Federal Registers - Table of Contents Federal Registers - Table of Contents
• Publication Date: 11/20/2013
• Publication Type: Proposed rule
• Fed Register #: 78: 69606-69612
• Standard Number: 1910; 1910.217; 1910.217(e)(1); 1911; 1953.5(a)
• Title: Record Requirements in the Mechanical Power Presses Standard

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69606-69612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27694]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010]
RIN 1218-AC80


Record Requirements in the Mechanical Power Presses Standard

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to make two main revisions to its Mechanical 
Power Presses Standard. First, OSHA is proposing to revise a provision 
that requires employers to develop and maintain certification records 
of periodic inspections performed on the presses by adding a 
requirement that they develop and maintain certification records of any 
maintenance and repairs they perform on the presses during the periodic 
inspections. Second, OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement from 
another provision that employers develop and maintain certification 
records of weekly inspections and tests performed on the presses.
    This rulemaking is part of the Department of Labor's initiative to 
reduce paperwork burden; it will remove 613,600 hours of unnecessary 
paperwork burden for employers, while maintaining employee protection. 
OSHA is publishing a companion direct final rule elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register taking this same action.

DATES: Submit comments on this proposed rule (including comments to the 
information-collection (paperwork) determination (described under the 
section titled "Procedural Determinations"), hearing requests, and 
other information by December 20, 2013. All submissions must bear a 
postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date. The 
following section describes the available methods for making 
submissions.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, hearing requests, and other material, 
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010, by any of the following 
methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments, as well as hearing 
requests and other information, electronically to 
http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow 
the online instructions for submitting comments.\1\
    Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and 
hearing requests that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including 
attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 
693-1648. OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents. Instead 
of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these 
documents (for example, studies, journal articles), commenters must 
submit these attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data 
Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must identify 
clearly the sender's name, the date, subject, and docket number (OSHA-
2013-0010) so that the Docket Office can attach them to the appropriate 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Web site http://www.regulations.gov refers to the docket 
as a "docket folder." Access the electronic docket for this 
rulemaking by searching with the docket number (OSHA-2013-0010) or 
RIN (1218-AC80).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regular mail, express mail, hand delivery, and messenger (courier) 
service: Submit comments, hearing requests, and any additional material 
(for example, studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, 
Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010 or RIN 1218-AC80, Technical Data Center, Room 
N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is 
(877) 889-5627.) Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about 
security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express mail, 
hand delivery, and messenger service. The hours of operation for the 
OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency's name and 
the docket number (that is, OSHA-2013-0010). OSHA will place comments 
and other material, including any personal information, in the public 
docket without revision, and these materials will be available online 
at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters 
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the 
public and submitting comments that contain personal information 
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers, 
birth dates, and medical data.
    OSHA requests comment on all issues related to this proposed rule. 
The Agency also welcomes comments on its findings that this proposed 
rule would have no negative economic, paperwork, or other regulatory 
impacts on the regulated community. This proposed rule is the companion 
document to a direct final rule published in the "Rules" section of 
this issue of the Federal Register. If OSHA receives no significant 
adverse comment on the proposal or direct final rule, the Agency will 
publish a Federal Register notice confirming the effective date of the 
final rule and withdrawing this companion proposed rule. The final rule 
may include minor editorial or technical corrections of the direct 
final rule. For the purpose of judicial review, OSHA considers the date 
that the Agency confirms the effective date of the final rule to be the 
date of issuance. If, however, OSHA receives significant adverse 
comment on the direct final rule or proposal, the Agency will publish a 
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and proceed with the 
proposed rule, which addresses the same revisions to its Mechanical 
Power Presses Standard.
    Docket: The electronic docket for this proposed rule established at 
http://www.regulations.gov lists most of the documents in the docket. 
However, some information (for example, copyrighted material) is not 
available publicly to read or download through this Web site. All 
submissions, including copyrighted material, are accessible at the OSHA 
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in 
locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General information and press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA 
Office of Communications, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
1999.
    Technical inquiries: Mr. Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and 
Guidance, Room N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1941; fax: (202) 
693-1663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Copies of this Federal Register notice and news releases: 
Electronic copies of these documents are available at OSHA's Web page 
at http://www.osha.gov. Copies of this Federa

Register notice also are available at http://www.regulations.gov.

Table of Contents

I. Direct Final Rulemaking
II. Background
III. Summary and Explanation of Proposed Revisions to the Mechanical 
Power Presses Standard
IV. Procedural Determinations
    A. Legal Considerations
    B. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Federalism
    E. State-Plan States
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
V. Authority and Signature

I. Direct Final Rulemaking

    In direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a direct final rule 
in the Federal Register with a statement that the rule will become 
effective unless the agency receives a significant adverse comment 
within a specified period. The agency publishes concurrently with the 
direct final rule a companion proposed rule. If the agency receives no 
significant adverse comment, the direct final rule will become 
effective. However, should the agency receive a timely significant 
adverse comment, it will withdraw the direct final rule and treat the 
comment as a submission to the proposed rule.
    OSHA uses direct final rulemaking because it expects the rulemaking 
to: Be noncontroversial; provide protection to employees that is at 
least equivalent to the protection afforded to them by the previous 
standard; and impose no significant new compliance costs on employers 
(69 FR 68283, 68285 (Nov. 24, 2004)). OSHA used direct final rules 
previously to update and revise other OSHA rules (see, for example, 69 
FR 68283 (Nov. 24, 2004); 70 FR 76979 (Dec. 29, 2005); 76 FR 75782 
(Dec. 5, 2011); and 77 FR 37587 (June 22, 2012)).
    For purposes of this rulemaking, a significant adverse comment is 
one that "explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including 
challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or why it 
would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change" (see 60 FR 
43108, 43111 (Aug. 18, 1995)). In determining whether a comment 
necessitates withdrawal of the direct final rule, OSHA will consider 
whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a 
substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. OSHA will not 
consider a comment recommending additional revisions to a rule to be a 
significant adverse comment unless the comment provides a reasonable 
explanation of why the direct final rule would be ineffective without 
the revisions. If OSHA receives a timely significant adverse comment, 
it will publish a Federal Register notice withdrawing the direct final 
rule no later than 90 days after the publication date of this current 
notice.
    This notice of proposed rulemaking furthers the objectives of 
Executive Order 13563, which requires that the regulatory process 
"promote predictability and reduce uncertainty" and "identify and 
use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving 
regulatory ends." As described later in this Federal Register notice, 
the proposed revisions will reduce paperwork burden, by removing 
613,600 hours of unnecessary paperwork burden for employers, while 
maintaining employee protection. Therefore, the Agency believes this 
proposed rule is consistent with, and promotes the objectives of, 
Executive Order 13563.

II. Background

    This proposed rule would revise paragraph (e)(1)(i) of OSHA's 
Mechanical Power Presses Standard at 29 CFR 1910.217 to require 
employers to perform and complete necessary maintenance and repair on 
the presses, and to develop and maintain certification records of these 
tasks. The rulemaking also removes requirements from paragraph 
(e)(1)(ii) of this standard to develop and maintain certification 
records for weekly inspections and tests performed on mechanical power 
presses. OSHA believes that these proposed revisions will maintain the 
safety afforded to employees by the existing provisions, while 
substantially reducing paperwork burden hours and cost to employers.
    This rulemaking is part of the Department of Labor's initiative to 
reduce paperwork burden hours and cost, consistent with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) at 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The purpose of 
PRA-95 is to minimize the Federal paperwork burden and to maximize the 
efficiency and usefulness of Federal information-gathering activities. 
OSHA also determined that the subject of this rulemaking furthers the 
objectives of Executive Order (EO) 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011). 
In this regard, EO 13563 requires that the regulatory process "promote 
predictability and reduce uncertainty" and "identify and use the 
best, most innovative and least burdensome tools for achieving 
regulatory ends." To accomplish this objective, EO 13563 states, "To 
facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations, 
agencies shall consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of 
rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 
burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in 
accordance with what has been learned."
    OSHA determined that the revisions made by this proposed rule are 
consistent with, and promote the objectives of, both PRA-95 and EO 
13563. Accordingly, the revisions made by this proposed rule will 
result in reducing the paperwork burden for employers covered by the 
Mechanical Power Presses Standard. Removing the requirement to develop 
and maintain weekly certification records for inspections and tests 
will not affect an employer's obligation to inspect and ensure that 
mechanical power presses used in the workplace are in a safe operating 
condition. Revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(i) to complete necessary 
maintenance and repair before operating a press after a periodic 
inspection, and certifying this action, will ensure the safety of 
workers while imposing minimal paperwork burden on employers. OSHA 
estimates that these proposed revisions will result in a paperwork 
burden reduction of 613,600 hours. Accordingly, the Agency believes the 
regulated community will support this effort to reduce unnecessary 
paperwork burden and to remove outdated certification requirements, 
while maintaining employee safety.

III. Summary and Explanation of Proposed Revisions to the Mechanical 
Power Presses Standard

    This proposed rule revises paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of 
OSHA's Mechanical Power Presses Standard at 29 CFR 1910.217. This 
rulemaking also reorganizes these paragraphs by dividing the 
requirements into discrete provisions, and redrafted the provisions in 
plain language to make them easier to understand than the existing 
provisions. The first two provisions, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and 
(e)(1)(ii), cover periodic and weekly tasks associated with the 
mechanical power-press inspection program. To further delineate the 
tasks covered by these two provisions, OSHA refers to the requirements 
of paragraph (e)(1)(i) as the "general component of the inspection 
program," and to the requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(ii) as the 
"directed component of the inspection program." In this regard, the 
requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(i), the general component of the 
inspection program, cover all parts of the
equipment and stipulate a nonspecific interval ("periodic") for 
meeting these requirements. However, the requirements of paragraph 
(e)(1)(ii), the directed component of the inspection program, address 
specific parts of the equipment and define the frequency employers 
would have to follow when inspecting and testing these parts ("at 
least once a week"). OSHA believes these revisions would assist the 
regulated community in differentiating the requirements of these 
provisions.
    Proposed revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(i). Paragraph (e)(1)(i) 
currently requires employers to inspect all parts, auxiliary equipment, 
and safeguards of mechanical power presses on a periodic and regular 
basis and to maintain certification records of these inspections. The 
main revision OSHA is proposing to make to this paragraph is to require 
that employers perform necessary maintenance or repair, or both, on 
presses before operating them, and maintain certification records of 
any maintenance and repairs performed.\2\ Therefore, employers would be 
required to perform, following the periodic and regular inspections but 
before operating the equipment, any necessary maintenance and repair 
found during the inspections, and maintain certification records of the 
maintenance and repairs performed (in addition to the inspection 
certification records already required).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requirement for employers to perform maintenance and 
repair necessary for the safe operation of the entire press is 
implicit in the requirement in existing paragraph (e)(1)(i), which 
specifies that the employer's inspection program ensure that presses 
"are in a safe operating condition and adjustment." An inspection 
program that found, but did not correct, unsafe conditions would not 
meet this existing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A national consensus standard, American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) B11.1-2009 ("American National Standard for Safety 
Requirements for Mechanical Power Presses"), has requirements that are 
similar to paragraph (e)(1)(i). In this regard, paragraph 9.4.1 
("Program") of this ANSI standard requires employers to "establish a 
systematic program of periodic and regular inspection of press 
production systems to ensure that all their parts, auxiliary equipment, 
and safeguarding are in safe operating condition and adjustment." In 
addition, paragraph 9.4.2 ("Documentation") of ANSI B11.1-2009 states 
that the "user shall document the press inspections are made as 
scheduled and that any necessary follow-up repair work has been 
performed." A nonmandatory appendix to the ANSI standard, Annex K 
("Press Inspection Report, Checklist, & Maintenance Record 
(Informative))," supplements these requirements by providing a 
checklist detailing the parts, components, and equipment subject to 
inspection and maintenance.
    The revisions and reorganization of proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i), 
therefore, are consistent with the requirements of ANSI's B11.1 
"Safety Requirements for Mechanical Power Presses." Specifically, the 
proposed revision to paragraph (e)(1)(i) to certify maintenance and 
repairs performed on mechanical power presses are similar to the 
requirement in the ANSI standard to "document that press inspections 
are made as scheduled, and that any necessary follow-up repair work has 
been performed." Not only does this proposed revision represent the 
usual and customary practice of general industry, but OSHA believes 
that adding an explicit requirement to perform necessary maintenance 
and repair will ensure that employers perform such maintenance and 
repair on all of the parts, auxiliary equipment, and safeguards of each 
press, and not just the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and 
single-stroke mechanism delineated in existing paragraph (e)(1)(ii). In 
addition, the proposed revision will provide OSHA with information that 
replaces information removed from proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) (see 
the following discussion of that paragraph), notably the name of the 
individuals who perform maintenance and repair work on the presses. 
This information will not only verify that the employer performed the 
requisite maintenance and repair on presses, but will enable the 
Agency, during compliance inspections, to identify and interview the 
individuals responsible for maintaining and repairing the presses so 
that it can determine whether employees are operating safe equipment. 
Further, if employers maintain these certification records at or near 
the equipment or in a nearby office, employees would be able to examine 
those records and determine whether mechanical power presses are safe 
before they operate them, which will increase employee safety. These 
records also will provide employers with information they can use to 
determine when more substantial maintenance or repairs, instead of 
minor maintenance and adjustment, would provide better, and more cost-
effective, safety. For example, making too frequent adjustments of the 
pullout devices, as shown by maintenance records, can indicate the need 
to replace parts, such as bearings, that are causing the out-of-
adjustment condition.
    Proposed revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(ii). Existing paragraph 
(e)(1)(ii) requires employers to conduct weekly inspections and tests 
on the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke 
mechanism of each mechanical power press, and to perform any necessary 
maintenance and repair on the equipment before operating it. Employers 
also must maintain a certification record of the inspection, testing, 
and maintenance tasks. OSHA is proposing to make two main revisions to 
paragraph (e)(1)(ii). First, OSHA is proposing to revise the 
requirement that "[e]ach press shall be inspected and tested no less 
than weekly" to require explicitly that employees conduct these weekly 
inspections and tests on a "regular basis at least once a week." 
Second, OSHA is proposing to revise this paragraph to remove the 
requirement that employers prepare certification records for the weekly 
inspections and tests; \3\ however, the Agency would retain the 
requirement that employers maintain certification records for the 
maintenance work.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OSHA believes that the burden to maintain certification 
records of maintenance tasks resulting from either the general 
component or the directed component will be a small fraction of the 
overall recordkeeping burden. First, the information-collection 
burden resulting from the inspections performed under the general 
component include not only the certification record but the time it 
takes to perform the inspection. Thus, the time employers take to 
maintain a certification record of the maintenance tasks (which does 
not include the time taken for the maintenance operations 
themselves) should be only a small fraction of the time taken for 
inspection records. Second, for well-maintained presses, which 
should result when employers follow the standard, the inspections 
should uncover the need to perform maintenance relatively 
infrequently. Accordingly, in most instances, inspections should 
determine that presses are operating safely and are, therefore, not 
in need of maintenance.
    The Agency also believes that retaining the proposed requirement 
that employers maintain certification records of maintenance tasks 
performed as a result of inspections performed under the directed 
component would ensure that employers do not postpone performing 
maintenance needs uncovered when performing inspections under the 
general component. In this regard, if the directed component did not 
specify that employers would have to maintain certification records 
of maintenance tasks uncovered during inspections, employers 
uncovering the need for maintenance during an inspection under the 
general component could postpone the maintenance task until the next 
weekly inspection when the standard would not require them to 
maintain a certification record.
    \4\ OSHA believes that employers will perform most maintenance 
tasks associated with mechanical power presses under proposed 
paragraph (e)(1)(i), and that maintenance performed as a result of 
weekly inspections and tests will be infrequent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The certification records for the weekly inspections and tests 
required by existing paragraph (e)(1)(ii) serve the following 
functions: (i) Remind employers to inspect and test
mechanical power presses; (ii) inform employees that the employer 
performed these tasks and that the equipment is safe to operate; and 
(iii) provide a record of compliance, which OSHA representatives can 
use to verify that the employer meets the inspection and testing 
requirements set forth in the standard. However, OSHA determined that 
certifications records for weekly inspections and tests of mechanical 
power presses are not necessary to achieve these functions. In making 
this determination, the Agency noted that the proposed revisions to 
Sec.  1910.217(e)(1)(ii) do not remove or lessen the requirement to 
inspect, test, maintain, and repair presses--tasks that are essential 
to ensuring that the equipment is functioning properly and that working 
conditions are safe for employees. In addition, OSHA believes that 
employers do not need certification records to remind them to perform 
weekly inspections and tests. The Agency believes that employers 
generally perform inspections and tests on a regular basis, for 
example, at the start of the first shift each Monday, and, therefore, 
do not need certification records to remind them to complete these 
tasks. In this regard, under the existing standard, employers may refer 
to the required records directly, use computer-generated prompts, or 
simply perform the tasks the same time every week.
    To ensure that these tasks are part of the employer's usual and 
customary practice, proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) specifies that 
employers perform the inspections and tests "on a regular basis at 
least once a week" to emphasize the importance of establishing a 
consistent, systematic schedule for completing the tasks. OSHA believes 
as well that requiring completion of the tasks weekly, on a regular 
basis approximately the same time each week, will ensure that employers 
remember to inspect and test mechanical power presses.
    Under the proposed rule, OSHA believes that employees would confirm 
weekly inspections and tests by observing the performance of these 
tasks, since employees will know when the tasks occur, or by speaking 
with the individual who performed the tasks. Additionally, employees 
will still have the certification records for maintenance to obtain 
information that the employer completed this task and that the 
equipment is in safe operating condition.
    For compliance purposes, OSHA compliance officers can use the 
information provided by proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i) and the 
certification records for maintenance specified by proposed paragraph 
(e)(1)(ii) to identify the individuals responsible for conducting the 
inspections and tests, and then interview those individuals regarding 
these tasks. Compliance officers also can interview employees who 
operate the presses and who should have firsthand knowledge regarding 
whether the employer is meeting the inspection and testing 
requirements. In addition, an examination of the equipment involved can 
frequently reveal whether employers are performing the weekly 
inspections and tests. For example, if the clutch/brake mechanism is 
not working properly, OSHA can ask the press operator how long that 
condition existed and can check with individuals responsible for 
maintaining the press to determine the last time the mechanism was 
checked and repaired.
    Finally, OSHA added a note to proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) 
explicitly stating that inspections and tests of the three parts: (1) 
Conducted under the directed component of the inspection program are 
exempt from the certification requirements specified by paragraph 
(e)(1)(i)(C); and (2) conducted under the general component of the 
inspection program must comply with these certification requirements. 
The question may arise, however, regarding which component of the 
inspection program applies if an employer combines the inspections 
required by both the general and directed components of the inspection 
program (that is, if the employer performs a weekly inspection of the 
three parts specified by the directed component of the inspection 
program as part of the periodic inspection specified by the general 
component of the inspection program). In such cases, OSHA would treat 
the weekly inspection as part of the periodic inspection specified by 
the general component of the inspection program, and the employer would 
have to comply with the certification requirements specified by 
paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) (that is, the employer would have to maintain a 
certification record of the inspection, as well as each maintenance and 
repair task performed on the three parts).
    OSHA concludes that the requirement in existing Sec.  
1910.217(e)(1)(ii) for employers to certify the weekly inspections and 
tests is unnecessary because other means exist to determine whether 
employers perform these tasks on a weekly basis, including the record 
requirements in proposed Sec.  1910.217(e)(1)(i). OSHA determined that 
mandating that weekly inspections and tests be systematic and part of 
an employer's regular routine, reinforced by the new language in 
proposed Sec.  1910.217(e)(1)(ii), will effectuate the purpose of these 
certification records.
    Summary. This proposed rule would revise the existing requirements 
of paragraph (e)(1)(i) by expressly requiring employers to perform 
necessary maintenance or repair, or both, on presses before operating 
them, and to maintain certification records of any maintenance and 
repairs they perform. The proposed rule also would revise paragraph 
(e)(1)(ii) by requiring explicitly that employers conduct inspections 
and tests "on a regular basis at least once a week," and by removing 
the requirements to maintain certification records of any inspections 
and tests they perform under this paragraph. OSHA believes that these 
revisions, combined with the available means that employers, employees, 
and the Agency can use to ensure that employers perform these tasks at 
the specified frequency, will fulfill the functions for certification 
records required by existing paragraph (e)(1)(ii). OSHA further 
believes that removing the certification records for weekly inspections 
and tests, along with the proposed revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(i), 
will maintain employee safety while reducing the paperwork burden hours 
and cost to employers. Regarding the paperwork burden, OSHA estimates 
that the proposed revisions to Sec.  1910.217(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) 
will result in a net paperwork burden reduction of 613,600 hours.

IV. Procedural Determinations

A. Legal Considerations

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 
U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is "to assure so far as possible every working man 
and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to 
preserve our human resources." 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal, 
Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate and enforce 
occupational safety and health standards (29 U.S.C. 654(b), 655(b)). A 
safety or health standard is a standard that "requires conditions, or 
the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, 
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to 
provide safe or healthful employment or places of employment" (29 
U.S.C. 652(8)). A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate 
within the meaning of Section 652(8) when a significant risk of 
material harm exists in the workplace and the standard would 
substantially reduce or eliminate that workplace risk. (See Industrial
Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 
(1980).) OSHA already determined that requirements for inspecting, 
testing, maintaining, and repairing mechanical power presses, and 
certifying completion of these tasks, are reasonably necessary or 
appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8). (See, for example, 39 
FR 41841, 41845 (Dec. 3, 1974); 51 FR 34552, 34553-34558 (Sep. 29, 
1986).)
    As explained earlier in this Federal Register notice, this proposed 
rule will not reduce the employee protections put in place by the 
Mechanical Power Presses Standard OSHA is revising under this 
rulemaking. Therefore, it is unnecessary for OSHA to determine 
significant risk, or the extent to which this rulemaking would reduce 
that risk, as typically required by Industrial Union Department, AFL-
CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (448 U.S. 607 (1980)).

B. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    This proposed rule is not economically significant within the 
context of EO 12866, or a major rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act or Section 801 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801). In addition, this proposed rule 
complies with EO 13563. The rulemaking imposes no additional costs on 
any private-sector or public-sector entities, and does not meet any of 
the criteria for an economically significant or major rule specified by 
the EO 12866 or relevant statutes.
    While this proposed rule revises (e)(1)(i) of OSHA's Mechanical 
Power Presses Standard at 29 CFR 1910.217 to complete necessary 
maintenance and repair before operating a press after a periodic 
inspection, and certify this action, it also removes the requirement in 
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) that employers maintain weekly certification 
records for inspections and tests (on average, for about 40 records per 
year for each press). Based on the resulting reduction in paperwork 
burden and cost to employers, OSHA preliminarily determined that this 
rulemaking is not significant and is economically feasible to 
employers.
    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of the 
proposed rule to determine whether these requirements would have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Since no employer of any size will have additional costs, the Agency 
preliminarily certifies that the proposed rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed rule revises information-collection requirements that 
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), 44 U.S.C. et seq., 
and OMB's regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. OMB approved the information-
collection requirements (paperwork) currently contained in OSHA's 
Mechanical Power Presses Standard (29 CFR part 1910.217(e)(1)) under 
OMB Control Number 1218-0229.\5\ The current Information Collection 
Request (ICR) expires March 30, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OSHA notes that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a 
collection of information unless OMB approves the collection of 
information under PRA-95 and the agency displays a currently valid 
OMB control number. The public need not respond to a collection of 
information requirement unless the agency displays a currently valid 
OMB control number. Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of 
law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply 
with a collection of information requirement if the requirement does 
not display a currently valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA requests OMB to extend and revise the information-collection 
requirements contained in the Mechanical Power Press standard. 
Accordingly, OSHA is seeking an extension for employers to disclose 
certification records to OSHA during an inspection and requesting a 
revision to 29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1). The proposal would revise paragraph 
(e)(1)(i) to require employers to perform and complete necessary 
maintenance and repair on the presses, and to develop and maintain 
certification records of these tasks. The proposal also removes 
requirements from paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this standard to develop and 
maintain certification records for weekly inspections and tests 
performed on mechanical power presses.
    OSHA seeks comments on the proposed extension and revision of the 
paperwork requirements contained in the Mechanical Power Presses 
Standard (29 CFR 1910.217). OSHA has a particular interest in comments 
on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information-collection requirements 
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, 
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and 
costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; 
for example, by using automated or other technological information-
collection and information-transmission techniques.
    Pursuant to 5 CFR part 1320.5(a)(iv), OSHA provides the following 
summary of the Mechanical Power Press Information Collection Request 
ICR:
    1. Title: Standard on Mechanical Power Presses (29 CFR 
1910.217(e)(1)).
    2. OMB Control Number: 1218-0229.
    3. Description of collection of information requirements: Proposed 
paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) would require employers to maintain a 
certification record of each inspection (other than inspections and 
tests required by paragraph (e)(1)(ii)), and each maintenance and 
repair task performed, which includes the date of the inspection, 
maintenance, or repair work, the signature of the person who performed 
the inspection, maintenance, or repair work, and the serial number, or 
other identifier, of the power press inspected, maintained, and 
repaired.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) would require employers to inspect 
and test each press no less than weekly to determine the condition of 
the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke 
mechanism. Employers also would have to perform and complete necessary 
maintenance or repair, or both, before operating the press. This 
proposed rule would remove the requirement for employers to develop and 
maintain a certification record of the weekly inspections and tests, 
but retain the requirement to develop and maintain a certification 
record for maintenance work.
    Employers must still disclose inspection, maintenance and, or 
repair records to OSHA during an inspection.
    4. Affected Public: Business or other for profit.
    5. Number of Respondents: 191,750 mechanical power presses.
    6. Frequency: On occasion.
    7. Time per Response: OSHA estimates a press operator takes 20 
minutes to inspect and maintain a mechanical power press and to prepare 
the necessary certification(s).
    8. Estimated Total Burden Hours: Removing weekly inspection and 
test records would reduce the burden to employers by 613,600 hours, 
from 1,373,054 to 759,454 hours.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OSHA also is reducing the estimated total burden hours by an 
additional 721,363 hours to 38,091 hours. The Agency determined that 
it is usual and customary for employers to conduct and document 
periodic inspections of power presses. PRA-95 excludes usual and 
customary activities from the definition of the term "burden" (5 
CFR 1320.3(b)(2)). OSHA based this determination on discussions with 
its field staff and a thorough review of ANSI's B11.1 "Safety 
Requirements for Mechanical Power Presses." While OSHA identified 
this reduction during the rulemaking, it is not a result of the 
rulemaking. Therefore, the Agency did not include this reduction in 
determining the reporting burden associated with the revisions to 
the information-collection requirements specified by this proposed 
rulemaking.

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

    9. Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): There are no capital 
costs for this collection of information requirement.
    To obtain an electronic copy of the ICR requesting OMB to extend 
and revise the information-collection requirements contained in the 
Mechanical Power Presses Standard go to 
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201309-1218-001. 
If you need assistance, or to 
make inquiries or request other information, contact Theda Kenney, 
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; 
telephone: (202) 693-2222.
    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.11(a), members of the public who wish 
to comment on the estimated reduction in burden hours and costs 
described in this proposed rule must send their written comments to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OSHA Desk Officer 
(RIN 1218-AC80), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th 
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. OSHA also encourages commenters to 
submit their comments on this paperwork determination to the rulemaking 
docket (Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010). For instructions on submitting 
comments to the rulemaking docket, see the sections of this Federal 
Register notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES.

D. Federalism

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Executive 
Order on Federalism (EO 13132, 64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), which 
requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from 
limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any 
actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions 
only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is 
national in scope. EO 13132 provides for preemption of State law only 
with the expressed consent of Congress. Federal agencies must limit any 
such preemption to the extent possible.
    Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
(29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress expressly provides that States may 
adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and 
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards. States that 
obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as "State-Plan 
States." Occupational safety and health standards developed by State-
Plan States must be at least as effective in providing safe and 
healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal standards 
(29 U.S.C. 667). Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are 
free to develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for 
safety and health standards.
    In summary, OSHA concluded that this proposed rule complies with EO 
13132. In States without an OSHA-approved State Plan, any standard 
developed from this proposed rule would limit State policy options in 
the same manner as every standard promulgated by OSHA. In States with 
OSHA-approved State Plans, this rulemaking does not significantly limit 
State policy options.

E. State-Plan States

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent 
amendment to an existing standard, the 27 States and U.S. Territories 
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must 
amend their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or show 
OSHA why such action is unnecessary, for example, because an existing 
State standard covering this area is "at least as effective" as the 
new Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). The State 
standard must be at least as effective as the final Federal rule, and 
must be completed within 6 months of the promulgation date of the final 
Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that 
does not impose additional or more stringent requirements than an 
existing standard, State-Plan States are not required to amend their 
standards, although the Agency may encourage them to do so.
    The 21 States and 1 U.S. Territory with OSHA-approved occupational 
safety and health plans covering private-sector employers and State and 
local government employees are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New 
Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. In addition, four 
States and one U.S. Territory have OSHA-approved State Plans that apply 
to State and local government employees only: Connecticut, Illinois, 
New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands.
    OSHA believes that while the proposed revisions to the Mechanical 
Power Presses Standard, taken as a whole, would not impose any more 
stringent requirements on employers than the existing standard, these 
proposed revisions would provide employers with critical, updated 
information that would reduce unnecessary burden while maintaining 
employee protections. Nevertheless, this proposed rule would not 
require action under 29 CFR 1953.5(a), and State-Plan States would not 
need to adopt this proposed rule or show OSHA why such action is 
unnecessary. However, to the extent these State-Plan States have the 
same standards as the OSHA standards affected by this proposed rule, 
OSHA encourages them to adopt the amendments.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. and Executive 
Order 12875 (75 FR 48130; Aug. 10, 1999)). As discussed above in 
Section IV.B (Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis), OSHA determined that this proposed rule would not impose 
additional costs on any private-sector or public-sector entity. 
Accordingly, this proposed rule would require no additional 
expenditures by either private or public employers.
    As noted earlier under Section IV.E (State-Plan States) of this 
notice, this proposed rule would not apply to State and local 
governments except in States that elected voluntarily to adopt a State 
Plan approved by the Agency. Consequently, this proposed rule does not 
meet the definition of a "Federal intergovernmental mandate" (see 
Section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)). Therefore, for the 
purposes of the UMRA, OSHA preliminarily certifies that this proposed 
rule does not mandate that State, local, or tribal governments adopt 
new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or increase expenditures by the 
private sector of more than $100 million in any year.

G. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and preliminarily determined that it 
does
not have "tribal implications" as defined in that order. This 
proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the 
preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this proposed rule under 
the following authorities: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 40 U.S.C. 3701 et 
seq.; 5 U.S.C. 553; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912; 
Jan. 25, 2012); and 29 CFR part 1911.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Mechanical power presses, Occupational safety and health, Safety.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 8, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Proposed Amendments to Standards

    For the reasons stated earlier in this preamble, the Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration is proposing to amend 29 CFR part 1910 
as set forth below:

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

Subpart O--[Amended]

0
1. Revise the authority citation for subpart O of part 1910 to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order 
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 
(55 FR 9033), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as 
applicable; 20 CFR part 1911. Sections 1910.217 and 1910.219 also 
issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1910.217 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1910.217  Mechanical power presses.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Inspection and maintenance records. The employer shall 
establish and follow an inspection program having a general component 
and a directed component.
    (i) Under the general component of the inspection program, the 
employer shall:
    (A) Conduct periodic and regular inspections of each power press to 
ensure that all of its parts, auxiliary equipment, and safeguards, 
including the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-
stroke mechanism, are in a safe operating condition and adjustment;
    (B) Perform and complete necessary maintenance or repair, or both, 
before operating the press; and
    (C) Maintain a certification record of each inspection, and each 
maintenance and repair task performed, under this general component of 
the inspection program, that includes the date of the inspection, 
maintenance, or repair work, the signature of the person who performed 
the inspection, maintenance, or repair work, and the serial number, or 
other identifier, of the power press inspected, maintained, and 
repaired.
    (ii) Under the directed component of the inspection program, the 
employer shall:
    (A) Inspect and test each press on a regular basis at least once a 
week to determine the condition of the clutch/brake mechanism, 
antirepeat feature, and single-stroke mechanism;
    (B) Perform and complete necessary maintenance or repair, or both, 
on the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke 
mechanism before operating the press; and
    (C) Maintain a certification record of each maintenance task 
performed under the directed component of the inspection program that 
includes the date of the maintenance task, the signature of the person 
who performed the maintenance task, and the serial number, or other 
identifier, of the power press maintained.

    Note to paragraph (e)(1)(ii):  Inspections of the clutch/brake 
mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke mechanism conducted 
under the directed component of the inspection program are exempt 
from the requirement to maintain certification records specified by 
paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) of this section, but inspections of the 
clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke 
mechanism conducted under the general component of the inspection 
program are not exempt from this requirement.

    (iii) Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section does not apply to 
presses that comply with paragraphs (b)(13) and (14) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-27694 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

Federal Registers - Table of Contents Federal Registers - Table of Contents