[Federal Register: June 8, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 110)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31927-31929]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jn04-25]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 http://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
http://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