[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 8, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31927-31929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12931]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. S-225A]
RIN 1218-AC03


Notice of Availability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Review 
of Presence Sensing Device Initiation for Mechanical Power Presses

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), 
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has 
conducted a review of the Presence Sensing Device Initiation (PSDI) 
requirements of the Mechanical Power Presses Standard pursuant to 
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and section 5 of 
Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. In 1988, in 
order to assist small and large businesses in improving productivity 
while also improving worker protection, OSHA adopted provisions to 
permit PSDI. However, the PSDI provisions have not been utilized 
because no independent organization has been willing to validate PSDI 
installations.
    Based on this review and public comments, OSHA has decided to 
update its mechanical power press standard to ANSI B.11.1-2001 or 
something similar. The new ANSI standard permits PSDI without 
independent validation but includes other provisions to maintain PSDI 
safety. Also, it improves safety and productivity of mechanical power 
presses in other ways, as well.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the entire report may be obtained from the OSHA 
Publication Office, Rm. N-3101, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-1888, Fax (202) 693-2498. The 
full report, comments, and referenced documents are available for 
review at the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S-225A, Rm. 2625, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 693-
2119. The main text of the report will become available on the OSHA Web 
page at www.OSHA.gov.

[[Page 31928]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna Dizikes Friedrich, Directorate 
of Evaluation and Analysis, Rm. N3641, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone (202) 
693-1939, Fax (202) 693-1641. Direct technical inquiries about the 
Mechanical Power Presses and PSDI Standards to: Alcmene Haloftis, Rm. 
N3107, Telephone (202) 693-1859, or visit the OSHA Homepage at 
www.OSHA.gov. Direct press inquiries to George Shaw, Acting Director of 
Information and Consumer Affairs, Rm. N-3647, telephone (202) 693-1999.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) has completed a ``lookback'' review of the Presence Sensing 
Device Initiation (PSDI) provisions of its Mechanical Power Presses 
Standard, titled ``Regulatory Review of OSHA's Presence Sensing Device 
Initiation (PSDI) Standard, May 2004.'' This Federal Register Notice 
announces the availability of the review document and briefly 
summarizes it.
    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 combination dies attached to slides. A press 
consists of a stationary bed or anvil, and a slide having a controlled 
reciprocating motion. The slide, called the ram, is equipped with 
special punches and moves downward into a die block which is attached 
to the rigid bed. The punches and the die block assembly are generally 
referred to as a ``die set.''
    The main function of a stamping press is to provide sufficient 
power to close and open the die set, thus shaping or cutting the metal 
part set on the die block. The metal part is fed into the die block and 
the ram descends to perform the desired stamping operation. The danger 
zone for the operator is between the punches and the die block. This 
area is referred to as the ``point of operation.''
    If the employee's hand is in the point of operation when the press 
strokes, amputation of a finger, hand or arm is quite possible. 
Safeguards are needed to prevent or greatly reduce the possibility of 
this happening. However, there are a significant number of such 
amputations each year because of failure of safeguards, improper 
operation or other causes.
    OSHA regulates mechanical power presses at 29 CFR 1910.217. OSHA 
adopted that standard in 1971 based on the 1971 revision of the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) voluntary consensus 
standard (ANSI B11.1. ``Safety Requirements for Construction, Care and 
Use of Mechanical Power Presses.'')
    Until 1988, based on the 1971 ANSI Standards, the OSHA standard 
required manual actuation of a press stroke, to prevent the actuation 
of a press stroke when the employee's hand was in the point of 
operation. A typical method of actuation was dual palm buttons set 
sufficiently far apart to prevent part of the employee's body from 
being in the point of operation when the press stroked.
    A presence sensing device, typically a light curtain, senses when 
an object, such as a hand, is within its field. The 1971 ANSI standard 
permitted presence sensing devices (PSD) to be used as a guard, but it 
did not permit the PSD to initiate (actuate) the stroke of the press 
when the PSD senses that the employee has fed the press and removed the 
employee's hands and arms from the point of operation. PSDI increases 
the speed of the operation, consequently improving productivity. 
Experts also believe, if done correctly, it would be more protective of 
employees by protecting non-operator employees near the press (who 
would not be protected by manual actuation alone) and by reducing 
employee fatigue.
    After several major studies, several rounds of public comments and 
a public hearing, OSHA issued the final rule permitting PSDI on March 
14, 1988 at 53 FR 8327. OSHA believed, based on the studies, expert 
opinions, European experience, an experimental variance and comments, 
that the regulation would substantially improve productivity, better 
protect workers, and be implemented.
    The Final Rule includes requirements for designing PSDI systems. It 
includes requirements that manufacturers certify the system and that an 
independent organization validate that certification. These provisions 
are located at 29 CFR 1910.217(h) and Appendices A, B and C.
    However, PSDI has not been adopted for mechanical power presses. No 
organization has agreed to validate PSDI installations. PSDI is still 
widely used in Europe, and it is used for other types of equipment in 
the United States, where it had not been prohibited. In addition, there 
is a much updated ANSI B.11.1-2001 standard on mechanical power presses 
which permits PSDI. This updated standard does not require third party 
validation for PSDI, but it has a number of requirements for PSDI 
safety which are integrated throughout the standard.

Regulatory Review

    OSHA decided to review the PSDI provisions of the Mechanical Power 
Presses Standard pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act ( 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and section 5 of Executive Order 12866 (59 
FR 51739, October 4, 1993). A major goal of the review was to determine 
whether there are changes that can be made which will encourage the 
implementation of PSDI, to improve business and, particularly, small 
business productivity, while protecting workers. In addition, the 
review covered all issues raised by section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and section 5 of E.O. 12866.
    The purpose of a review under section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act ``(S)hall be to determine whether such rule should be 
continued without change, or should be rescinded, or amended consistent 
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes to minimize any 
significant impact of the rule on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The Agency shall consider the following factors:
    (1) The continued need for the rule;
    (2) The nature of complaints or comments received concerning the 
rule from the public;
    (3) The complexity of the rule;
    (4) The extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts 
with other Federal rules; and, to the extent feasible, with state and 
local governmental rules; and
    (5) The length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the 
degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have 
changed in the areas affected by the rule.
    The review requirements of section 5 of Executive Order 12866 
require agencies:
    To reduce the regulatory burden on the American people, their 
families, their communities, their state, local and tribal governments, 
their industries: to determine whether regulations promulgated by the 
[Agency] have become unjustified or unnecessary as a result of changed 
circumstances; to confirm that regulations are both compatible with 
each other and not duplicative or inappropriately burdensome in the 
aggregate; to ensure that all regulations are consistent with the 
President's priorities and the principles set forth in this Executive 
Order, within applicable law; and to otherwise improve the 
effectiveness of existing regulations.
    OSHA requested public comments on its review of the PSDI Standard 
on August 28, 2002 at 67 FR 55181. It

[[Page 31929]]

requested that comments be submitted by January 27, 2003. Nine comments 
were received.
    In its August 28, 2002 Federal Register Notice, OSHA also presented 
for public comment four possible options to encourage the safe 
implementation of PSDI.
     Option 1--Update all of Sec.  1910.217 to ANSI B 11.1--
2001 or something quite similar.
     Option 2--Revise the third-party validation requirements.
     Option 3--Eliminate all requirements for third-party 
validation, possibly replacing it 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 B.11.1.
    The final report, ``Regulatory Review of OSHA's Presence Sensing 
Device Initiation (PSDI) Standard, May 2004'' discusses all issues 
raised by section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, section 5 of 
E.O. 12866, and by public comments. It reviews the industry profile, 
safety issues, economic benefits of PSDI, reasons why PSDI was not 
implemented, and public comments. It also analyzes the four options 
presented.
    The report estimates that 40,000 employees use mechanical power 
presses which could be converted to PSDI. It estimates that 88% of such 
presses are used by small businesses. It reviews estimates that adding 
PSDI to a press would increase productivity on average 24.3% and that, 
if added to all suitable presses, PSDI would save industry $162 million 
per year. Those estimates indicated that the net average saving to 
industry would be between $100-129 million after taking into account 
the cost of the equipment and required validation.
    The report also analyzes the number of injuries from mechanical 
power presses. There are a number of data series, each with its 
advantages and disadvantages. The lowest estimate is 64 amputations and 
65 other serious injuries per year based on reports to OSHA. The Bureau 
of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimate is 211 amputations and 832 injuries 
per year in a category somewhat broader than mechanical power presses.
    The report also discusses why third party validation was not 
implemented. That approach has worked in other areas and was 
recommended by many experts. However, there are liability concerns and 
some of the validation criteria may have been too restrictive.
    The report summarizes the nine comments. Five of the commenters 
recommended updating to ANSI B.11.1-2001 because they believed that 
would not only safely permit PSDI without validation, but would also 
have a range of other benefits. Three commenters recommended amending 
the PSDI provisions in some way, and one had no recommendation.
    In summary, the conclusions reached by OSHA in its review of the 
PSDI Standard are as follows; the full report discusses these 
conclusions at greater length. This review of the PSDI Standard under 
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act finds the following:
     There is a continued need for a rule, but if the benefits 
OSHA sought in the 1988 rule are to be gained (i.e., improved worker 
safety and employer productivity), the rule needs to be changed.
     The Standard, as currently written, has not been 
implemented and is complex.
     Paragraph (h) and Sec.  1910.217 are significantly 
different from the latest revision to American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) B 11.1, the industry consensus standard for mechanical 
power presses. The OSHA PSDI Standard does not overlap, duplicate, or 
conflict with other state or Federal rules.
     The technology for PSDI systems themselves has not changed 
since paragraph (h) was adopted in 1988, but the technology for 
controlling mechanical power presses has changed considerably since 
Sec.  1910.217 was adopted. A number of operating modes that are not 
addressed in Sec.  1910.217 are now used. Press operation is now often 
controlled by computers, introducing hazards that are not addressed in 
the Standard. Economic conditions of the industry have not changed in 
ways that would impact the use of power presses. There has, however, 
been a shift toward the use of hydraulic power presses, which are not 
regulated under Sec.  1910.217.
     OSHA is considering revisions to the Standard to 
facilitate installation and use of PSDI on part-revolution mechanical 
power presses. Because the PSDI Standard has never been implemented, it 
has not had an economic impact on small entities. OSHA continues to 
believe that PSDI, if safely implemented, could provide economic 
benefits to employers and safety and health benefits to employees 
(e.g., reduction of fatigue).
    Furthermore, this review of the PSDI Standard under section 5 of 
Executive Order 12866, finds the following:
     The PSDI Standard has not been implemented. OSHA conducted 
this review to identify the problems with the Standard so that the 
Standard could be revised.
     The Standard is compatible with other OSHA standards. No 
other OSHA standard addresses the use of PSDI systems.
     The Standard has not met the President's priorities to the 
extent that it has not produced the benefits sought; that is, allowing 
industry to use a system that would increase productivity and improve 
safety for employees. OSHA is considering revisions to the Standard to 
encourage implementation.
     The Standard has been ineffective because it has not been 
implemented. OSHA is considering revision of the Standard.
    Based on analyses and information obtained during this Section 610 
review, OSHA has decided on Option 1, to update all of Sec.  1910.217 
to ANSI B.11.1--2001 or something quite similar. Implementing this 
option would address industry concerns that the mechanical power 
presses standards (Sec.  1910.217) is out-of-date and could be made 
safer. Five of the nine respondents who commented on this Section 610 
review, in response to OSHA's August 28, 2002 Federal Register Notice, 
recommended that OSHA replace the entire mechanical power press 
standard with ANSI B 11.1--2001. PSDI is an integral part of that ANSI 
standard, and there is no validation requirement. Furthermore, many in 
the field believe this updating is overdue, that there would be a range 
of benefits, and that it would lead to implementation of PSDI.

    Authority: This document was prepared under the direction of 
John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 
Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20210. It is issued pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610) and section 5 of Executive Order 
12866 (59 FR 51724, October 4, 1993).

    Signed at Washington, DC this 2nd day of June, 2004.
John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 04-12931 Filed 6-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P