Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 40651 

Justice Programs, Department of Justice, 

810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC 

20530 or by email at jill.molter@

usdoj.gov. Written comments and/or 

suggestions can also be sent to the 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Attention Department of Justice 

Desk Officers, Washington, DC 20503 or 

sent to OIRA_submissions@

omb.eop.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection of information 

are encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

— Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

including whether the information 

will have practical utility; 

— Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

— Evaluate whether and if so how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enhanced; and 

— Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

1. Type of Information Collection: 

Reinstatement with change of 

previously approved collection. 

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: 

OJJDP’s NTTAC Feedback Form 

Package. 

3. The agency form number: OJJDP’s 

NTTAC, all forms included in package 

#1121–0277. 

4. Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: 

Primary: Individuals or households. 

Other: Federal Government, State, 

local or tribal government; Not-for-profit 

institutions; Businesses or other forprofit. 

Abstract: The Office for Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

National Training and Technical 

Assistance Center (NTTAC) Feedback 

Form Package is designed to collect inperson and online data necessary to 

continuously assess the outcomes of the 

assistance provided for both monitoring 

and accountability purposes and for 

continuously assessing and meeting the 

needs of the field. OJJDP’s NTTAC will 

send these forms to technical assistance 

(TA) recipients; conference attendees; 

training and TA providers; online 

meeting participants; in-person meeting 

participants; and focus group 

participants to capture important 

feedback on the recipients’ satisfaction 

with the quality, efficiency, referrals, 

information, and resources provided 

and assess the recipients’ additional 

training and TA needs. The data will 

then be used to advise OJJDP’s NTTAC 

on ways to improve the support 

provided to its users; the juvenile justice 

field at-large; and ultimately improve 

services and outcomes for youth. 

5. An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: It is estimated that 5066 

respondents will complete forms and 

the response time will range from .03 

hours to 1.5 hours. 

6. An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: An estimated 520.5 total 

annual burden hours are associated with 

this collection. 

If additional information is required, 

contact: Melody Braswell, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street NE, 3E.405B, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Dated: July 23, 2021. 

Melody Braswell, 

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16078 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Press Inquiries: Frank Meilinger, 

Director, OSHA Office of 

Communications; telephone: 202–693– 

1999; email: meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 

General and technical information: 

Lisa Long, OSHA Directorate of 

Standards and Guidance; email: 

long.lisa@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
40652 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 

1See 36 FR 10466, 10643 (May 29, 1971), 

reprinted at 39 FR 23502 (June 27, 1974). 

2See 41 FR 36702 (August 31, 1976). 

3See 79 FR 13078 (March 7, 2014). 

4See https://www.osha.gov/dea/lookback/psdi_

final2004.html. 

5See 53 FR 8322 (March 14, 1988). 

6See § 1910.217(h)(11). 

7See Interlake Stamping Corp.; Revocation of an 

Experimental Variance and Interim Order, 79 FR 

13078 (March 7, 2014). 

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: technicaldatacenter@

dol.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Introduction: OSHA’s Existing 

Mechanical Power Presses Standard 

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 Maintenance 

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 fullrevolution press cannot be stopped once 

the cycle begins. A part-revolution press 

has a brake that can stop the press midcycle. 

In 1971, OSHA published the 

standard for mechanical power presses, 

§ 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 applicators. 

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. Fullrevolution power presses cannot use 

PSDI because these machines cannot be 

stopped mid-cycle. 

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

In 1988, OSHA added paragraph (h) to 

§ 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 thirdparty validation. To date, however, no 

third party has sought OSHA approval 

to conduct third-party validation. 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 40653 

8The review also included a review under 

Section 5 of Executive Order 12866. 

9At the time OSHA initiated its Section 610 

Review in 2002, ANSI B11.1–2001 was the most 

recent version of the consensus standard. 

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

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: 

Option 1—Update all of § 1910.217 to 

make it consistent with ANSI B11.1– 

2001 or something similar.9

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 § 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: 

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 § 1910.212 adequately 

protect employees using nonmechanical power presses. 

Respondents agreed that the existing 

mechanical power presses requirements 

in § 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 press; 

• Considering adopting ANSI 

standards for other types of presses; and 

• Expanding § 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 nonmandatory. 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 production; 

• ANSI B11.1 permits modification 

and reconstruction of presses; and 

• PSDI validation is useful, but thirdparty 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 

§ 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 § 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, setup, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
40654 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 

prevalent injury–accounting for 39 

percent of all injuries over that period. 

TABLE 1—MECHANICAL POWER PRESS INCIDENTS AND INJURIES, 2007–2015 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total 

Percent 

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– 

0003–0025). 

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 

1910.217(g). 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 40655 

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 

operations; 

• ensure that maintenance personnel 

are trained in safe working procedures 

for inspecting and maintaining press 

production systems; 

• 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 standard. 

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 following: 

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, why? 

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 nonmandatory 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, highenergy-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 should 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
40656 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 

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, § 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, § 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 

§ 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? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 40657 

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 CODE

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 presses. 

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, partrevolution, 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 partrevolution 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

NAICS NAICS—title 

Total power 

press 

employees 1

Affected 

(large MPP) 

employees 

Total 

employment 2

Total 

establishments 2

236000 ........... Construction of Buildings .............................................. 260 25 1,391,532 222,751 

237100 ........... Utility System Construction ........................................... 340 32 607,919 19,156 

238000 ........... Specialty Trade Contractors .......................................... 2,280 217 4,423,714 472,803 

311400 ........... Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food 

Manufacturing 3.

0 0 159,258 1,924 

316900 ........... Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing ......... 160 15 11,256 770 

321000 ........... Wood Product Manufacturing ........................................ 1,540 146 415,151 14,463 

322000 ........... Paper Manufacturing ..................................................... 2,350 223 344,537 3,999 

323000 ........... Printing and Related Support Activities ........................ 840 80 438,516 24,809 

325000 ........... Chemical Manufacturing ................................................ 2,730 259 798,028 13,615 

326000 ........... Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing ............... 27,070 2,572 785,794 12,065 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
40658 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 

TABLE 3—SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF INDUSTRIES THAT EMPLOY MECHANICAL POWER PRESS (MPP) OPERATORS— 

Continued 

NAICS NAICS—title 

Total power 

press 

employees 1

Affected 

(large MPP) 

employees 

Total 

employment 2

Total 

establishments 2

327000 ........... Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing ................. 2,990 284 399,572 15,076 

331000 ........... Primary Metal Manufacturing ........................................ 26,450 2,513 374,837 4,112 

332000 ........... Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing ...................... 209,230 19,877 1,437,086 55,020 

333000 ........... Machinery Manufacturing .............................................. 93,600 8,892 1,057,407 23,060 

334100 ........... Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing .... 560 53 40,392 916 

334200 ........... Communications Equipment Manufacturing ................. 970 92 82,857 1,260 

334400 ........... Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing.6,070 577 257,700 3,789 

334500 ........... Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control 

Instruments Manufacturing.

8,170 776 383,979 5,201 

335000 ........... Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing.15,640 1,486 345,470 5,549 

336000 ........... Transportation Equipment Manufacturing ..................... 89,580 8,510 1,585,194 11,567 

337000 ........... Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing .............. 4,340 412 372,286 14,581 

339000 ........... Miscellaneous Manufacturing ........................................ 19,810 1,882 550,598 25,811 

493000 ........... Warehousing and Storage ............................................ 310 29 967,386 16,919 

561300 ........... Employment Services .................................................... 40,160 3,815 6,771,435 53,657 

561900 ........... Other Support Services ................................................. 460 44 296,453 20,123 

811000 ........... Repair and Maintenance ............................................... 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. 

1BLS Occupational Employment Survey 2019. 

2 County Business Patterns, U.S. Census, 2018. 

3OSHA 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 partrevolution 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 28, 2021 / Notices 40659 

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] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice: (21–048)] 

NASA Federal Advisory Committees; 

Notice of Committees ReEstablishment Pursuant to the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

The Administrator of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) has determined that the reestablishment of four (4) NASA Federal 

advisory committees under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is 

necessary and in the public interest in 

connection with the performance of 

duties imposed upon NASA by law. 

This determination follows consultation 

with the Committee Management 

Secretariat, General Services 

Administration. These four committees 

were originally established on January 

17, 2017. These four committees and 

their charters expired on June 12, 2021. 

Name of Federal Advisory 

Committees: Astrophysics Advisory 

Committee; Heliophysics Advisory 

Committee; Earth Science Advisory 

Committee; and Planetary Science 

Advisory Committee. 

Purpose and Objectives: Each of the 

four (4) NASA Federal advisory 

committees will advise NASA on 

scientific matters within the scope of its 

respective area of responsibility. 

Specifically, the scientific matters 

involve NASA research programs, 

policies, plans, and priorities pertaining 

to Astrophysics, Heliophysics, Earth 

Science, and Planetary Science. The 

four (4) NASA Federal advisory 

committees will function solely as 

advisory bodies and will comply fully 

with the provisions of FACA. 

Membership: Membership of each of 

the four (4) NASA Federal advisory 

committees and any subordinate groups 

formed under each committee shall 

consist of Special Government 

Employees, Regular Government 

Employees, or Representatives. They 

will be chosen from among academia, 

government and industry with 

demonstrated and well-recognized 

knowledge, expertise and experience in 

fields relevant to their respective 

scientific disciplines. The membership 

of each Federal advisory committee will 

be fairly balanced in terms of points of 

view represented and functions to be 

performed. Diversity shall be considered 

as well. 

Duration: Each of the four (4) NASA 

Federal advisory committees is a 

discretionary committee and is 

envisioned to be continuing entity 

subject to charter renewals every two 

years. 

Responsible NASA Official: Mr. Jason 

Callahan, Science Mission Directorate, 

NASA Headquarters, (202) 358–0065 or 

jason.w.callahan@nasa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jason Callahan, Science Mission 

Directorate, NASA Headquarters, (202) 

358–0065 or jason.w.callahan@

nasa.gov. 

Patricia Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2021–16028 Filed 7–27–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2019–0080] 

Information Collection: Tribal 

Participation in the Advance 

Notification Program 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of submission to the 

Office of Management and Budget; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has recently 

submitted a proposed collection of 

information to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. The information collection is 

entitled, ‘‘Tribal Participation in the 

Advance Notification Program.’’ 

DATES: Submit comments by August 27, 

2021. Comments received after this date 

will be considered if it is practical to do 

so, but the Commission is able to ensure 

consideration only for comments 

received on or before this date. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain. Find this 

particular information collection by 

selecting ‘‘Currently under Review— 

Open for Public Comments’’ or by using 

the search function. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–2084; email: 

Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Obtaining Information and 

Submitting Comments 

A. Obtaining Information 

Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2019– 

0080 when contacting the NRC about 

the availability of information for this 

action. You may obtain publicly 

available information related to this 

action by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/ and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2019–0080. A copy 

of the collection of information and 

related instructions may be obtained 

without charge by accessing Docket ID 

NRC–2019–0080 on this website. 

• NRC’s Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System 

(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly 

available documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For 

problems with ADAMS, please contact 

the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) 

reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301– 

415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@

nrc.gov. A copy of the collection of 

information and related instructions 

may be obtained without charge by 

accessing ADAMS Accession No. 

ML20080L789. The supporting 

statement is available in ADAMS under 

Accession No. ML21161A283. 

• NRC’s Clearance Officer: A copy of 

the collection of information and related 

instructions may be obtained without 

charge by contacting the NRC’s 

Clearance Officer, David Cullison, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 

301–415–2084; email: 

Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov. 

B. Submitting Comments 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES