[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Pages 40651-40659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15995]



Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0003]
RIN 1218-AC98

Mechanical Power Presses Update

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), DOL.

ACTION: Request for information (RFI).


SUMMARY: OSHA requests information and comment on issues related to the 
mechanical power presses standard. The standard was issued in 1971 
based upon the 1971 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 
industry consensus standard for mechanical power presses. This ANSI 
standard has been updated a number of times since 1971. OSHA is seeking 
information regarding whether it should update the mechanical power 
presses standard and, if so, how closely the standard should follow the 
current ANSI standard for mechanical power presses. It is also seeking 
information on the types of presses that should be covered, the use and 
certification of equipment, and other topics such as presence-sensing 
device initiation (PSDI) systems, and requirements for press 
modifications, training, and injury reporting. OSHA will use the 
information received in response to this RFI to determine what action, 
if any, it may take to reduce regulatory burdens while maintaining 
worker safety.

DATES: Submit comments on or before October 26, 2021. All submissions 
must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted as follows:
    Electronically: You may submit comments, including attachments, 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    OSHA will place comments and requests for a hearing, including 
personal information, in the public docket, which will be available 
online. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting 
personal information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the 
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are 
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some 
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to 
read or download through this website. All submissions, including 
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA 
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in 
locating docket submissions.

    Press Inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of 
Communications; telephone: 202-693-1999; email: 
    General and technical information: Lisa Long, OSHA Directorate of 
Standards and Guidance; email: long.lisa@dol.gov.


    Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are 
available at http://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice, 
as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are 
available at OSHA's web page at http://www.osha.gov.
    References and Exhibits: Documents referenced by OSHA in this RFI, 
other than OSHA standards and Federal Register notices, are in Docket 
No. OSHA-2007-0003 (Mechanical Power Presses Update). The docket is 
available at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal. For additional information on submitting items to, or accessing 
items in, the docket, please refer to the ADDRESSES section of this 
RFI. Most exhibits are available at http://www.regulations.gov; some 
exhibits (e.g., copyrighted material) are not available to download 
from that web page. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in 
locating docket submissions; telephone: (202) 693 2350; email: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Introduction: OSHA's Existing Mechanical Power Presses 
    B. Regulatory History
    C. Hazards and Incidents
    D. Consensus Standards
    E. Training and Certification
    F. Economic Impacts
II. Request for Data, Information, and Comments
    A. Hazards and Incidents
    B. Power Presses Standard
    C. Standards Other Than ANSI Consensus Standards
    D. Presses Other Than Mechanical Power Presses
    E. Presence-Sensing Device Initiation
    F. Existing Presses
    G. Modifying and Repairing Existing Presses; Records of 
    H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    I. Affected Industries and Economic Impacts
    J. Other Issues

I. Background

A. Introduction: OSHA's Existing Mechanical Power Presses Standard

    A mechanical power press is a mechanically powered machine that 
shears, punches, forms, or assembles metal or other material by means 
of cutting, shaping, or use of combination dies. A mechanical power 
press is a two-part system: The first part is a movable upper part, 
called the ram; and the second part is a stationary bed or anvil. A die 
or punch is placed on the ram and the ram descends into a die block 
attached to the anvil. The punch and die block are known as the die 
set. A mechanical power press can be either full-revolution or part 
revolution. A full-revolution press cannot be stopped once the cycle 
begins. A part-revolution press has a brake that can stop the press 
    In 1971, OSHA published the standard for mechanical power presses, 
Sec.  1910.217, based on the 1971 edition of ANSI B11.1, the industry 
consensus standard on mechanical power presses.\1\ The OSHA standard 
includes requirements for inspecting, maintaining, and modifying 
mechanical power presses to ensure that they are operating safely and 
includes a special reporting requirement for injuries to employees 
operating mechanical power presses. The standard also includes 
requirements for safeguarding the point of operation. OSHA's standard 
does not cover press brakes, hydraulic and pneumatic power presses, 
bulldozer presses, hot bending and hot metal presses, forging presses 
and hammers, riveting machines, or similar types of fastener 

    \1\ See 36 FR 10466, 10643 (May 29, 1971), reprinted at 39 FR 
23502 (June 27, 1974).

    There are numerous ways to guard mechanical power presses, 
including point of operation guards, die enclosures, fixed barrier 
guards, movable barrier guards, presence sensing devices (PSDs), and 
presence sensing device initiation (PSDI) systems. PSDs are electronic 
units designed to automatically stop the machine from cycling when an 
intrusion is detected in the danger zone (point of operation) between 
the fixed bed of a press and the ram. PSDs are in wide use and are 
permitted under the OSHA standard as a safeguard to prevent operation 
of the press when an employee's hands or other part of the body are at 
the point of operation. PSDI is a system that permits the PSD to 
initiate the stroke of the press when it senses that all parts of the 
body are clear of the point of operation. The ability to stop the press 
mid-cycle is considered essential for the safe operation of a press in 
PSDI mode; when something enters the point of operation while the ram 
is in motion, the PSDI system stops the press. Full-revolution power 
presses cannot use PSDI because these machines cannot be stopped mid-
    As initially adopted in 1971, the OSHA standard did not permit 
PSDI, but instead required that an operator physically initiate the 
stroke of a power press by using hand controls or a foot pedal. In 
1976, OSHA granted an experimental variance to Interlake Stamping 
Company of Willoughby, Ohio, to allow the company to use PSDI on 
mechanical power presses. In granting the variance, OSHA stated that 
the PSDI system reduced worker fatigue, a recognized cause of 
accidents.\2\ After using PSDIs for five years, Interlake Stamping 
found that a PSDI improved press productivity by 30 percent.\3\ During 
the 26 years of using PSDI, no Interlake Stamping workers were injured 
while using the PSDI system.\4\

    \2\ See 41 FR 36702 (August 31, 1976).
    \3\ See 79 FR 13078 (March 7, 2014).
    \4\ See https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_final2004.html.

    In 1988, OSHA added paragraph (h) to Sec.  1910.217 to allow the 
use of PSDI on part-revolution mechanical power presses.\5\ Among other 
requirements, OSHA required that OSHA-approved third parties validate 
the PSDI systems upon installation and at least annually thereafter.\6\ 
OSHA believed that national testing laboratories and industry 
organizations would conduct the third-party validation. To date, 
however, no third party has sought OSHA approval to conduct third-party 

    \5\ See 53 FR 8322 (March 14, 1988).
    \6\ See Sec.  1910.217(h)(11).

    In 2011, Interlake applied for a permanent variance for relief from 
the third party validation requirements. OSHA responded with additional 
conditions for alternative means to provide additional protection to 
employees operating in PSDI mode. This included descriptions of the 
power press and light curtains in use; equipment guarding means and 
worker training; and inspection, testing and maintenance procedures. 
Due to cost concerns, Interlake withdrew its request for the permanent 
variance and then removed its PSDI system in 2013.\7\ OSHA is not aware 
of any remaining facility that operates mechanical power presses in 
PSDI mode.

    \7\ See Interlake Stamping Corp.; Revocation of an Experimental 
Variance and Interim Order, 79 FR 13078 (March 7, 2014).

B. Regulatory History

OSHA's Section 610 Review of the PSDI Requirements
    OSHA is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 610, 
to conduct periodic reviews of its safety and health standards 
(``Section 610 Reviews''). The purpose of these reviews is to determine 
whether OSHA should change, amend, or rescind standards consistent with 
the objectives of applicable statutes, to minimize any significant 
economic impact of the standards on a substantial number of small 
entities. OSHA conducted a Section 610 Review of the PSDI section of 
the mechanical power press standard (29 CFR 1910.217(h)) to

determine why PSDI had not been implemented and to identify how the 
standard could be changed to facilitate PSDI use in a manner that 
protects worker safety.\8\ In the Federal Register notice (67 FR 55181, 
August 28, 2002) informing the public about the Section 610 Review and 
soliciting comments, OSHA sought comments on four options for revising 
the standard:

    \8\ The review also included a review under Section 5 of 
Executive Order 12866.

    Option 1--Update all of Sec.  1910.217 to make it consistent with 
ANSI B11.1-2001 or something similar.\9\

    \9\ At the time OSHA initiated its Section 610 Review in 2002, 
ANSI B11.1-2001 was the most recent version of the consensus 

    Option 2--Revise the third-party validation requirements.
    Option 3--Eliminate all requirements for third-party validation and 
possibly replace them with a self-certification requirement and leave 
the other PSDI requirements intact.
    Option 4--Replace OSHA's current PSDI requirements with the PSDI 
requirements in ANSI B11.1-2001.
Responses to the Section 610 Review
    Based on analyses and information obtained during the Section 610 
Review, OSHA concluded it should pursue Option 1, to update all of 
Sec.  1910.217 to make it consistent with ANSI B11.1-2001 or something 
similar (Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0002). 2007 Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking Request for Data, Information, and Comments.
    In 2007, the agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) on mechanical power presses.\10\ The ANPRM discussed 
a broad range of issues concerning the possible update of the 
mechanical power presses standard. The issues to be considered went 
beyond those of the current mechanical power presses standard and 
included broadening the scope of the standard to include other types of 
presses, equipment, and processes not previously addressed. OSHA 
invited comments on 37 questions, which were organized into the 
following six topic categories:

    \10\ See 72 FR 30729 (June 4, 2007).

    1. The Scope of the Mechanical Power Presses Standard,
    2. Consensus Standards Related to Mechanical Power Presses,
    3. Technical Issues,
    4. Cost Issues,
    5. Training Requirements, and
    6. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.
    Commenters were encouraged to address any aspect of power presses, 
including pneumatic, hydraulic, and other presses, and provide 
information that would assist the agency in its consideration of what 
actions were appropriate. The agency was particularly interested in 
ways to incorporate flexibility into the standard to make it more 
protective, and to make compliance more straightforward.
The Scope of the Power Presses Standard
    OSHA's first broad area of questioning in the 2007 ANPRM was on 
whether to broaden the scope of the mechanical power press standard 
including questions related to whether to:
     Include other types of presses, such as hydraulic and 
pneumatic power presses;
     regulate all power presses under one standard or under 
multiple standards; and
     ensure general machine guarding requirements in Sec.  
1910.212 adequately protect employees using non-mechanical power 
    Respondents agreed that the existing mechanical power presses 
requirements in Sec.  1910.217 were outdated. However, they varied in 
their comments regarding how to regulate various types of power 
presses. Suggestions included the following:
     Updating the standard based on the ANSI B11.1 standard;
     Developing an OSHA specific standard for each type of 
     Considering adopting ANSI standards for other types of 
presses; and
     Expanding Sec.  1910.212 to cover other types of presses 
beyond mechanical.
Consensus Standards Related to Mechanical Power Presses
    The agency also sought comment on whether the revised OSHA standard 
should include information from the appendices or the explanatory 
information columns contained in the ANSI B11.1 standard. Commenters 
did not agree on exactly what information an OSHA standard should 
contain. Some commenters suggested that explanatory material should be 
non-mandatory. Others suggested that some explanatory material could be 
included as regulatory text.
Technical Issues
    In response to questions regarding technical issues, commenters 
stated the following:
     Mechanical power presses are in decline;
     OSHA should consider the role of automation on safety and 
     ANSI B11.1 permits modification and reconstruction of 
presses; and
     PSDI validation is useful, but third-party validation may 
not be necessary.
Training Requirements
    Commenters expressed widespread support for strengthened training 
requirements. Many respondents stated that OSHA should require 
semiannual or annual training. Commenters were split on whether OSHA 
should change its existing performance-oriented approach with specific 
training provisions.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    OSHA requested comment on whether to eliminate the requirement in 
Sec.  1910.217(g) that employers report point-of-operation injuries to 
OSHA within 30 days. One commenter questioned why OSHA singled out 
injuries involving mechanical power presses and required a special 
procedure for reporting injuries when there is already a general 
recordkeeping and reporting standard. Other comments, including an 
industry trade group, stated that OSHA should retain the requirement, 
and that employers find this injury data useful.

C. Hazards and Incidents

    OSHA looked at several sources of data to understand the hazards 
that led to injuries involving mechanical power presses. These include 
injury reports required by Sec.  1910.217(g), Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) injury data, and OSHA severe injury reporting data.
29 CFR 1910.217(g) Injury Reports
    OSHA's standard (29 CFR 1910.217(g)) requires employers to report, 
within 30 days of an occurrence, all point-of-operation injuries to 
operators or other employees. These reports must contain, among other 
things, the injury sustained (amputations, lacerations, crushes, etc.), 
the task being performed (operation, set-up, maintenance, or other), 
the type of safeguard being used, and the cause of the accident. 
Although OSHA has collected this data, it has not been subject to any 
verification for accuracy or completeness. As explained further below, 
OSHA believes these reports may undercount the number of incidents.
    OSHA received 204 reports of incidents related to mechanical power 
presses from 2007 through 2015--an average of about 23 per year. These 
incidents resulted in a reported 388 injuries (an average of 43 per 
year) with finger amputations being the most

prevalent injury-accounting for 39 percent of all injuries over that 

                                            Table 1--Mechanical Power Press Incidents and Injuries, 2007-2015
                                    2007       2008       2009       2010       2011       2012       2013       2014       2015      Total    of  total
Crush..........................         17          5          6         14         12         10          6          9          6         85         22
Finger Amputation..............         29         10         16         19         26         24          9         10         10        153         39
Fingertip Amputation...........         18          6          8         11          1          6          7          8          1         66         17
Fracture.......................          3          3          8          0          1          2          5          3          1         26          7
Laceration.....................         10          6          7          0          6          2          4          3          4         42         11
Other/Unspecified..............          4          0          2          1          2          2          3          0          2         16          4
    Total Injuries.............         81         30         47         45         48         46         34         33         24        388  .........
    Total Incidents............         37         15         20         27         26         24         20         21         14        204  .........
Note: Multiple injuries can result from a single incident. For example, a worker that suffered a single finger amputation would be considered to have
  one injury as a result of one incident. However, if a worker suffered amputation of five fingers, that would be considered five injuries as a result
  of one incident.

BLS Injury Data
    Using BLS data, OSHA estimated the number of injuries that result 
from accidents involving mechanical power presses. BLS publishes data 
on all press injuries involving days away from work, but such data do 
not differentiate between mechanical or other types of power presses. 
BLS reports injury data by type of press including unspecified presses, 
assembly presses, brake presses, punch presses, and presses not 
elsewhere classified. According to BLS, from 2011 through 2016, there 
were 7,030 nonfatal occupational injuries involving days away from work 
due to presses--an average of 1,172 annually. Unfortunately, BLS' 
classification scheme does not allow OSHA to identify which injuries 
occur during the use of mechanical power presses versus other types of 
presses. OSHA believes it is possible that some occupational injuries 
reported in the BLS data may be attributable to mechanical power press 
operations but are not being reported to OSHA under OSHA's existing 
standard at 29 CFR 1910.217(g).
OSHA Severe Injury Reporting Program
    On September 18, 2014, OSHA issued a final rule that implemented a 
Severe Injury Reporting Program (SIR), which requires, among other 
things, that employers report all amputations resulting from a work-
related incident to OSHA within 24 hours of the employer becoming aware 
of the incident (79 FR 56130). From 2015 to 2017, OSHA received about 
8,200 reports of amputations under the SIR program. In 2015, OSHA 
received 246 reports of amputations in the fabricated metal product 
manufacturing industry (NAICS 332), 109 reports in primary metal 
manufacturing (NAICS 331), 123 reports in machinery manufacturing 
(NAICS 333), and 134 reports in transportation equipment manufacturing 
(NAICS 334). There is no further breakdown of the data into how many 
amputations occurred on power presses, much less mechanical power 
presses; however, research from the late 1980s suggested that about 10 
percent of all reported amputations occur among power press operators 
(Injuries and Amputations Resulting from Work with Mechanical Power 
Presses; https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/87-107/) (Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-
    OSHA research from the late 1980s suggested that about 49 percent 
of injuries on mechanical power presses resulted in an amputation 
causing about 557 injuries to power press operators on average each 
year (https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/87-107/). Based on estimates in 
the Section 610 Review of the PSDI standard, OSHA estimates that large 
mechanical power presses account for 9.5 percent of power presses used 
in the United States (https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_final2004.html). OSHA believes that these manufacturing industries 
are likely to include power press operators and that it is possible 
that some amputations attributable to mechanical power press operations 
are not being reported to OSHA under OSHA's existing standard at 29 CFR 

D. Consensus Standards

    The American Engineering Standards Committee, a predecessor of 
ANSI, released its first consensus standard for mechanical power 
presses in 1922. The standard has been updated periodically. The most 
recent ANSI consensus standard for mechanical power presses is ANSI 
B11.1-2009 (R2020), ``Safety Requirements for Mechanical Power 
Presses''; (Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0026). Hydraulic and pneumatic power 
presses are both covered under a different consensus standard, ANSI 
B11.2, which was originally released in 1982. The most recent consensus 
standard for hydraulic and pneumatic power presses is ANSI B11.2-2013 
(R2020), ``Safety Requirements for Hydraulic and Pneumatic Power 
Presses''; (Ex. OSHA-2007-0003-0027).

E. Training and Certification

    The OSHA mechanical power presses standard spells out training 
requirements in several sections. Section 1910.217(e)(3) requires 
training of maintenance personnel, and provides that it is the 
responsibility of the employer to ensure the original and continuing 
competence of personnel caring for, inspecting, and maintaining power 
presses. Section 1910.217(f)(2) requires the employer to train and 
instruct the operator in the safe method of work before starting work 
on any operation covered by this section, and to ensure by adequate 
supervision that correct operating procedures are being followed. 
Section 1910.217(h)(13) requires that training for operators using 
presses in PSDI mode must be provided before the employee initially 
operates the press and as needed to maintain competence, but not less 
than annually thereafter. Such training must also include certain 
enumerated instructions specific to presses used in PSDI mode. In 
addition, OSHA requires that employers certify employee training in the 
use of the PSDI mode.
    The training provisions in ANSI B11.1-2009 require the employer to 
meet the following:
     Train personnel associated with press production systems 
in safe working procedures and ensure they are qualified to perform the 
functions to which they are assigned;
     instruct all operators in the operation of the press 
production system including the proper method of operation for each 
production set-up before the press production system is

placed into production and that all operators demonstrate their 
knowledge of the press production system;
     instruct all die setters in the proper procedures for 
selecting, inspecting, and installing dies appropriate to the 
     ensure that maintenance personnel are trained in safe 
working procedures for inspecting and maintaining press production 
     ensure that supervisors are trained in safe working 
procedures for set-up, operation, and maintenance of press production 
systems; and
     train personnel, as required by assigned functions, in the 
safe working procedures for lockout/tagout of hazardous energy sources 
in accordance with ANSI Z244.1.
    ANSI also requires a trained designated supervisor to continually 
supervise the press production system operation to ensure that the 
proper point-of-operation safeguarding is installed, activated, and 
operational for each job set-up and prior to release for production by 
the operator. The designated supervisor must also ensure that operators 
follow the correct operating procedures and use the press production 
system as intended within the rated capacities of the press and 
associated system components.

F. Economic Impacts

    In addition to the specific questions posed in other parts of this 
RFI, OSHA is requesting data and information on the potential economic 
impacts should OSHA decide to make changes to the mechanical power 
presses standard. When responding to the questions in this RFI, OSHA 
requests, whenever possible, that stakeholders discuss potential 
economic impacts in terms of the following:
    1. Quantitative benefits (e.g., reductions in injuries, fatalities, 
and property damage);
    2. Costs (e.g., compliance costs or decreases in productivity); and
    3. Offsets to costs (e.g., increases in productivity, less need for 
maintenance and repairs).
    OSHA also invites comments on any unintended consequences and 
consistencies or inconsistences with other policies or regulatory 
programs that might result if OSHA revises the mechanical power presses 
    OSHA welcomes all comments but requests that stakeholders discuss 
economic impacts in specific detail, if possible. For example, if a 
provision or policy change would necessitate additional employee 
training, it is most helpful to OSHA to receive information on the 
    1. The training courses necessary;
    2. the topics training would cover;
    3. the types of employees who would need training and what percent 
(if any) of those employees currently receive the training;
    4. the length and frequency of training;
    5. any retraining necessary; and
    6. the training costs, whether conducted by a third-party vendor or 
by an in-house trainer.
    For discussion of equipment related costs, OSHA is interested in 
all relevant factors:
    1. The prevalence of current use of the equipment;
    2. the purchase price;
    3. the cost of installation and training;
    4. the cost of equipment maintenance and upgrades; and
    5. the expected life of the equipment.
    The agency also invites comment on the time and level of expertise 
required if OSHA were to implement the potential changes this RFI 
discusses, even if dollar-cost estimates are not available.

II. Request for Data, Information, and Comment

A. Hazards and Incidents

    OSHA seeks comments on hazards associated with the operation of 
mechanical power presses and presses other than mechanical power 
presses, i.e., hydraulic and pneumatic presses. CDC last studied 
Injuries and Amputations Resulting from Work with Mechanical Power 
Presses in the late 1980s and this study was specific to Mechanical 
Power Presses. OSHA requests additional studies or data on workplace 
injuries or fatalities related to mechanical power presses and presses 
other than mechanical power presses, particularly recent studies or 
data. (1) Is there more recent information about the risks and hazards 
associated with the operation of power presses? (2) Based on a review 
of accident and injury data (see Table 1), OSHA has identified finger 
and fingertip amputations, crush injuries, lacerations, and fractures 
as the main types of injuries caused by mechanical power presses. 
Please supply any additional information on these and other injuries 
associated with power presses? (3) How frequently are workers using 
power presses injured? How frequently are workers using power presses 
severely injured? How frequently are workers using power presses 
fatally injured? (4) Do injury rates and severity vary based on the 
type of press used or other factors? (5) Have injury rates associated 
with the use of power presses increased or declined over time? If so, 

B. Power Presses Standard

    OSHA seeks comment on how it should update the mechanical power 
presses standard. (6) Should OSHA use ANSI B11.1 as the basis for a 
standard update? (7) Are there provisions in the ANSI standard not in 
the OSHA standard that are important for providing worker protection? 
(8) If the agency bases a revised standard on ANSI B11.1, should OSHA 
add explanatory material in the form of non-mandatory appendices? (9) 
Would employers find a non-mandatory appendix useful if it addressed 
similar subjects as the explanatory text in the latest ANSI standard? 
(10) What material, if any, should be in the appendices?
    The current OSHA mechanical power presses standard specifically 
excludes press brakes, bulldozer presses, hot bending and hot metal 
presses, forging presses and hammers, riveting machines, and similar 
types of fastener applicators. The ANSI B11.1-2009 standard excludes 
these as well; however, it also excludes cold headers and formers, 
eyelet machines, high-energy-rate presses, iron workers and detail 
punches, metal shears, powdered metal presses, press welders, turret 
and plate-punching machines, wire termination machines, and welding 
machines. (11) If OSHA updates the standard to be consistent with the 
provisions of ANSI B11.1-2009 or its equivalent, should OSHA exclude 
all of the machines that ANSI B11.1-2009 excludes? (12) If so, why? 
(13) Alternatively, should OSHA continue to exclude only the machines 
currently excluded by the OSHA standard? (14) Should OSHA exclude any 
other machines that ANSI B11.1-2009 does not specifically excluded? 
(15) What are these other machines and why should OSHA exclude them?
    (16) Is your firm currently complying with the ANSI B11.1 standard? 
(17) Is compliance with any of the provisions in the ANSI standard 
prohibitively costly? If so, please specify which provisions are 
prohibitively costly. (18) Do you believe it would be less costly for 
your firm to comply with the ANSI standard as opposed to OSHA's 
existing standard? (19) If so, in what areas do you anticipate savings, 
including reduced compliance costs and/or improved efficiency?

C. Standards Other Than ANSI Consensus Standards

    In the 2007 ANPRM, OSHA asked whether there are other consensus 
standards, international standards, or other references that OSHA 

consider in updating the mechanical power presses standard. The 
majority of commenters discussed the B11.1 standard however, they also 
suggested considering standards from the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO), Canadian Standards Association (CSA), as well as 
other European standards. In this RFI, OSHA again seeks comment on 
these standards and whether OSHA should consider them as a basis for an 
updated OSHA's standard on power presses.

D. Presses Other Than Mechanical Power Presses

    In this RFI, OSHA seeks comment on whether it should regulate other 
types of presses, i.e., hydraulic and pneumatic presses. (20) Should 
these presses be covered under a new standard written in the fashion of 
the existing mechanical power presses standard, Sec.  1910.217? (21) 
Should OSHA base any new requirements for hydraulic and pneumatic 
presses on ANSI B11.2-2013 (R2020), Safety Requirements for Hydraulic 
and Pneumatic Power Presses? (22) Does compliance with the ANSI B11.2-
2013 (R2020) consensus standard provide adequate protection for workers 
using hydraulic and pneumatic presses? (23) Are there any ANSI B11.2-
2013 (R2020) provisions or other protections critical to protecting 
workers that OSHA should include if the agency decides to propose a 
rule addressing non-mechanical power presses? (24) If so, which ones?
    (25) Do you currently follow other ANSI consensus standards 
corresponding to any other types of presses (for example, ANSI B11.4, 
Safety Requirements for Shears)? (26) Are any provisions in this ANSI 
standard especially costly or difficult to comply with? (27) If so, 
which ones?
    OSHA also seeks data and information about the proportion of 
pneumatic and hydraulic presses among all presses in use today.

E. Presence-Sensing Device Initiation

    Both the ANSI B11.1-2009 standard and the existing OSHA mechanical 
power presses standard, Sec.  1910.217, contain requirements for PSDI. 
However, unlike the ANSI standard, OSHA's standard requires third-party 
validation for PSDI. As previously noted, no third party has stepped 
forward to issue such certification.
    (28) Should OSHA revise or eliminate its requirements regarding the 
use of PSDI systems? (29) Should OSHA base its PSDI requirements on the 
PSDI requirements in ANSI B11.1-2009? (30) Are there any types of 
operations that should not allow PSDI? (31) If so, which operations and 
why? (32) Should OSHA consider an option that includes regulating other 
types of power presses? (33) Are there any types of power presses that 
should not allow PSDI? (34) If so, which ones and why? (35) Should OSHA 
eliminate the third-party validation requirement? OSHA also seeks 
comment on whether it should continue to include mandatory and/or non-
mandatory appendices with additional requirements for PSDI.
    (36) If OSHA were to eliminate the existing requirements for PSDI 
systems, would you incorporate this technology on your existing power 
presses? (37) What would it cost to incorporate PSDI technology into 
your presses? OSHA previously estimated that the average cost to 
convert to PSDI technology would cost between $1,650 and $6,600 per 
press in 1988 dollars (https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_final2004.html). OSHA believes that simply inflating that price to 
2020 dollars would not adequately reflect the estimated cost of 
converting to PSDI technology today because the cost of this technology 
has not increased at the same rate as the cost of other goods.
    The agency believes that continuing to allow employers to use PSDI 
systems will increase productivity. The economic analysis accompanying 
the 1985 proposed rule for mechanical power presses estimated that 
allowing PSDI systems would result in productivity improvements ranging 
between 10 and 50 percent depending on the type of press (50 FR 12700, 
Mar. 29, 1985) (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-S225-2006-0706-0168). The analysis of the 1988 final rule estimated that allowing 
employers to convert existing presses to PSDI systems would increase 
the productivity of each press by an average of about 24 percent (53 FR 
8322) (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-S225-2006-0706-0173). (38) Do you agree that PSDI devices would improve productivity? 
(39) If so, to what extent? OSHA welcomes any studies or information on 
the productivity effects of using PSDI systems.

F. Existing Presses

    OSHA seeks comment on the number of power presses in use today 
including information on their characteristics. (40) How many power 
presses do you use at your facility? (41) What type of presses are they 
(mechanical, hydraulic, and pneumatic), and, if any are mechanical, how 
many do you use and what percentage of those mechanical power presses 
have part-revolution clutches? The agency seeks comment on the service 
life of mechanical power presses. (42) What type of press would you 
purchase to replace a mechanical power press? (43) What proportion of 
those mechanical power presses would you replace with presses equipped 
with part-revolution clutches?
    (44) If OSHA based a new standard on ANSI B11.1-2009 (R2020), how 
many presses currently in use would be out of compliance? (45) Would 
you upgrade any of your presses to meet the ANSI B11.1 consensus 
standard, or would you replace the presses? (46) What percentage of 
your presses would you upgrade versus replace?
    OSHA welcomes all data, studies, inventories, or information on the 
number of power presses of all types in use and/or the relative 
proportion of each type of press.

G. Modifying and Repairing Existing Presses; Records of Maintenance

    The current OSHA standard permits any person to reconstruct or 
modify a mechanical power press as long as the reconstruction or 
modification is performed in accordance with Sec.  1910.217(b).
    OSHA seeks comment regarding the modification and repair of power 
presses. (47) Should OSHA require that only competent persons perform 
these tasks? (48) If so, how should OSHA define the term ``competent 
person'' with respect to mechanical power presses? OSHA also seeks 
comment on how to handle documentation of maintenance on power presses. 
(49) Should OSHA require documentation and, if so, should OSHA require 
document retention and access? (50) Who should maintain the 
documentation: The manufacturer, the owner, or a third party?

H. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    OSHA requires that employers keep separate records and submit 
reports for injuries to employees operating mechanical power presses. 
These records are specific to OSHA's mechanical power presses standard 
and were put in its standard to allow OSHA to track the effectiveness 
of its mechanical power presses standard. (51) Are employers aware of 
these specific reporting requirements, and that they are additional to 
BLS occupational injury data collections and OSHA SIR reporting? (52) 
Should OSHA retain these requirements? (53) Should OSHA modify these 
requirements and, if so, how?

I. Affected Industries and Economic Impacts

    OSHA believes that all power press workers fall into the BLS 
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) aggregate Standard 
Occupational Code (SOC) Metal and Plastic Workers (occupational code 
51-4000), and specifically into the four occupations denoted in Table 
2. OSHA assumes that all workers in these occupations, in most 
industries, are using power presses of all kinds.

 Table 2--Occupations of Power Press Operators by Standard Occupational
                SOC                           Occupation title
51-4022...........................  Forging Machine Setters, Operators,
                                     and Tenders, Metal and Plastic.
51-4031...........................  Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine
                                     Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
                                     Metal and Plastic.
51-4041...........................  Machinists.
51-4199...........................  Metal Workers and Plastic Workers,
                                     All Other.
Source: BLS, Occupational Employment Statistics.

    For this RFI, OSHA identified affected industries as those 
employing workers in the Forging Machine Setters, Operators, and 
Tenders, Metal and Plastic (SOC 51-4022) occupation; the Cutting, 
Punching, and Press Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and 
Plastic (SOC 51-4031) occupation; and the All Other Metal Workers and 
Plastic Workers (SOC 51-4199) occupation. Although the BLS data show 
workers in these SOC categories employed in retail and wholesale trade, 
rental and leasing companies, and various service industries, OSHA 
believes these workers are likely performing tasks that do not utilize 
mechanical power presses and therefore OSHA did not include them in the 
universe of affected industries. The agency welcomes comment on whether 
these industries should be included. OSHA included Machinists (OES 51-
4041) in the sum of power press employees (but only in industries that 
employed one of the three other occupations) and included all workers 
in the above SOC categories in temporary employment agencies and repair 
and maintenance industries. These industries and affected employees 
appear in Table 3.
    Overall, OSHA estimates there are about 550,000 workers working 
with power presses. This is probably an overestimation because each of 
the selected occupations likely include workers who do not use power 
    Based on data from OSHA's 2004 Section 610 Review, the agency 
determined that, between 1996 and 2002, large mechanical power presses 
(which included all new, part-revolution, mechanical power presses) 
represented 9.5 percent of total press production (https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_final2004.html). OSHA has assumed that 
this share of press production is roughly equal to the share of power 
press workers using mechanical power presses. Therefore, of the 
estimated 565,000 power press workers, OSHA estimates that about 53,600 
of them operate mechanical power presses.
    OSHA acknowledges that this is an imprecise estimate that makes a 
number of assumptions, including that large mechanical power presses 
are replaced at the same rate as all other power presses and that 
workers are evenly distributed among all press types. The agency's 
affected mechanical power press employment calculation is an 
overestimate if, for example, large mechanical power presses last 
longer than other power presses, large mechanical power presses are 
increasingly being replaced by other types of presses (non-mechanical), 
or if it takes more employees to operate a large mechanical power press 
than it does any other press. The agency is also aware that mechanical 
power presses are being used less frequently than in the past, and 
therefore, OSHA's estimate, which applies an estimation methodology 
developed as part of OSHA's Section 610 Review in 2004 to current 
employment and establishment data, may not accurately reflect current 
mechanical power press employment numbers.
    OSHA seeks comments on what occupations employ power press workers. 
(54) Do the job titles listed above encompass all power press workers? 
(55) If not, what job categories or job titles should OSHA include? 
(56) What are the job titles of workers who use power presses at your 
facility? (57) Would you classify your facility's power press workers 
in one of the occupations listed above or is there a more appropriate 
occupational category for them? (58) How many total workers are at your 
establishment and how many of those workers use power presses as part 
of their job? (59) What types of power presses do they use (mechanical, 
pneumatic, hydraulic, or other)? (60) If those employees work on 
mechanical power presses, how many (or what percentage) of those 
presses have part-revolution clutches?
    Table 3 shows total employment and total establishments in the 
affected industries.

       Table 3--Selected Characteristics of Industries That Employ Mechanical Power Press (MPP) Operators
                                                 Total power      Affected                           Total
         NAICS               NAICS--title           press        (large MPP)        Total        establishments
                                                employees \1\     employees    employment \2\         \2\
236000.................  Construction of                  260              25       1,391,532            222,751
237100.................  Utility System                   340              32         607,919             19,156
238000.................  Specialty Trade                2,280             217       4,423,714            472,803
311400.................  Fruit and Vegetable                0               0         159,258              1,924
                          Preserving and
                          Specialty Food
                          Manufacturing \3\.
316900.................  Other Leather and                160              15          11,256                770
                          Allied Product
321000.................  Wood Product                   1,540             146         415,151             14,463
322000.................  Paper Manufacturing.           2,350             223         344,537              3,999
323000.................  Printing and Related             840              80         438,516             24,809
                          Support Activities.
325000.................  Chemical                       2,730             259         798,028             13,615
326000.................  Plastics and Rubber           27,070           2,572         785,794             12,065

327000.................  Nonmetallic Mineral            2,990             284         399,572             15,076
331000.................  Primary Metal                 26,450           2,513         374,837              4,112
332000.................  Fabricated Metal             209,230          19,877       1,437,086             55,020
333000.................  Machinery                     93,600           8,892       1,057,407             23,060
334100.................  Computer and                     560              53          40,392                916
334200.................  Communications                   970              92          82,857              1,260
334400.................  Semiconductor and              6,070             577         257,700              3,789
                          Other Electronic
334500.................  Navigational,                  8,170             776         383,979              5,201
                          Electromedical, and
                          Control Instruments
335000.................  Electrical                    15,640           1,486         345,470              5,549
                          Appliance, and
336000.................  Transportation                89,580           8,510       1,585,194             11,567
337000.................  Furniture and                  4,340             412         372,286             14,581
                          Related Product
339000.................  Miscellaneous                 19,810           1,882         550,598             25,811
493000.................  Warehousing and                  310              29         967,386             16,919
561300.................  Employment Services.          40,160           3,815       6,771,435             53,657
561900.................  Other Support                    460              44         296,453             20,123
811000.................  Repair and                     8,140             773       1,303,518            217,830
    Totals.............  ....................         564,050          53,585      25,601,875          1,260,826
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis 2020.
\1\ BLS Occupational Employment Survey 2019.
\2\ County Business Patterns, U.S. Census, 2018.
\3\ OSHA seeks comment regarding possible MPP use in this industry.

    OSHA seeks comment on the industries that employ mechanical power 
press workers, and, if possible, those that use mechanical power 
presses with part-revolution clutches. (61) Are there any affected 
industries that the agency has not included in Table 3? (62) If so, 
which ones and how are those industries using mechanical power presses?
    Estimates based on earlier years of OES data indicated that 
mechanical power presses are used in NAICS 311400, Fruit and Vegetable 
Preserving and Specialty Food Manufacturing, while estimates based on 
more recent data suggest that there are no mechanical power presses in 
use in that industry. Since OSHA derives its estimates from more 
aggregate data, the agency recognizes that the updated estimates may be 
inadvertently eliminating an industry that should be included in the 
scope of an updated mechanical power presses rulemaking. OSHA seeks 
comment on the current use of mechanical power presses in the NAICS 
311400 industry.
    As mentioned earlier, part of OSHA's estimate of large mechanical 
power presses depends on information about the service life of 
mechanical power presses, and the rate of mechanical power press 
replacement relative to other types of presses. To further refine this 
estimate, the agency seeks comment on the service life of mechanical 
power presses. (63) What type of press do you typically purchase to 
replace a mechanical power press? (64) What proportion of those 
replacement mechanical power presses are replaced with presses equipped 
with part-revolution clutches?
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, as amended) requires 
OSHA to assess the impact of proposed and final rules on small 
entities. OSHA requests small entities to comment on the expected 
impacts of a revision to the mechanical power presses standard based on 
current consensus standards, including ANSI, CSA, or ISO standards. 
Please give specific examples of resource requirements in terms of 
additional staffing or time commitments (per job category), costs for 
purchase or rental of equipment or materials (dollar cost per unit), 
and costs for energy usage and any other additional expenses. (65) 
Would small entities face economic or technological feasibility 
concerns in complying with a revised standard that references current 
consensus standards? (66) If OSHA promulgated standards similar to the 
mechanical power presses standard for hydraulic and pneumatic presses, 
would this raise any economic or technological feasibility concerns 
specific to small businesses? (67) If you identify as a small entity in 
your industry, what is the basis for that identification (for example, 
reliance on Small Business Administration size standards; https://www.sba.gov/)? If you are uncertain as to your qualifications as a 
small entity, please provide details on your establishment size in 
terms of number of employees and categories of employee occupations; 
industry identification (by North American Industrial Classification 
System 6-digit code if available); and the primary types of goods or 
services produced by your company. Please describe in detail the 
technical or financial concerns that you or other small employers may 
encounter when implementing consensus standards addressing mechanical 
or other power presses.

J. Other Issues

    (68) Are there any other issues related to mechanical, hydraulic, 
or pneumatic power presses that OSHA should address? Include issues 
remaining from, or not sufficiently addressed in, the 2007 ANPRM.
    OSHA encourages comments from manufacturers, owners, and operators 
of presses, labor organizations, worker centers, government safety 
agencies, standards organizations, and other interested parties. Those 
who responded to the original 2007 ANPRM are especially encouraged to 
comment, either to confirm their original opinions or to tell us how 
those opinions have changed. OSHA invites those who did not respond to 
the original 2007

ANPRM to examine the relevant files at www.regulations.gov.

Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this 
notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, Secretary's Order 08-
2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC.
James S. Frederick,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-15995 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]