Power Presses, 30729-30734 [E7-10655]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
30729
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 72, No. 106
Monday, June 4, 2007
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. OSHA–2007–0003]
RIN 1218–AC22
Power Presses
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), DOL.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Mechanical power press
safety is regulated under OSHA’s
mechanical power presses standard.
OSHA adopted the standard in 1971,
basing it upon the 1971 edition of
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) B11.1, the industry consensus
standard for mechanical power presses.
This ANSI standard has been updated a
number of times since OSHA adopted
the 1971 version. The most recent
edition was issued in 2001. Hydraulic
and pneumatic power presses are not
covered by OSHA’s current standard.
The original standard also did not
address the use of presence-sensingdevice initiation (PSDI) systems. When
a press is equipped with PSDI, the press
cycle will not initiate until the PSDI
system senses that the danger zone is
clear. OSHA updated the mechanical
power presses standard on March 14,
1988, (53 FR 8353), to permit the use of
PSDI systems. However, it requires an
OSHA-approved third party to validate
the PSDI system at installation and
annually thereafter. Since the adoption
of this provision, no third party has
sought OSHA’s approval. Consequently,
PSDI systems are not being used with
mechanical power presses. OSHA is
seeking comments on whether and how
the mechanical power presses standard
should be amended, including whether
the requirements pertaining to the use of
PSDI systems should be revised and
whether the scope of the standard
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 Jun 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
should be expanded to cover other types
of presses.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by
the following dates:
• Hard copy: Submit (postmark or
send) comments by regular mail,
express delivery, hand delivery, and
courier service by August 3, 2007.
• Electronic transmission and
facsimile: Submit comments by August
3, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
Electronically: You may submit
comments and attachments
electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov, which is
the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions on-line for submitting
comments.
Fax: If your comments, including
attachments, are not longer than 10
pages, you may fax them to the OSHA
Docket Office at (202) 693–1648.
Mail, hand delivery, express mail,
messenger or courier service: You must
submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket
Office, Docket No. OSHA–2007–0003,
U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–
2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger and
courier service) are accepted during the
Department of Labor’s and Docket
Office’s normal business hours, 8:15
a.m.–4:45 p.m., e.t.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the Agency name and the OSHA
docket number for this rulemaking
(OSHA Docket No. OSHA–2007–0003).
All comments, including any personal
information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments,
plus additional information on the
rulemaking process, see the ‘‘Public
Participation’’ heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: To read or download
comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov
or the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above. All documents in the
docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index, however,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the Web site.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Press Inquiries: Kevin Ropp, OSHA
Office of Communications, Room N–
3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–1999.
General and Technical Information:
David M. Wallis, OSHA Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, Office of
Engineering Safety, Room N–3609, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone: (202) 693–2277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. OSHA’s Existing Mechanical Power
Presses Standard
B. OSHA’s Section 610 Review of the PSDI
Requirements
II. Request for Data, Information, and
Comments
A. The Scope of the Power Press Standard
B. Consensus Standards Related to
Mechanical Power Presses
C. Technical Issues
D. Cost Issues
E. Training Requirements
F. Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
III. Public Participation
IV. Authority and Signature
I. Background
A. OSHA’s Existing Mechanical Power
Presses Standard
OSHA promulgated § 1910.217, the
standard for mechanical power presses,
in 1971. The standard was based on the
1971 edition of American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) B11.1, the
industry consensus standard on
mechanical power presses. See 39 FR
23732 (June 27, 1974). Hydraulic and
pneumatic power presses are not
covered by the standard. See
§ 1910.217(a)(5).
A mechanical power press is a twopart system, with a stationary bed or
anvil and a movable upper part, the
ram. A die or punch is placed on the
ram and the ram descends into a die
block, which is 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 in mid
E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM
04JNP1
30730
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
cycle. Mechanical power presses are
used in a number of industries,
including fabricated metal, industrial
machinery, and transportation vehicle
parts. These industries all require metal
parts, which are formed in presses, to
create finished products.
If employees are not clear of power
presses when their cycles are initiated,
serious injuries can occur. The
mechanical power presses standard
contains numerous provisions for
protecting employees who work with
and around the presses. In particular,
the standard contains requirements for
safeguarding the ‘‘point of operation’’ of
the press, the area of the press between
the punches and the die block. These
requirements help ensure that
employees are clear of this ‘‘danger
zone’’ when the press is in operation.
The standard requires employers to
ensure ‘‘the usage of ‘point of operation
guards’ or properly applied and
adjusted point of operation devices on
every operation performed on a
mechanical power press.’’ See
§ 1910.217(c)(1)(i).
Point of operation guards on
mechanical power presses prevent entry
of hands or fingers into the point of
operation. Under the standard,
employers can utilize a number of
different types of guard systems: die
enclosure guards, fixed barrier guards,
interlock press barrier guards, and
adjustable barrier guards. See
§ 1910.217(c)(2). Point of operation
devices, on the other hand, are systems
that protect employees by preventing or
stopping the press cycle when hands or
other objects are inadvertently placed in
the point of operation. Examples of
point of operation devices are Type A
gates 1 or movable barrier devices, or
Type B gates 2 or movable barrier
devices, and presence-sensing devices.
See § 1910.217(c)(3). A presence-sensing
device is basically a light curtain or
other sensing device that prevents or
stops the slide motion of the press if the
operator’s hand or other part of the body
is within the sensing field of the device
during the downstroke of the press
slide.
Point of operation devices also
include certain systems that limit how
a press cycle may be initiated. For
1 A Type A gate is a movable barrier device
designed to be held in position during the entire
press cycle (stroke) so that the operator cannot
easily open the movable barrier during the cycle. It
is designed to prevent reentry into the point of
operation in the event of a failure of the press or
its related control equipment when there may be a
repeat cycle of the press.
2 A Type B gate is a movable barrier device
designed for use on part-revolution presses so that
it is held closed during the closing portion of the
cycle (stroke).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 Jun 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
example, the standard allows for twohand initiation devices. See
§ 1910.217(c)(3)(e). The two-hand
devices require the operator to press two
buttons simultaneously in order to
initiate the press cycle; the buttons must
be far enough apart that they cannot be
pressed with one hand. In addition, the
controls must be a certain distance from
the point of operation so that the
controller cannot enter the danger zone
after activating the press. While the twohand controls help protect the
employees operating the presses, they
can be uncomfortable, may increase
worker fatigue, and can increase the
time between press cycles.
The existing standard also includes
requirements for inspecting,
maintaining, and modifying mechanical
power presses to ensure that they are
operating safely. See § 1910.217(e). It
requires operators and maintenance
personnel to be trained in how to use or
inspect power presses safely. See
§ 1910.217(e)(3) and (f)(2). And, it
includes provisions for power press
operation to ensure that there is
sufficient clearance around the
machines for them to operate safely,
among other things. See § 1910.217(f)(4).
These provisions, along with the point
of operation protections above, work to
protect employees working with and
around mechanical power presses.
In 1988, OSHA added paragraph (h) to
§ 1910.217 to allow the use of presencesensing-device initiation on partrevolution mechanical power presses.
PSDI systems initiate press cycles when
the systems indicate that no objects are
within the danger zone. These systems
differ from presence sensing point of
operation devices in that these systems
initiate the press cycles; presence
sensing point of operation devices, as
stated above, stop or prevent the cycles
from occurring if an operator’s hand or
other body parts are in the danger zone.
PSDI systems had been used on
mechanical power presses in Europe for
decades and on an experimental basis
for a 1-year period beginning on August
31, 1976, at one United States facility
under a temporary variance (Interlake
Stamping Corporation (41 FR 36702)).
PSDI systems were also used on nonmechanical power presses and other
types of equipment.
When paragraph (h) was added in
1988, OSHA imposed a number of
requirements for the use of PSDI
systems based upon its analysis of the
rulemaking record, which included
comments from industry, union, and
academic experts. See 53 FR 8322
(March 14, 1988). OSHA required that
every PSDI system be initially validated
by an OSHA-certified third party and re-
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
validated by a certified third party
annually. See § 1910.217(h)(11). The
third-party validation was based on
existing systems in Sweden and
Germany, where the government
certified this type of equipment. OSHA
believed that national testing
laboratories and industry organizations
would conduct the third-party
validation.
In its 1988 rulemaking, OSHA
analyzed the impact of paragraph (h) on
employers as part of its economic
impact analysis. At that time, OSHA
estimated that approximately 73,000
employees would be affected by the
requirements. These employees are
primarily punch and stamping press
operators and job and die setters. OSHA
estimated that 40 percent of the former
group and 20 percent of the latter were
operating mechanical power presses.
OSHA estimated that PSDI would
increase productivity an average of 24.3
percent per press, resulting in industry
savings of about $162 million a year.
See 53 FR 8351 (March 14, 1988). OSHA
also believed, and continues to believe,
that mechanical power presses
equipped with PSDI, if properly
designed, installed, and used, could
reduce the likelihood of accidents.
B. OSHA’s Section 610 Review of the
PSDI Requirements
OSHA is required by Section 610 of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
610) and Executive Order 12866 to
conduct periodic reviews of rules
(‘‘Section 610 Reviews’’). The purpose
of these reviews is to determine whether
such rules should be continued without
change, amended, or rescinded,
consistent with the objectives of
applicable statutes, to minimize any
significant economic impact of the rules
on a substantial number of small
entities. In doing so, the agency takes
into consideration the continued need
for the rule, comments and complaints
received regarding the rule, the
complexity of the rule, whether the rule
is duplicative, and changes in
technology and economic conditions
since the issuance of the rule. The
reviews also examine whether the rules
are compatible with other regulations,
duplicative or inappropriately
burdensome in the aggregate, and
whether and how they could be made
more effective.
OSHA conducted a Section 610
review to determine why PSDI has not
been implemented, and to identify how
the standard could be changed to
facilitate PSDI use in a manner that
protects worker safety. In its August 28,
2002, Federal Register notice (67 FR
55181) informing the public about the
E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM
04JNP1
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
review and soliciting comments, OSHA
presented four options for revising the
standard:
Option 1—Update all of § 1910.217 to
be consistent with ANSI B11.1–2001 or
something similar.
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; leave the other PSDI
requirements intact.
Option 4—Replace OSHA’s current
PSDI requirements with the PSDI
requirements in the new ANSI B11.1.
The Agency published its final report
on the review in May 2004 and notified
the public of its availability on June 8,
2004 (69 FR 31927). The review
includes information on the main
industry categories using mechanical
power presses and estimates of injury
trends. The review states that there were
194,891 presses of all types in use in
1996. Mechanical power presses are
used mainly in the following
manufacturing industry categories:
fabricated metal, industrial machinery,
electrical machinery, transportation
vehicle parts, and precision
instruments. The review also included
information about injuries caused by
mechanical power presses. It found that
there were 774 mechanical power press
accidents reported to OSHA from 1995–
2000 under 29 CFR 1910.217(g), which
requires employers to report to OSHA
all point of operation injuries. It also
cited BLS data that approximately 6,000
injuries per year occurred on
nonprinting presses (including
mechanical power presses and other
types of presses) from 1992 to 1999.
Based on analyses and information
obtained during the Section 610 review,
OSHA committed to pursuing Option 1,
to update all of § 1910.217 to be
consistent with ANSI B11.1–2001 or
something similar [Ex. OSHA–2007–
0003–0002]. Option 1 addressed
concerns that the mechanical power
presses standard as a whole is out-ofdate and could be made safer. While
PSDI system technology has not
changed since paragraph (h) was
adopted in 1988, the technology used to
control and guard mechanical power
presses has changed considerably since
§ 1910.217 was adopted. For instance,
some mechanical power presses now
use operational modes not addressed in
§ 1910.217 (such as computer controls),
which introduce hazards also not
addressed by the standard. Five of the
nine commenters who responded to
OSHA’s August 28, 2002, Federal
Register notice recommended that
OSHA replace the entire mechanical
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 Jun 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
power press standard with ANSI B11.1–
2001. They argued that PSDI is an
integral part of that ANSI standard,
which has no validation requirement.
Furthermore, they argued that an update
is overdue, would create a range of
benefits, and would lead to
implementation of PSDI [Ex. OSHA–
2007–0003–0002]. OSHA agrees with
these commenters and believes that
such an update would result in
improved safety and health protections
for operators of mechanical power
presses as well as for other employees
in the machine area.
II. Request for Data, Information, and
Comments
The Agency is considering a broad
range of issues in its development of a
proposed update to the mechanical
power presses standard. The issues to be
considered go beyond those of the
current mechanical power presses
standard and include broadening the
scope of the standard to include other
types of presses, equipment, and
processes not previously addressed.
OSHA invites comments on the
questions below. The questions are
grouped into six broad categories: The
scope of the standard; industry
consensus standards related to
mechanical power presses; technical
issues; training requirements; reporting
requirements; and employer
responsibilities. However, commenters
are encouraged to address any aspect of
power presses, including pneumatic,
hydraulic, and other presses, which
would assist the Agency in its
consideration of what action is
appropriate. The Agency is particularly
interested in ways to incorporate
flexibility into its standard to make it
more protective as well as easier to
comply with. Please provide a detailed
response to the questions, as well as any
supporting information or data, to better
assist the Agency in its consideration of
these matters.
A. The Scope of the Power Press
Standard
1. As stated above, the current OSHA
standard covers only mechanical power
presses. OSHA is considering changing
the scope of the standard to include
other types of power presses, such as
hydraulic presses and pneumatic
presses. Do the existing general machine
guarding requirements in § 1910.212
adequately protect employees operating
non-mechanical power presses, and do
they provide adequate flexibility to
employers who use such presses?
Should OSHA regulate all power
presses under one standard or under
multiple standards? Should OSHA
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30731
address non-mechanical power presses
in this rulemaking action to update
§ 1910.217? Are there general
requirements that should apply broadly
to all types of power presses?
2. If OSHA does broaden the scope of
the standard to include other types of
presses, what other types of power
presses should OSHA specifically
include? Why?
3. The current OSHA standard
specifically excludes press brakes,
hydraulic and pneumatic power presses,
bulldozers, hot bending and hot metal
presses, forging presses and hammers,
riveting machines, and similar types of
fastener applicators. The ANSI B11.1–
2001 standard excludes these as well;
however, it also excludes cold headers
and formers, eyelet machines, highenergy-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. If OSHA updates the
standard to be consistent with the
provisions of ANSI B11.1–2001 or its
equivalent, should OSHA exclude all of
the machines that are excluded in ANSI
B11.1–2001? Why? Should OSHA
exclude any other machines that are not
specifically excluded in ANSI B11.1–
2001? Why?
4. Since it has been more than 30
years since OSHA’s adoption of its
mechanical power press standard,
OSHA realizes that changes in
technology may have affected the way
industry sectors operate. Are there
mechanical power presses in use today
that—due to their unique
characteristics—are not covered by
OSHA’s current standard? Please supply
OSHA with information about these
presses. Does the current standard cover
any equipment that is no longer in use?
Would adoption of ANSI B11.1–2001 or
something similar render equipment
currently in use obsolete? Is there
equipment that is currently in use that
should be grandfathered into a revised
OSHA standard that would otherwise
restrict the use of such equipment?
Why?
B. Consensus Standards Related to
Mechanical Power Presses
5. As stated above, OSHA intends to
update the mechanical power press
standard to be consistent with ANSI
B11.1–2001 or something similar. Are
there any obstacles to complying with a
new standard that is based on ANSI
B11.1–2001 or its equivalent?
6. Are there provisions in the current
ANSI standard that should not be the
basis for provisions in the revised
OSHA standard? Should OSHA include
E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM
04JNP1
30732
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
any provisions that are not covered by
the ANSI standard? If so, what are the
provisions?
7. Should the Agency include
information from the appendices or the
explanatory information columns
contained in the ANSI B11.1 standard in
the revised OSHA standard? If so, what
information in particular should OSHA
consider?
8. Are there other consensus
standards, international standards, or
other references OSHA should consider
in updating its mechanical power
presses standard? If so, which ones
should OSHA consider in drafting a
proposed rule?
9. Some of the technical definitions
and requirements in the ANSI standard,
including those for the reliability and
classes of control systems, are not
contained within the standard itself but
are instead found in technical reports to
the ANSI B11.1 committee. Should
these reports serve as one of the bases
for a revised OSHA standard? If so, what
specific information from these reports
should OSHA consider?
C. Technical Issues
10. During the Section 610 review,
OSHA found that there has been some
decline in mechanical power press use
in the United States in the last 20 years.
Please provide any information you
have on current mechanical power press
use.
11. Are there other developments in
the use of mechanical power presses
that are relevant for OSHA’s
development of a proposal? For
example, the Section 610 review
indicated that computer-controlled
presses are increasingly common. How
has the increased use of computercontrolled presses—as well as other
technological developments—affected
safety and productivity in the
workplace?
12. 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 § 1910.217(b). The ANSI B11.1–
2001 standard permits only suppliers to
reconstruct or modify a mechanical
power press, as in ANSI B11.1–2001
paragraphs 4.1 through 4.1.3 [Ex.
OSHA–2007–0003–0003]. Should
OSHA similarly limit press
reconstruction and modification to the
supplier of the equipment? Why?
Should a revised OSHA standard
address the qualifications of persons
who reconstruct or modify mechanical
power press equipment?
13. OSHA’s current standard requires
third-party validation for PSDI such that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 Jun 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
a single failure or single operating error
may not cause injury to personnel from
a point-of-operation hazard. Appendix
A, Certification/Validation
Requirements. Should OSHA retain
some form of third-party validation, but
remove this aspect of the validation
criteria?
14. If the Agency does not require
third-party validation, would the
certification requirements found in the
following paragraphs be necessary:
§ 1910.217(h)(5)(i) (adjusting brake
monitoring during installation
certification); (h)(9)(ii)(B) (certification
of alternatives to photo-electric light
curtains); and (h)(11)(i)(B), (h)(11)(ii),
(h)(11)(iii), (h)(11)(v) (safety system
certification/validation)? Why or why
not?
15. OSHA’s current PSDI provisions
include requirements for brakes and
clutches that are not found in the ANSI
B11.1–2001 standard. See
§ 1910.217(h)(2). Should OSHA retain
these or similar requirements in a
revised standard? Why? Should OSHA
remove the provisions entirely? Why?
Would removing these provisions
adversely impact employee safety or are
these provisions unnecessary given the
PSDI systems currently available?
16. OSHA’s current PSDI standard
includes provisions for flywheels and
bearings that are not included in the
ANSI B11.1–2001 standard. See
§ 1910.217(h)(4). Should OSHA retain
these requirements or something
similar? Why? Would removing these
provisions adversely impact employee
safety or are these provisions
unnecessary given the PSDI systems
currently available?
17. OSHA currently limits PSDI
systems to normal production
operations (and not die-setting or
maintenance procedures). See
§ 1910.217(h)(1)(v). Should OSHA
continue this limitation? Why?
18. Are there any guarding methods or
safety equipment in use today not
covered by OSHA’s current standard?
Please supply OSHA with information
about them. Does the current standard
cover any guarding method or safety
equipment no longer in use?
19. Are there any guarding methods or
safety equipment in use today that the
current ANSI standard does not
address? Does the current ANSI
standard cover any guarding method or
safety equipment no longer in use?
20. OSHA’s current standard has no
specific provisions covering computercontrolled mechanical power presses.
To what extent are employers using
computer-controlled mechanical power
presses? Are these types of presses
becoming more common? What
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
procedures, guarding methods, and
safety considerations are used when
using these types of presses? Are there
any special hazards or concerns when
using computer-controlled mechanical
power presses of which the Agency
should be aware?
21. OSHA’s current mechanical power
press standard has no specific
provisions covering servo-actuated
presses. To what extent are employers
using servo-actuated presses? Are these
types of presses becoming more
common? What procedures, guarding
methods, and safety considerations are
used when using these types of presses?
Are there any special hazards or
concerns when using servo-actuated
presses of which the Agency should be
aware?
D. Cost Issues
22. What has been the experience of
PSDI systems on mechanical power
presses and other machines
internationally, particularly in Europe?
What additional costs have been
involved in integrating them into
manufacturing operations? What have
been the benefits in terms of safety and
productivity?
23. What has been the experience of
PSDI systems with regard to other types
of machines in the United States (i.e.,
those not covered by the mechanical
power press rule)?
24. Are there estimates of the cost
savings of using PSDI systems more
widely? Are there mechanical power
presses where PSDI would provide few
or no cost savings?
25. OSHA’s Section 610 review of the
mechanical power press rule indicated
that in many cases mechanical power
presses are being replaced with
hydraulic presses. How widespread is
this trend and what are the reasons for
it? How much of this is related to
underlying technological and economic
trends?
E. Training Requirements
26. OSHA’s current standard at
§ 1910.217(f) requires employers to train
employees on safe methods of work.
However, the standard does not spell
out specific training or retraining
requirements. Should OSHA change its
existing performance-oriented approach
with specific training and retraining
provisions? Why?
27. The ANSI B11.1–2001 standard
includes more detailed training
requirements than the OSHA standard
[Ex. OSHA–2007–0003–0003]. Should
OSHA adopt ANSI’s approach to
training? Why?
28. Are there any training or
retraining requirements that are not
E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM
04JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
found in the OSHA or ANSI standards
that OSHA should include in the
updated standard? If so, what are they
and why should OSHA include them?
Are there any training or retraining
requirements that are found in the ANSI
standard that OSHA should not include
in the updated standard? If so, what are
they and why should OSHA not include
them in the updated standard?
29. OSHA’s current standard does not
specify how often training should occur.
Should OSHA specifically require
annual or semiannual training? Should
retraining only be required when
employees are observed improperly
operating equipment, or are there other
times when employees should be
retrained?
30. When OSHA adopted the PSDI
provisions, it also added specific
training requirements for employers
using PSDI systems. See
§ 1910.217(h)(13). Are those
requirements sufficient to ensure
operators are effectively trained in PSDI
operation? Should OSHA expand or
reduce the training requirements for
PSDI systems?
31. The current standard requires at
§ 1910.217(h)(13)(ii) that employers
certify employee training for PSDI.
Should OSHA retain this requirement,
or require other training
documentation? Why or why not?
F. Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
32. The current standard requires at
§ 1910.217(h)(9)(ii)(B) that employers
notify OSHA 3 months before the
operation of any alternative system to
photo-electric light curtains. The
notification must include ‘‘the name of
the system to be installed, the
manufacturer and the OSHA-recognized
third-party validation organization
immediately.’’ Should OSHA retain this
requirement or a similar requirement in
a revised standard?
33. Paragraph § 1910.217(g) requires
employers to report to OSHA within 30
days any point of operation injury to
operators or other employees. Do
employers also use this information for
their own purposes? If so, how? Should
OSHA eliminate this requirement? Why
or why not?
34. Under paragraph (e)(1)(i),
employers must maintain a certification
record of periodic and regular
inspections of power presses. This
certification must contain: The date of
the inspection; the signature of the
person who performed the inspection;
and the serial number or other identifier
of the power press inspected. Similarly,
paragraph (e)(2)(ii) requires employers
to maintain a record of required
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 Jun 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
inspections, tests, and maintenance on
the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat
feature and single stroke mechanism;
these inspections and tests must occur
at least once a week. As with the
certification required by paragraph
(e)(1)(i), the record must contain: The
date of the inspection, test or
maintenance; the signature of the person
performing the inspection, test, or
maintenance; and the serial number or
other identifier of the press. Should
OSHA include these requirements in a
revised standard? Why? Should OSHA
require employers to maintain any
additional information in the records,
such as the types of repairs made, or is
there information that should not be
specifically required? Is a signature of
the person performing the inspection,
test, or maintenance necessary or would
the name suffice for the record?
35. Currently, ANSI B11.1–2001
specifies that an inspection program be
established with ‘‘regular’’ inspection of
presses, but does not specify the time
frames for such inspections [Ex. OSHA–
2007–0003–0003]. Also, ANSI B11.1–
2001 does not specify what information
employers should maintain in
inspection records [Ex. OSHA–2007–
0003–0003]. Should OSHA adopt
ANSI’s performance-oriented approach
in a revised standard? Why? If OSHA
were to adopt provisions similar to the
ANSI provisions, how could the Agency
determine whether an employer’s
inspections were conducted at a
reasonable frequency?
36. OSHA’s current standard specifies
that each employer inspect and test each
press at least once a week to determine
the condition of the clutch/brake
mechanism, antirepeat feature and
single stroke mechanism. Should OSHA
expand or reduce the time interval
between these inspections and tests?
Should any other elements be inspected
or tested this frequently? Do any of
these elements need less frequent
inspection or testing?
37. ANSI B11.1–2001 permits users to
determine the content of inspections
and testing [Ex. OSHA–2007–0003–
0003]. Should OSHA adopt this type of
performance-based approach in the
revised standard? How would OSHA
enforce such a requirement? Would
adopting ANSI’s approach lead to more
press failures? Why?
III. Public Participation
Submission of Comments and Access to
Docket
You may submit comments in
response to this document (1)
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov, which is the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30733
Federal eRulemaking Portal; (2) by
facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments and other
material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this
rulemaking (OSHA Docket No. OSHA–
2007–0003). You may supplement
electronic submissions by uploading
document files electronically. If,
instead, you wish to mail additional
materials in reference to an electronic or
fax submission, you must submit three
copies to the OSHA Docket Office (see
ADDRESSES section). The additional
materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by name, date, and
docket number so OSHA can attach
them to your comments.
Because of security-related
procedures, the use of regular mail may
cause a significant delay in the receipt
of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the
delivery of materials by hand, express
delivery, messenger or courier service,
please contact the OSHA Docket Office
at (202) 693–2350 (TTY (877) 889–
5627).
Comments and submissions are
posted without change at https://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA
cautions commenters about submitting
personal information such as social
security numbers and date of birth.
Although all submissions are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov index,
some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to
read or download through https://
www.regulations.gov. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at
the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the https://www.regulations.gov
Web site to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the Web
site’s User Tips link. Contact the OSHA
Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web
site and for assistance in using the
internet to locate docket submissions.
Electronic copies of this Federal
Register document are available at
https://www.regulations.gov. This
document, as well as news releases and
other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA’s Web page at https://
www.osha.gov.
IV. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under
the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. This action is taken pursuant
to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary
E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM
04JNP1
30734
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Proposed Rules
of Labor’s Order No. 5–2002 (67 FR
65008), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of
May 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. E7–10655 Filed 6–1–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
32 CFR Chapter XVII
Freedom of Information Act
Regulations
Office of the Director of
National Intelligence.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This proposed regulation will
provide the public the guidelines under
which the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence will implement
the Freedom of Information Act, 5
U.S.C. 552.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
July 5, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Chief FOIA Officer c/o Director
of Intelligence Staff, Office of the
Director of National Intelligence,
Washington, DC 20511.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
John F. Hackett, (703) 482–1707.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office
of the Director of National Intelligence
(ODNI) was created by the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004, Public Law 108–458, 118 Stat.
3638. The first Director of National
Intelligence, Ambassador John D.
Negroponte, was sworn into Office on
April 21, 2005, and the ODNI began
operations on April 22, 2005. Because
the majority of documents held by the
ODNI at its inception were previously
maintained by the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), and because the ODNI
did not have a FOIA staff upon standup, the CIA agreed to handle the
administrative aspects of the ODNI’s
FOIA processing. Through this
arrangement, the ODNI makes all legal
decisions regarding the handling of
FOIA requests for ODNI records and the
CIA assists with the administrative tasks
associated with processing FOIA
requests, including the intake and
tracking of requests, as well as drafting
correspondence to requesters. The ODNI
has gradually built up its FOIA program
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:42 Jun 01, 2007
Jkt 211001
and is now proposing its own FOIA
regulations. The proposed regulations
address all aspects of FOIA processing,
including how and where to submit
FOIA requests, fees for record services,
procedures for handling business
information, requests for expedited
processing and the right to appeal
denials of information.
Therefore, as discussed in the
preamble, and under the authority of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108–
458, 118 Stat. 3638, the ODNI proposes
to establish 32 CFR Chapter XVII and
add part 1700 to read as follows:
CHAPTER XVII—OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
PART 1700—PROCEDURES FOR
DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS UNDER
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Sec.
1700.1 Authority and purpose.
1700.2 Definitions.
1700.3 Contact for general information and
requests.
1700.4 Suggestions and complaints.
1700.5 Preliminary information.
1700.6 Requirements as to form and
content.
1700.7 Fees for records services.
1700.8 Processing of requests for records.
1700.9 Action on the request.
1700.10 Payment of fees, notification of
decision, and right of appeal.
1700.11 Procedures for business
information.
1700.12 Procedures for information
concerning other persons.
1700.13 Allocation of resources.
1700.14 Requests for expedited processing.
1700.15 Right of appeal and appeal
procedures.
1700.16 Action by appeals authority.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 50 U.S.C. 401–
442; Pub L. 108–458, 188 Stat. 3638.
§ 1700.1
Authority and purpose.
(a) Authority: This part is issued
under the authority of and in order to
implement the Freedom of Information
Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552; the
National Security Act of 1947, as
amended, 50 U.S.C. 401–442; and the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108–
458, 118 Stat. 3638.
(b) Purpose in general. This part
prescribes procedures for:
(1) ODNI administration of the FOIA;
(2) Requesting records pursuant to the
FOIA; and
(3) Filing an administrative appeal of
an initial adverse decision under the
FOIA.
§ 1700.2
Definitions.
For purposes of this part, the
following terms have the meanings
indicated:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(a) Days means calendar days when
ODNI is operating and specifically
excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
public holidays;
(b) Control means actual possession
and ownership or the authority of ODNI
pursuant to federal statute or privilege
to regulate official or public access to a
particular record or records. It does not
establish an obligation to create any
record or data compilation, although
ODNI reserves the right to offer
production of a compilation as an
alternative to production of records;
(c) Direct costs means those
expenditures which ODNI actually
incurs in the processing of a FOIA
request; it does not include overhead
factors such as space;
(d) Pages means paper copies of
standard office size or the dollar value
equivalent in other media;
(e) Reproduction means generation of
a copy of a requested record in a form
appropriate for release;
(f) Review means all time expended in
examining a record to determine
whether any portion must be withheld
pursuant to law and in effecting any
required deletions but excludes
personnel hours expended in resolving
general legal or policy issues; it also
means personnel hours of professional
time;
(g) Search means all time expended in
looking for and retrieving material that
may be responsive to a request utilizing
available paper and electronic indices
and finding aids; it also means
personnel hours of professional time or
the dollar value equivalent in computer
searches;
(h) Employee or staff member means
any employee, detailee, assignee,
employee of a contracting organization
or independent contractor of the ODNI
or any of its component organizations,
unless otherwise excepted;
(i) Expression of interest means a
written or electronic communication
submitted by any person requesting
information on or concerning the FOIA
program, the availability of documents
from ODNI, or both;
(j) Fees means those direct costs
which may be assessed a requester
considering the categories established
by the FOIA; requesters should submit
information to assist the ODNI in
determining the proper fee category and
the ODNI may draw reasonable
inferences from the identity and
activities of the requester in making
such determinations; the fee categories
include:
(1) Commercial: A request in which
the disclosure sought is primarily in the
commercial interest of the requester and
E:\FR\FM\04JNP1.SGM
04JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 106 (Monday, June 4, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30729-30734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10655]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 30729]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0003]
RIN 1218-AC22
Power Presses
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOL.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Mechanical power press safety is regulated under OSHA's
mechanical power presses standard. OSHA adopted the standard in 1971,
basing it upon the 1971 edition of American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) B11.1, the industry consensus standard for mechanical
power presses. This ANSI standard has been updated a number of times
since OSHA adopted the 1971 version. The most recent edition was issued
in 2001. Hydraulic and pneumatic power presses are not covered by
OSHA's current standard. The original standard also did not address the
use of presence-sensing-device initiation (PSDI) systems. When a press
is equipped with PSDI, the press cycle will not initiate until the PSDI
system senses that the danger zone is clear. OSHA updated the
mechanical power presses standard on March 14, 1988, (53 FR 8353), to
permit the use of PSDI systems. However, it requires an OSHA-approved
third party to validate the PSDI system at installation and annually
thereafter. Since the adoption of this provision, no third party has
sought OSHA's approval. Consequently, PSDI systems are not being used
with mechanical power presses. OSHA is seeking comments on whether and
how the mechanical power presses standard should be amended, including
whether the requirements pertaining to the use of PSDI systems should
be revised and whether the scope of the standard should be expanded to
cover other types of presses.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
Hard copy: Submit (postmark or send) comments by regular
mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and courier service by August 3,
2007.
Electronic transmission and facsimile: Submit comments by
August 3, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for submitting
comments.
Fax: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer than
10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-1648.
Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service:
You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0003, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0003). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at https://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments, plus additional information on the rulemaking
process, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All 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 the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Press Inquiries: Kevin Ropp, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-
3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999.
General and Technical Information: David M. Wallis, OSHA
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Office of Engineering Safety,
Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. OSHA's Existing Mechanical Power Presses Standard
B. OSHA's Section 610 Review of the PSDI Requirements
II. Request for Data, Information, and Comments
A. The Scope of the Power Press Standard
B. Consensus Standards Related to Mechanical Power Presses
C. Technical Issues
D. Cost Issues
E. Training Requirements
F. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
III. Public Participation
IV. Authority and Signature
I. Background
A. OSHA's Existing Mechanical Power Presses Standard
OSHA promulgated Sec. 1910.217, the standard for mechanical power
presses, in 1971. The standard was based on the 1971 edition of
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B11.1, the industry
consensus standard on mechanical power presses. See 39 FR 23732 (June
27, 1974). Hydraulic and pneumatic power presses are not covered by the
standard. See Sec. 1910.217(a)(5).
A mechanical power press is a two-part system, with a stationary
bed or anvil and a movable upper part, the ram. A die or punch is
placed on the ram and the ram descends into a die block, which is
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 in
mid
[[Page 30730]]
cycle. Mechanical power presses are used in a number of industries,
including fabricated metal, industrial machinery, and transportation
vehicle parts. These industries all require metal parts, which are
formed in presses, to create finished products.
If employees are not clear of power presses when their cycles are
initiated, serious injuries can occur. The mechanical power presses
standard contains numerous provisions for protecting employees who work
with and around the presses. In particular, the standard contains
requirements for safeguarding the ``point of operation'' of the press,
the area of the press between the punches and the die block. These
requirements help ensure that employees are clear of this ``danger
zone'' when the press is in operation. The standard requires employers
to ensure ``the usage of `point of operation guards' or properly
applied and adjusted point of operation devices on every operation
performed on a mechanical power press.'' See Sec. 1910.217(c)(1)(i).
Point of operation guards on mechanical power presses prevent entry
of hands or fingers into the point of operation. Under the standard,
employers can utilize a number of different types of guard systems: die
enclosure guards, fixed barrier guards, interlock press barrier guards,
and adjustable barrier guards. See Sec. 1910.217(c)(2). Point of
operation devices, on the other hand, are systems that protect
employees by preventing or stopping the press cycle when hands or other
objects are inadvertently placed in the point of operation. Examples of
point of operation devices are Type A gates \1\ or movable barrier
devices, or Type B gates \2\ or movable barrier devices, and presence-
sensing devices. See Sec. 1910.217(c)(3). A presence-sensing device is
basically a light curtain or other sensing device that prevents or
stops the slide motion of the press if the operator's hand or other
part of the body is within the sensing field of the device during the
downstroke of the press slide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A Type A gate is a movable barrier device designed to be
held in position during the entire press cycle (stroke) so that the
operator cannot easily open the movable barrier during the cycle. It
is designed to prevent reentry into the point of operation in the
event of a failure of the press or its related control equipment
when there may be a repeat cycle of the press.
\2\ A Type B gate is a movable barrier device designed for use
on part-revolution presses so that it is held closed during the
closing portion of the cycle (stroke).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of operation devices also include certain systems that limit
how a press cycle may be initiated. For example, the standard allows
for two-hand initiation devices. See Sec. 1910.217(c)(3)(e). The two-
hand devices require the operator to press two buttons simultaneously
in order to initiate the press cycle; the buttons must be far enough
apart that they cannot be pressed with one hand. In addition, the
controls must be a certain distance from the point of operation so that
the controller cannot enter the danger zone after activating the press.
While the two-hand controls help protect the employees operating the
presses, they can be uncomfortable, may increase worker fatigue, and
can increase the time between press cycles.
The existing standard also includes requirements for inspecting,
maintaining, and modifying mechanical power presses to ensure that they
are operating safely. See Sec. 1910.217(e). It requires operators and
maintenance personnel to be trained in how to use or inspect power
presses safely. See Sec. 1910.217(e)(3) and (f)(2). And, it includes
provisions for power press operation to ensure that there is sufficient
clearance around the machines for them to operate safely, among other
things. See Sec. 1910.217(f)(4). These provisions, along with the
point of operation protections above, work to protect employees working
with and around mechanical power presses.
In 1988, OSHA added paragraph (h) to Sec. 1910.217 to allow the
use of presence-sensing-device initiation on part-revolution mechanical
power presses. PSDI systems initiate press cycles when the systems
indicate that no objects are within the danger zone. These systems
differ from presence sensing point of operation devices in that these
systems initiate the press cycles; presence sensing point of operation
devices, as stated above, stop or prevent the cycles from occurring if
an operator's hand or other body parts are in the danger zone. PSDI
systems had been used on mechanical power presses in Europe for decades
and on an experimental basis for a 1-year period beginning on August
31, 1976, at one United States facility under a temporary variance
(Interlake Stamping Corporation (41 FR 36702)). PSDI systems were also
used on non-mechanical power presses and other types of equipment.
When paragraph (h) was added in 1988, OSHA imposed a number of
requirements for the use of PSDI systems based upon its analysis of the
rulemaking record, which included comments from industry, union, and
academic experts. See 53 FR 8322 (March 14, 1988). OSHA required that
every PSDI system be initially validated by an OSHA-certified third
party and re-validated by a certified third party annually. See Sec.
1910.217(h)(11). The third-party validation was based on existing
systems in Sweden and Germany, where the government certified this type
of equipment. OSHA believed that national testing laboratories and
industry organizations would conduct the third-party validation.
In its 1988 rulemaking, OSHA analyzed the impact of paragraph (h)
on employers as part of its economic impact analysis. At that time,
OSHA estimated that approximately 73,000 employees would be affected by
the requirements. These employees are primarily punch and stamping
press operators and job and die setters. OSHA estimated that 40 percent
of the former group and 20 percent of the latter were operating
mechanical power presses. OSHA estimated that PSDI would increase
productivity an average of 24.3 percent per press, resulting in
industry savings of about $162 million a year. See 53 FR 8351 (March
14, 1988). OSHA also believed, and continues to believe, that
mechanical power presses equipped with PSDI, if properly designed,
installed, and used, could reduce the likelihood of accidents.
B. OSHA's Section 610 Review of the PSDI Requirements
OSHA is required by Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 610) and Executive Order 12866 to conduct periodic reviews of
rules (``Section 610 Reviews''). The purpose of these reviews is to
determine whether such rules should be continued without change,
amended, or rescinded, consistent with the objectives of applicable
statutes, to minimize any significant economic impact of the rules on a
substantial number of small entities. In doing so, the agency takes
into consideration the continued need for the rule, comments and
complaints received regarding the rule, the complexity of the rule,
whether the rule is duplicative, and changes in technology and economic
conditions since the issuance of the rule. The reviews also examine
whether the rules are compatible with other regulations, duplicative or
inappropriately burdensome in the aggregate, and whether and how they
could be made more effective.
OSHA conducted a Section 610 review to determine why PSDI has not
been implemented, and to identify how the standard could be changed to
facilitate PSDI use in a manner that protects worker safety. In its
August 28, 2002, Federal Register notice (67 FR 55181) informing the
public about the
[[Page 30731]]
review and soliciting comments, OSHA presented four options for
revising the standard:
Option 1--Update all of Sec. 1910.217 to be consistent with ANSI
B11.1-2001 or something similar.
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; leave the
other PSDI requirements intact.
Option 4--Replace OSHA's current PSDI requirements with the PSDI
requirements in the new ANSI B11.1.
The Agency published its final report on the review in May 2004 and
notified the public of its availability on June 8, 2004 (69 FR 31927).
The review includes information on the main industry categories using
mechanical power presses and estimates of injury trends. The review
states that there were 194,891 presses of all types in use in 1996.
Mechanical power presses are used mainly in the following manufacturing
industry categories: fabricated metal, industrial machinery, electrical
machinery, transportation vehicle parts, and precision instruments. The
review also included information about injuries caused by mechanical
power presses. It found that there were 774 mechanical power press
accidents reported to OSHA from 1995-2000 under 29 CFR 1910.217(g),
which requires employers to report to OSHA all point of operation
injuries. It also cited BLS data that approximately 6,000 injuries per
year occurred on nonprinting presses (including mechanical power
presses and other types of presses) from 1992 to 1999.
Based on analyses and information obtained during the Section 610
review, OSHA committed to pursuing Option 1, to update all of Sec.
1910.217 to be consistent with ANSI B11.1-2001 or something similar
[Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0002]. Option 1 addressed concerns that the
mechanical power presses standard as a whole is out-of-date and could
be made safer. While PSDI system technology has not changed since
paragraph (h) was adopted in 1988, the technology used to control and
guard mechanical power presses has changed considerably since Sec.
1910.217 was adopted. For instance, some mechanical power presses now
use operational modes not addressed in Sec. 1910.217 (such as computer
controls), which introduce hazards also not addressed by the standard.
Five of the nine commenters who responded to OSHA's August 28, 2002,
Federal Register notice recommended that OSHA replace the entire
mechanical power press standard with ANSI B11.1-2001. They argued that
PSDI is an integral part of that ANSI standard, which has no validation
requirement. Furthermore, they argued that an update is overdue, would
create a range of benefits, and would lead to implementation of PSDI
[Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0002]. OSHA agrees with these commenters and
believes that such an update would result in improved safety and health
protections for operators of mechanical power presses as well as for
other employees in the machine area.
II. Request for Data, Information, and Comments
The Agency is considering a broad range of issues in its
development of a proposed update to the mechanical power presses
standard. The issues to be considered go beyond those of the current
mechanical power presses standard and include broadening the scope of
the standard to include other types of presses, equipment, and
processes not previously addressed.
OSHA invites comments on the questions below. The questions are
grouped into six broad categories: The scope of the standard; industry
consensus standards related to mechanical power presses; technical
issues; training requirements; reporting requirements; and employer
responsibilities. However, commenters are encouraged to address any
aspect of power presses, including pneumatic, hydraulic, and other
presses, which would assist the Agency in its consideration of what
action is appropriate. The Agency is particularly interested in ways to
incorporate flexibility into its standard to make it more protective as
well as easier to comply with. Please provide a detailed response to
the questions, as well as any supporting information or data, to better
assist the Agency in its consideration of these matters.
A. The Scope of the Power Press Standard
1. As stated above, the current OSHA standard covers only
mechanical power presses. OSHA is considering changing the scope of the
standard to include other types of power presses, such as hydraulic
presses and pneumatic presses. Do the existing general machine guarding
requirements in Sec. 1910.212 adequately protect employees operating
non-mechanical power presses, and do they provide adequate flexibility
to employers who use such presses? Should OSHA regulate all power
presses under one standard or under multiple standards? Should OSHA
address non-mechanical power presses in this rulemaking action to
update Sec. 1910.217? Are there general requirements that should apply
broadly to all types of power presses?
2. If OSHA does broaden the scope of the standard to include other
types of presses, what other types of power presses should OSHA
specifically include? Why?
3. The current OSHA standard specifically excludes press brakes,
hydraulic and pneumatic power presses, bulldozers, hot bending and hot
metal presses, forging presses and hammers, riveting machines, and
similar types of fastener applicators. The ANSI B11.1-2001 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. If OSHA updates the standard to be consistent with
the provisions of ANSI B11.1-2001 or its equivalent, should OSHA
exclude all of the machines that are excluded in ANSI B11.1-2001? Why?
Should OSHA exclude any other machines that are not specifically
excluded in ANSI B11.1-2001? Why?
4. Since it has been more than 30 years since OSHA's adoption of
its mechanical power press standard, OSHA realizes that changes in
technology may have affected the way industry sectors operate. Are
there mechanical power presses in use today that--due to their unique
characteristics--are not covered by OSHA's current standard? Please
supply OSHA with information about these presses. Does the current
standard cover any equipment that is no longer in use? Would adoption
of ANSI B11.1-2001 or something similar render equipment currently in
use obsolete? Is there equipment that is currently in use that should
be grandfathered into a revised OSHA standard that would otherwise
restrict the use of such equipment? Why?
B. Consensus Standards Related to Mechanical Power Presses
5. As stated above, OSHA intends to update the mechanical power
press standard to be consistent with ANSI B11.1-2001 or something
similar. Are there any obstacles to complying with a new standard that
is based on ANSI B11.1-2001 or its equivalent?
6. Are there provisions in the current ANSI standard that should
not be the basis for provisions in the revised OSHA standard? Should
OSHA include
[[Page 30732]]
any provisions that are not covered by the ANSI standard? If so, what
are the provisions?
7. Should the Agency include information from the appendices or the
explanatory information columns contained in the ANSI B11.1 standard in
the revised OSHA standard? If so, what information in particular should
OSHA consider?
8. Are there other consensus standards, international standards, or
other references OSHA should consider in updating its mechanical power
presses standard? If so, which ones should OSHA consider in drafting a
proposed rule?
9. Some of the technical definitions and requirements in the ANSI
standard, including those for the reliability and classes of control
systems, are not contained within the standard itself but are instead
found in technical reports to the ANSI B11.1 committee. Should these
reports serve as one of the bases for a revised OSHA standard? If so,
what specific information from these reports should OSHA consider?
C. Technical Issues
10. During the Section 610 review, OSHA found that there has been
some decline in mechanical power press use in the United States in the
last 20 years. Please provide any information you have on current
mechanical power press use.
11. Are there other developments in the use of mechanical power
presses that are relevant for OSHA's development of a proposal? For
example, the Section 610 review indicated that computer-controlled
presses are increasingly common. How has the increased use of computer-
controlled presses--as well as other technological developments--
affected safety and productivity in the workplace?
12. 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). The
ANSI B11.1-2001 standard permits only suppliers to reconstruct or
modify a mechanical power press, as in ANSI B11.1-2001 paragraphs 4.1
through 4.1.3 [Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0003]. Should OSHA similarly limit
press reconstruction and modification to the supplier of the equipment?
Why? Should a revised OSHA standard address the qualifications of
persons who reconstruct or modify mechanical power press equipment?
13. OSHA's current standard requires third-party validation for
PSDI such that a single failure or single operating error may not cause
injury to personnel from a point-of-operation hazard. Appendix A,
Certification/Validation Requirements. Should OSHA retain some form of
third-party validation, but remove this aspect of the validation
criteria?
14. If the Agency does not require third-party validation, would
the certification requirements found in the following paragraphs be
necessary: Sec. 1910.217(h)(5)(i) (adjusting brake monitoring during
installation certification); (h)(9)(ii)(B) (certification of
alternatives to photo-electric light curtains); and (h)(11)(i)(B),
(h)(11)(ii), (h)(11)(iii), (h)(11)(v) (safety system certification/
validation)? Why or why not?
15. OSHA's current PSDI provisions include requirements for brakes
and clutches that are not found in the ANSI B11.1-2001 standard. See
Sec. 1910.217(h)(2). Should OSHA retain these or similar requirements
in a revised standard? Why? Should OSHA remove the provisions entirely?
Why? Would removing these provisions adversely impact employee safety
or are these provisions unnecessary given the PSDI systems currently
available?
16. OSHA's current PSDI standard includes provisions for flywheels
and bearings that are not included in the ANSI B11.1-2001 standard. See
Sec. 1910.217(h)(4). Should OSHA retain these requirements or
something similar? Why? Would removing these provisions adversely
impact employee safety or are these provisions unnecessary given the
PSDI systems currently available?
17. OSHA currently limits PSDI systems to normal production
operations (and not die-setting or maintenance procedures). See Sec.
1910.217(h)(1)(v). Should OSHA continue this limitation? Why?
18. Are there any guarding methods or safety equipment in use today
not covered by OSHA's current standard? Please supply OSHA with
information about them. Does the current standard cover any guarding
method or safety equipment no longer in use?
19. Are there any guarding methods or safety equipment in use today
that the current ANSI standard does not address? Does the current ANSI
standard cover any guarding method or safety equipment no longer in
use?
20. OSHA's current standard has no specific provisions covering
computer-controlled mechanical power presses. To what extent are
employers using computer-controlled mechanical power presses? Are these
types of presses becoming more common? What procedures, guarding
methods, and safety considerations are used when using these types of
presses? Are there any special hazards or concerns when using computer-
controlled mechanical power presses of which the Agency should be
aware?
21. OSHA's current mechanical power press standard has no specific
provisions covering servo-actuated presses. To what extent are
employers using servo-actuated presses? Are these types of presses
becoming more common? What procedures, guarding methods, and safety
considerations are used when using these types of presses? Are there
any special hazards or concerns when using servo-actuated presses of
which the Agency should be aware?
D. Cost Issues
22. What has been the experience of PSDI systems on mechanical
power presses and other machines internationally, particularly in
Europe? What additional costs have been involved in integrating them
into manufacturing operations? What have been the benefits in terms of
safety and productivity?
23. What has been the experience of PSDI systems with regard to
other types of machines in the United States (i.e., those not covered
by the mechanical power press rule)?
24. Are there estimates of the cost savings of using PSDI systems
more widely? Are there mechanical power presses where PSDI would
provide few or no cost savings?
25. OSHA's Section 610 review of the mechanical power press rule
indicated that in many cases mechanical power presses are being
replaced with hydraulic presses. How widespread is this trend and what
are the reasons for it? How much of this is related to underlying
technological and economic trends?
E. Training Requirements
26. OSHA's current standard at Sec. 1910.217(f) requires employers
to train employees on safe methods of work. However, the standard does
not spell out specific training or retraining requirements. Should OSHA
change its existing performance-oriented approach with specific
training and retraining provisions? Why?
27. The ANSI B11.1-2001 standard includes more detailed training
requirements than the OSHA standard [Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0003]. Should
OSHA adopt ANSI's approach to training? Why?
28. Are there any training or retraining requirements that are not
[[Page 30733]]
found in the OSHA or ANSI standards that OSHA should include in the
updated standard? If so, what are they and why should OSHA include
them? Are there any training or retraining requirements that are found
in the ANSI standard that OSHA should not include in the updated
standard? If so, what are they and why should OSHA not include them in
the updated standard?
29. OSHA's current standard does not specify how often training
should occur. Should OSHA specifically require annual or semiannual
training? Should retraining only be required when employees are
observed improperly operating equipment, or are there other times when
employees should be retrained?
30. When OSHA adopted the PSDI provisions, it also added specific
training requirements for employers using PSDI systems. See Sec.
1910.217(h)(13). Are those requirements sufficient to ensure operators
are effectively trained in PSDI operation? Should OSHA expand or reduce
the training requirements for PSDI systems?
31. The current standard requires at Sec. 1910.217(h)(13)(ii) that
employers certify employee training for PSDI. Should OSHA retain this
requirement, or require other training documentation? Why or why not?
F. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
32. The current standard requires at Sec. 1910.217(h)(9)(ii)(B)
that employers notify OSHA 3 months before the operation of any
alternative system to photo-electric light curtains. The notification
must include ``the name of the system to be installed, the manufacturer
and the OSHA-recognized third-party validation organization
immediately.'' Should OSHA retain this requirement or a similar
requirement in a revised standard?
33. Paragraph Sec. 1910.217(g) requires employers to report to
OSHA within 30 days any point of operation injury to operators or other
employees. Do employers also use this information for their own
purposes? If so, how? Should OSHA eliminate this requirement? Why or
why not?
34. Under paragraph (e)(1)(i), employers must maintain a
certification record of periodic and regular inspections of power
presses. This certification must contain: The date of the inspection;
the signature of the person who performed the inspection; and the
serial number or other identifier of the power press inspected.
Similarly, paragraph (e)(2)(ii) requires employers to maintain a record
of required inspections, tests, and maintenance on the clutch/brake
mechanism, antirepeat feature and single stroke mechanism; these
inspections and tests must occur at least once a week. As with the
certification required by paragraph (e)(1)(i), the record must contain:
The date of the inspection, test or maintenance; the signature of the
person performing the inspection, test, or maintenance; and the serial
number or other identifier of the press. Should OSHA include these
requirements in a revised standard? Why? Should OSHA require employers
to maintain any additional information in the records, such as the
types of repairs made, or is there information that should not be
specifically required? Is a signature of the person performing the
inspection, test, or maintenance necessary or would the name suffice
for the record?
35. Currently, ANSI B11.1-2001 specifies that an inspection program
be established with ``regular'' inspection of presses, but does not
specify the time frames for such inspections [Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0003].
Also, ANSI B11.1-2001 does not specify what information employers
should maintain in inspection records [Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0003]. Should
OSHA adopt ANSI's performance-oriented approach in a revised standard?
Why? If OSHA were to adopt provisions similar to the ANSI provisions,
how could the Agency determine whether an employer's inspections were
conducted at a reasonable frequency?
36. OSHA's current standard specifies that each employer inspect
and test each press at least once a week to determine the condition of
the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature and single stroke
mechanism. Should OSHA expand or reduce the time interval between these
inspections and tests? Should any other elements be inspected or tested
this frequently? Do any of these elements need less frequent inspection
or testing?
37. ANSI B11.1-2001 permits users to determine the content of
inspections and testing [Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0003]. Should OSHA adopt
this type of performance-based approach in the revised standard? How
would OSHA enforce such a requirement? Would adopting ANSI's approach
lead to more press failures? Why?
III. Public Participation
Submission of Comments and Access to Docket
You may submit comments in response to this document (1)
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (OSHA Docket No. OSHA-
2007-0003). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading
document files electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional
materials in reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must
submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by name, date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your
comments.
Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
cause a significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information
about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA
Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 (TTY (877) 889-5627).
Comments and submissions are posted without change at https://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through https://
www.regulations.gov. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the https://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's User Tips
link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials
not available through the Web site and for assistance in using the
internet to locate docket submissions.
Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at https://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases
and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page
at https://www.osha.gov.
IV. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke,
Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. This action is
taken pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary
[[Page 30734]]
of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. E7-10655 Filed 6-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
