

[Federal Register: June 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 106)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 30729-30734]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04jn07-8]                         

========================================================================
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.

========================================================================



[[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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted 

material) is not publicly available to read or download through http://www.regulations.gov.
 All submissions, including copyrighted material, 

are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. 
Information on using the http://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 http://www.regulations.gov. This document, as well as news releases 

and other relevant information, also are available at OSHA's Web page 
at http://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
