard for mechanical power
presses in 1922. The standard has been updated periodically. The most
recent ANSI consensus standard for mechanical power presses is ANSI
B11.1-2009 (R2020), ``Safety Requirements for Mechanical Power
Presses''; (Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0026). Hydraulic and pneumatic power
presses are both covered under a different consensus standard, ANSI
B11.2, which was originally released in 1982. The most recent consensus
standard for hydraulic and pneumatic power presses is ANSI B11.2-2013
(R2020), ``Safety Requirements for Hydraulic and Pneumatic Power
Presses''; (Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0027).
E. Training and Certification
The OSHA mechanical power presses standard spells out training
requirements in several sections. Section 1910.217(e)(3) requires
training of maintenance personnel, and provides that it is the
responsibility of the employer to ensure the original and continuing
competence of personnel caring for, inspecting, and maintaining power
presses. Section 1910.217(f)(2) requires the employer to train and
instruct the operator in the safe method of work before starting work
on any operation covered by this section, and to ensure by adequate
supervision that correct operating procedures are being followed.
Section 1910.217(h)(13) requires that training for operators using
presses in PSDI mode must be provided before the employee initially
operates the press and as needed to maintain competence, but not less
than annually thereafter. Such training must also include certain
enumerated instructions specific to presses used in PSDI mode. In
addition, OSHA requires that employers certify employee training in the
use of the PSDI mode.
The training provisions in ANSI B11.1-2009 require the employer to
meet the following:
Train personnel associated with press production systems
in safe working procedures and ensure they are qualified to perform the
functions to which they are assigned;
instruct all operators in the operation of the press
production system including the proper method of operation for each
production set-up before the press production system is
[[Page 40655]]
placed into production and that all operators demonstrate their
knowledge of the press production system;
instruct all die setters in the proper procedures for
selecting, inspecting, and installing dies appropriate to the
operations;
ensure that maintenance personnel are trained in safe
working procedures for inspecting and maintaining press production
systems;
ensure that supervisors are trained in safe working
procedures for set-up, operation, and maintenance of press production
systems; and
train personnel, as required by assigned functions, in the
safe working procedures for lockout/tagout of hazardous energy sources
in accordance with ANSI Z244.1.
ANSI also requires a trained designated supervisor to continually
supervise the press production system operation to ensure that the
proper point-of-operation safeguarding is installed, activated, and
operational for each job set-up and prior to release for production by
the operator. The designated supervisor must also ensure that operators
follow the correct operating procedures and use the press production
system as intended within the rated capacities of the press and
associated system components.
F. Economic Impacts
In addition to the specific questions posed in other parts of this
RFI, OSHA is requesting data and information on the potential economic
impacts should OSHA decide to make changes to the mechanical power
presses standard. When responding to the questions in this RFI, OSHA
requests, whenever possible, that stakeholders discuss potential
economic impacts in terms of the following:
1. Quantitative benefits (e.g., reductions in injuries, fatalities,
and property damage);
2. Costs (e.g., compliance costs or decreases in productivity); and
3. Offsets to costs (e.g., increases in productivity, less need for
maintenance and repairs).
OSHA also invites comments on any unintended consequences and
consistencies or inconsistences with other policies or regulatory
programs that might result if OSHA revises the mechanical power presses
standard.
OSHA welcomes all comments but requests that stakeholders discuss
economic impacts in specific detail, if possible. For example, if a
provision or policy change would necessitate additional employee
training, it is most helpful to OSHA to receive information on the
following:
1. The training courses necessary;
2. the topics training would cover;
3. the types of employees who would need training and what percent
(if any) of those employees currently receive the training;
4. the length and frequency of training;
5. any retraining necessary; and
6. the training costs, whether conducted by a third-party vendor or
by an in-house trainer.
For discussion of equipment related costs, OSHA is interested in
all relevant factors:
1. The prevalence of current use of the equipment;
2. the purchase price;
3. the cost of installation and training;
4. the cost of equipment maintenance and upgrades; and
5. the expected life of the equipment.
The agency also invites comment on the time and level of expertise
required if OSHA were to implement the potential changes this RFI
discusses, even if dollar-cost estimates are not available.
II. Request for Data, Information, and Comment
A. Hazards and Incidents
OSHA seeks comments on hazards associated with the operation of
mechanical power presses and presses other than mechanical power
presses, i.e., hydraulic and pneumatic presses. CDC last studied
Injuries and Amputations Resulting from Work with Mechanical Power
Presses in the late 1980s and this study was specific to Mechanical
Power Presses. OSHA requests additional studies or data on workplace
injuries or fatalities related to mechanical power presses and presses
other than mechanical power presses, particularly recent studies or
data. (1) Is there more recent information about the risks and hazards
associated with the operation of power presses? (2) Based on a review
of accident and injury data (see Table 1), OSHA has identified finger
and fingertip amputations, crush injuries, lacerations, and fractures
as the main types of injuries caused by mechanical power presses.
Please supply any additional information on these and other injuries
associated with power presses? (3) How frequently are workers using
power presses injured? How frequently are workers using power presses
severely injured? How frequently are workers using power presses
fatally injured? (4) Do injury rates and severity vary based on the
type of press used or other factors? (5) Have injury rates associated
with the use of power presses increased or declined over time? If so,
why?
B. Power Presses Standard
OSHA seeks comment on how it should update the mechanical power
presses standard. (6) Should OSHA use ANSI B11.1 as the basis for a
standard update? (7) Are there provisions in the ANSI standard not in
the OSHA standard that are important for providing worker protection?
(8) If the agency bases a revised standard on ANSI B11.1, should OSHA
add explanatory material in the form of non-mandatory appendices? (9)
Would employers find a non-mandatory appendix useful if it addressed
similar subjects as the explanatory text in the latest ANSI standard?
(10) What material, if any, should be in the appendices?
The current OSHA mechanical power presses standard specifically
excludes press brakes, bulldozer presses, hot bending and hot metal
presses, forging presses and hammers, riveting machines, and similar
types of fastener applicators. The ANSI B11.1-2009 standard excludes
these as well; however, it also excludes cold headers and formers,
eyelet machines, high-energy-rate presses, iron workers and detail
punches, metal shears, powdered metal presses, press welders, turret
and plate-punching machines, wire termination machines, and welding
machines. (11) If OSHA updates the standard to be consistent with the
provisions of ANSI B11.1-2009 or its equivalent, should OSHA exclude
all of the machines that ANSI B11.1-2009 excludes? (12) If so, why?
(13) Alternatively, should OSHA continue to exclude only the machines
currently excluded by the OSHA standard? (14) Should OSHA exclude any
other machines that ANSI B11.1-2009 does not specifically excluded?
(15) What are these other machines and why should OSHA exclude them?
(16) Is your firm currently complying with the ANSI B11.1 standard?
(17) Is compliance with any of the provisions in the ANSI standard
prohibitively costly? If so, please specify which provisions are
prohibitively costly. (18) Do you believe it would be less costly for
your firm to comply with the ANSI standard as opposed to OSHA's
existing standard? (19) If so, in what areas do you anticipate savings,
including reduced compliance costs and/or improved efficiency?
C. Standards Other Than ANSI Consensus Standards
In the 2007 ANPRM, OSHA asked whether there are other consensus
standards, international standards, or other references that OSHA
should
[[Page 40656]]
consider in updating the mechanical power presses standard. The
majority of commenters discussed the B11.1 standard however, they also
suggested considering standards from the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), Canadian Standards Association (CSA), as well as
other European standards. In this RFI, OSHA again seeks comment on
these standards and whether OSHA should consider them as a basis for an
updated OSHA's standard on power presses.
D. Presses Other Than Mechanical Power Presses
In this RFI, OSHA seeks comment on whether it should regulate other
types of presses, i.e., hydraulic and pneumatic presses. (20) Should
these presses be covered under a new standard written in the fashion of
the existing mechanical power presses standard, Sec. 1910.217? (21)
Should OSHA base any new requirements for hydraulic and pneumatic
presses on ANSI B11.2-2013 (R2020), Safety Requirements for Hydraulic
and Pneumatic Power Presses? (22) Does compliance with the ANSI B11.2-
2013 (R2020) consensus standard provide adequate protection for workers
using hydraulic and pneumatic presses? (23) Are there any ANSI B11.2-
2013 (R2020) provisions or other protections critical to protecting
workers that OSHA should include if the agency decides to propose a
rule addressing non-mechanical power presses? (24) If so, which ones?
(25) Do you currently follow other ANSI consensus standards
corresponding to any other types of presses (for example, ANSI B11.4,
Safety Requirements for Shears)? (26) Are any provisions in this ANSI
standard especially costly or difficult to comply with? (27) If so,
which ones?
OSHA also seeks data and information about the proportion of
pneumatic and hydraulic presses among all presses in use today.
E. Presence-Sensing Device Initiation
Both the ANSI B11.1-2009 standard and the existing OSHA mechanical
power presses standard, Sec. 1910.217, contain requirements for PSDI.
However, unlike the ANSI standard, OSHA's standard requires third-party
validation for PSDI. As previously noted, no third party has stepped
forward to issue such certification.
(28) Should OSHA revise or eliminate its requirements regarding the
use of PSDI systems? (29) Should OSHA base its PSDI requirements on the
PSDI requirements in ANSI B11.1-2009? (30) Are there any types of
operations that should not allow PSDI? (31) If so, which operations and
why? (32) Should OSHA consider an option that includes regulating other
types of power presses? (33) Are there any types of power presses that
should not allow PSDI? (34) If so, which ones and why? (35) Should OSHA
eliminate the third-party validation requirement? OSHA also seeks
comment on whether it should continue to include mandatory and/or non-
mandatory appendices with additional requirements for PSDI.
(36) If OSHA were to eliminate the existing requirements for PSDI
systems, would you incorporate this technology on your existing power
presses? (37) What would it cost to incorporate PSDI technology into
your presses? OSHA previously estimated that the average cost to
convert to PSDI technology would cost between $1,650 and $6,600 per
press in 1988 dollars (https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_final2004.html). OSHA believes that simply inflating that price to
2020 dollars would not adequately reflect the estimated cost of
converting to PSDI technology today because the cost of this technology
has not increased at the same rate as the cost of other goods.
The agency believes that continuing to allow employers to use PSDI
systems will increase productivity. The economic analysis accompanying
the 1985 proposed rule for mechanical power presses estimated that
allowing PSDI systems would result in productivity improvements ranging
between 10 and 50 percent depending on the type of press (50 FR 12700,
Mar. 29, 1985) (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-S225-2006-0706-0168). The analysis of the 1988 final rule estimated that allowing
employers to convert existing presses to PSDI systems would increase
the productivity of each press by an average of about 24 percent (53 FR
8322) (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-S225-2006-0706-0173). (38) Do you agree that PSDI devices would improve productivity?
(39) If so, to what extent? OSHA welcomes any studies or information on
the productivity effects of using PSDI systems.
F. Existing Presses
OSHA seeks comment on the number of power presses in use today
including information on their characteristics. (40) How many power
presses do you use at your facility? (41) What type of presses are they
(mechanical, hydraulic, and pneumatic), and, if any are mechanical, how
many do you use and what percentage of those mechanical power presses
have part-revolution clutches? The agency seeks comment on the service
life of mechanical power presses. (42) What type of press would you
purchase to replace a mechanical power press? (43) What proportion of
those mechanical power presses would you replace with presses equipped
with part-revolution clutches?
(44) If OSHA based a new standard on ANSI B11.1-2009 (R2020), how
many presses currently in use would be out of compliance? (45) Would
you upgrade any of your presses to meet the ANSI B11.1 consensus
standard, or would you replace the presses? (46) What percentage of
your presses would you upgrade versus replace?
OSHA welcomes all data, studies, inventories, or information on the
number of power presses of all types in use and/or the relative
proportion of each type of press.
G. Modifying and Repairing Existing Presses; Records of Maintenance
The current OSHA standard permits any person to reconstruct or
modify a mechanical power press as long as the reconstruction or
modification is performed in accordance with Sec. 1910.217(b).
OSHA seeks comment regarding the modification and repair of power
presses. (47) Should OSHA require that only competent persons perform
these tasks? (48) If so, how should OSHA define the term ``competent
person'' with respect to mechanical power presses? OSHA also seeks
comment on how to handle documentation of maintenance on power presses.
(49) Should OSHA require documentation and, if so, should OSHA require
document retention and access? (50) Who should maintain the
documentation: The manufacturer, the owner, or a third party?
H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
OSHA requires that employers keep separate records and submit
reports for injuries to employees operating mechanical power presses.
These records are specific to OSHA's mechanical power presses standard
and were put in its standard to allow OSHA to track the effectiveness
of its mechanical power presses standard. (51) Are employers aware of
these specific reporting requirements, and that they are additional to
BLS occupational injury data collections and OSHA SIR reporting? (52)
Should OSHA retain these requirements? (53) Should OSHA modify these
requirements and, if so, how?
[[Page 40657]]
I. Affected Industries and Economic Impacts
OSHA believes that all power press workers fall into the BLS
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) aggregate Standard
Occupational Code (SOC) Metal and Plastic Workers (occupational code
51-4000), and specifically into the four occupations denoted in Table
2. OSHA assumes that all workers in these occupations, in most
industries, are using power presses of all kinds.
Table 2--Occupations of Power Press Operators by Standard Occupational
Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOC Occupation title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
51-4022........................... Forging Machine Setters, Operators,
and Tenders, Metal and Plastic.
51-4031........................... Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic.
51-4041........................... Machinists.
51-4199........................... Metal Workers and Plastic Workers,
All Other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: BLS, Occupational Employment Statistics.
For this RFI, OSHA identified affected industries as those
employing workers in the Forging Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Metal and Plastic (SOC 51-4022) occupation; the Cutting,
Punching, and Press Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic (SOC 51-4031) occupation; and the All Other Metal Workers and
Plastic Workers (SOC 51-4199) occupation. Although the BLS data show
workers in these SOC categories employed in retail and wholesale trade,
rental and leasing companies, and various service industries, OSHA
believes these workers are likely performing tasks that do not utilize
mechanical power presses and therefore OSHA did not include them in the
universe of affected industries. The agency welcomes comment on whether
these industries should be included. OSHA included Machinists (OES 51-
4041) in the sum of power press employees (but only in industries that
employed one of the three other occupations) and included all workers
in the above SOC categories in temporary employment agencies and repair
and maintenance industries. These industries and affected employees
appear in Table 3.
Overall, OSHA estimates there are about 550,000 workers working
with power presses. This is probably an overestimation because each of
the selected occupations likely include workers who do not use power
presses.
Based on data from OSHA's 2004 Section 610 Review, the agency
determined that, between 1996 and 2002, large mechanical power presses
(which included all new, part-revolution, mechanical power presses)
represented 9.5 percent of total press production (https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_final2004.html). OSHA has assumed that
this share of press production is roughly equal to the share of power
press workers using mechanical power presses. Therefore, of the
estimated 565,000 power press workers, OSHA estimates that about 53,600
of them operate mechanical power presses.
OSHA acknowledges that this is an imprecise estimate that makes a
number of assumptions, including that large mechanical power presses
are replaced at the same rate as all other power presses and that
workers are evenly distributed among all press types. The agency's
affected mechanical power press employment calculation is an
overestimate if, for example, large mechanical power presses last
longer than other power presses, large mechanical power presses are
increasingly being replaced by other types of presses (non-mechanical),
or if it takes more employees to operate a large mechanical power press
than it does any other press. The agency is also aware that mechanical
power presses are being used less frequently than in the past, and
therefore, OSHA's estimate, which applies an estimation methodology
developed as part of OSHA's Section 610 Review in 2004 to current
employment and establishment data, may not accurately reflect current
mechanical power press employment numbers.
OSHA seeks comments on what occupations employ power press workers.
(54) Do the job titles listed above encompass all power press workers?
(55) If not, what job categories or job titles should OSHA include?
(56) What are the job titles of workers who use power presses at your
facility? (57) Would you classify your facility's power press workers
in one of the occupations listed above or is there a more appropriate
occupational category for them? (58) How many total workers are at your
establishment and how many of those workers use power presses as part
of their job? (59) What types of power presses do they use (mechanical,
pneumatic, hydraulic, or other)? (60) If those employees work on
mechanical power presses, how many (or what percentage) of those
presses have part-revolution clutches?
Table 3 shows total employment and total establishments in the
affected industries.
Table 3--Selected Characteristics of Industries That Employ Mechanical Power Press (MPP) Operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total power Affected Total
NAICS NAICS--title press (large MPP) Total establishments
employees \1\ employees employment \2\ \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
236000................. Construction of 260 25 1,391,532 222,751
Buildings.
237100................. Utility System 340 32 607,919 19,156
Construction.
238000................. Specialty Trade 2,280 217 4,423,714 472,803
Contractors.
311400................. Fruit and Vegetable 0 0 159,258 1,924
Preserving and
Specialty Food
Manufacturing \3\.
316900................. Other Leather and 160 15 11,256 770
Allied Product
Manufacturing.
321000................. Wood Product 1,540 146 415,151 14,463
Manufacturing.
322000................. Paper Manufacturing. 2,350 223 344,537 3,999
323000................. Printing and Related 840 80 438,516 24,809
Support Activities.
325000................. Chemical 2,730 259 798,028 13,615
Manufacturing.
326000................. Plastics and Rubber 27,070 2,572 785,794 12,065
Products
Manufacturing.
[[Page 40658]]
327000................. Nonmetallic Mineral 2,990 284 399,572 15,076
Product
Manufacturing.
331000................. Primary Metal 26,450 2,513 374,837 4,112
Manufacturing.
332000................. Fabricated Metal 209,230 19,877 1,437,086 55,020
Product
Manufacturing.
333000................. Machinery 93,600 8,892 1,057,407 23,060
Manufacturing.
334100................. Computer and 560 53 40,392 916
Peripheral
Equipment
Manufacturing.
334200................. Communications 970 92 82,857 1,260
Equipment
Manufacturing.
334400................. Semiconductor and 6,070 577 257,700 3,789
Other Electronic
Component
Manufacturing.
334500................. Navigational, 8,170 776 383,979 5,201
Measuring,
Electromedical, and
Control Instruments
Manufacturing.
335000................. Electrical 15,640 1,486 345,470 5,549
Equipment,
Appliance, and
Component
Manufacturing.
336000................. Transportation 89,580 8,510 1,585,194 11,567
Equipment
Manufacturing.
337000................. Furniture and 4,340 412 372,286 14,581
Related Product
Manufacturing.
339000................. Miscellaneous 19,810 1,882 550,598 25,811
Manufacturing.
493000................. Warehousing and 310 29 967,386 16,919
Storage.
561300................. Employment Services. 40,160 3,815 6,771,435 53,657
561900................. Other Support 460 44 296,453 20,123
Services.
811000................. Repair and 8,140 773 1,303,518 217,830
Maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals............. .................... 564,050 53,585 25,601,875 1,260,826
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis 2020.
\1\ BLS Occupational Employment Survey 2019.
\2\ County Business Patterns, U.S. Census, 2018.
\3\ OSHA seeks comment regarding possible MPP use in this industry.
OSHA seeks comment on the industries that employ mechanical power
press workers, and, if possible, those that use mechanical power
presses with part-revolution clutches. (61) Are there any affected
industries that the agency has not included in Table 3? (62) If so,
which ones and how are those industries using mechanical power presses?
Estimates based on earlier years of OES data indicated that
mechanical power presses are used in NAICS 311400, Fruit and Vegetable
Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing, while estimates based on
more recent data suggest that there are no mechanical power presses in
use in that industry. Since OSHA derives its estimates from more
aggregate data, the agency recognizes that the updated estimates may be
inadvertently eliminating an industry that should be included in the
scope of an updated mechanical power presses rulemaking. OSHA seeks
comment on the current use of mechanical power presses in the NAICS
311400 industry.
As mentioned earlier, part of OSHA's estimate of large mechanical
power presses depends on information about the service life of
mechanical power presses, and the rate of mechanical power press
replacement relative to other types of presses. To further refine this
estimate, the agency seeks comment on the service life of mechanical
power presses. (63) What type of press do you typically purchase to
replace a mechanical power press? (64) What proportion of those
replacement mechanical power presses are replaced with presses equipped
with part-revolution clutches?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, as amended) requires
OSHA to assess the impact of proposed and final rules on small
entities. OSHA requests small entities to comment on the expected
impacts of a revision to the mechanical power presses standard based on
current consensus standards, including ANSI, CSA, or ISO standards.
Please give specific examples of resource requirements in terms of
additional staffing or time commitments (per job category), costs for
purchase or rental of equipment or materials (dollar cost per unit),
and costs for energy usage and any other additional expenses. (65)
Would small entities face economic or technological feasibility
concerns in complying with a revised standard that references current
consensus standards? (66) If OSHA promulgated standards similar to the
mechanical power presses standard for hydraulic and pneumatic presses,
would this raise any economic or technological feasibility concerns
specific to small businesses? (67) If you identify as a small entity in
your industry, what is the basis for that identification (for example,
reliance on Small Business Administration size standards; https://www.sba.gov/)? If you are uncertain as to your qualifications as a
small entity, please provide details on your establishment size in
terms of number of employees and categories of employee occupations;
industry identification (by North American Industrial Classification
System 6-digit code if available); and the primary types of goods or
services produced by your company. Please describe in detail the
technical or financial concerns that you or other small employers may
encounter when implementing consensus standards addressing mechanical
or other power presses.
J. Other Issues
(68) Are there any other issues related to mechanical, hydraulic,
or pneumatic power presses that OSHA should address? Include issues
remaining from, or not sufficiently addressed in, the 2007 ANPRM.
OSHA encourages comments from manufacturers, owners, and operators
of presses, labor organizations, worker centers, government safety
agencies, standards organizations, and other interested parties. Those
who responded to the original 2007 ANPRM are especially encouraged to
comment, either to confirm their original opinions or to tell us how
those opinions have changed. OSHA invites those who did not respond to
the original 2007
[[Page 40659]]
ANPRM to examine the relevant files at www.regulations.gov.
Authority and Signature
James S. Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, Secretary's Order 08-
2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC.
James S. Frederick,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-15995 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P