Semi Annual Regulatory Agenda. | Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Publication Date:

04/24/2000
Publication Type:

Unified Agenda
Fed Register #:
65:23019-23081
Title:

Semi Annual Regulatory Agenda.

NOTE: This section for the Department of Labor (OSHA)
is on pages 23019-23081

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Prerule Stage

Sequence Number	Title	Regulation Identification Number
1935	Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals	1218-AB63
1936	Safety Standards for Scaffolds Used in the Construction Industry -- Part II	1218-AB68
1937	Grain Handling Facilities (Section 610 Review)	1218-AB73
1938	Cotton Dust (Section 610 Review)	1218-AB74
1939	Prevention of Needlestick and Other Sharps Injuries	1218-AB85
1940	Occupational Exposure to Perchloroethylene	1218-AB86
1941	Sanitation	1218-AB87
1942	Hearing Loss Prevention in Construction Workers	1218-AB89

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Proposed Rule Stage

Sequence Number	Title	Regulation Identification Number
1943	Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for Air Contaminants	1218-AB54
1944	Occupational Exposure to Ethylene Oxide (Section 610 Review)	1218-AB60
1945	Plain Language Revision of the Flammable and Combustible Liquids Standard	1218-AB61
1946	Plain Language Revision of the Mechanical Power-Transmission Apparatus Standard	1218-AB66
1947	Electric Power Transmission and Distribution; Electrical Protective Equipment in the Construction Industry	1218-AB67
1948	Standards Improvement (Miscellaneous Changes) for General Industry, Marine Terminals, and Construction Standards (Phase II)	1218-AB81
1949	Plain Language Revisions to Spray Applications	1218-AB84
1950	Signs, Signals, and Barricades	1218-AB88

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Final Rule Stage

Sequence Number	Title	Regulation Identification Number
1951	Steel Erection (Part 1926) (Safety Protection for Ironworkers)	1218-AA65
1952	Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (Simplified Injury/Illness Recordkeeping Requirements)	1218-AB24
1953	Ergonomics Programs: Preventing Musculoskeletal Disorders	1218-AB36
1954	Occupational Exposure to Tuberculosis	1218-AB46
1955	Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories Programs: Fees	1218-AB57
1956	Employer Payment for Personal Protective Equipment	1218-AB77
1957	Consultation Agreements	1218-AB79
1958	Plain Language Revisions to the Exit Routes Standard	1218-AB82

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Long-Term Actions

Sequence Number	Title	Regulation Identification Number
1959	Respiratory Protection (Proper Use of Modern Respirators)	1218-AA05
1960	Longshoring and Marine Terminals (Parts 1917 and 1918) -- Reopening of the Record (Vertical Tandem Lifts (VTLs))	1218-AA56
1961	Scaffolds in Shipyards (Part 1915 -- Subpart N)	1218-AA68
1962	Access and Egress in Shipyards (Part 1915, Subpart E) (Shipyards: Emergency Exits and Aisles)	1218-AA70
1963	Glycol Ethers: 2-Methoxyethanol, 2-Ethoxyethanol, and Their Acetates: Protecting Reproductive Health	1218-AA84
1964	Accreditation of Training Programs for Hazardous Waste Operations (Part 1910)	1218-AB27
1965	Indoor Air Quality in the Workplace	1218-AB37
1966	Safety and Health Programs (for General Industry and the Maritime Industries)	1218-AB41
1967	Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium (Preventing Occupational Illness: Chromium)	1218-AB45
1968	Confined Spaces in Construction (Part 1926): Preventing Suffocation/Explosions in Confined Spaces	1218-AB47
1969	General Working Conditions for Shipyard Employment	1218-AB50
1970	Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment (Part 1915, Subpart P) (Shipyards: Fire Safety)	1218-AB51
1971	Metalworking Fluids: Protecting Respiratory Health	1218-AB58
1972	Fall Protection in the Construction Industry	1218-AB62
1973	Revocation of Certification Records for Tests, Inspections, and Training	1218-AB65
1974	Safety and Health Programs for Construction	1218-AB69
1975	Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica	1218-AB70
1976	Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout) in Construction (Part 1926) (Preventing Construction Injuries/Fatalities: Lockout)	1218-AB71
1977	Occupational Exposure to Beryllium	1218-AB76
1978	Consolidation of Records Maintenance Requirements in OSHA Standards	1218-AB78
1979	Walking Working Surfaces and Personal Fall Protection Systems (1910) (Slips, Trips and Fall Prevention)	1218-AB80
1980	Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Servicing	1218-AB83

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Completed Actions

Sequence Number	Title	Regulation Identification Number
1981	Control of Hazardous Energy Sources (Lockout/Tagout)	1218-AB59

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)	Prerule Stage
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1935. PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT OF HIGHLY HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 653; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.119

Legal Deadline:None

Abstract: OSHA is undertaking two regulatory actions concerning the Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM) standard. One action was to publish, in April, 2000, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to address the need to add reactive chemicals that are not currently covered by PSM to the rule and the need to revise the language of the rule to clarify OSHA's intent to cover flammable liquids stored in atmospheric tanks that are connected to a process. Another action is a proposal to add chemicals to the list of highly hazardous chemicals in the PSM standard that were not originally included in the OSHA standard but were included in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Risk Management Program (RMP) rule (one part of the RMP rule addresses compliance with the OSHA Process Safety Management rule). OSHA has been asked by representatives of the regulated community to bring its chemical list into closer alignment with the RMP rule.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM Reactives	04/00/00
NPRM Process Safety Management	To Be	Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678

Marthe B. Kent, Acting Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3718, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678

RIN: 1218-AB63

1936. SAFETY STANDARDS FOR SCAFFOLDS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY -- PART II

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.450; 29 CFR 1926.451; 29 CFR 1926.452; 29 CFR 1926.453; 29 CFR 1926.454

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Since the promulgation of a final rule for scaffolds used in construction in August 1996, several issues have arisen under the new standard. The agency will solicit information on several issues including (1) providing access to platforms where decking extends past the ends of the scaffold; (2) changing the minimum width for roof brackets to less than 12 inches; (3) changing the requirements for grounding of the scaffold during welding operations; and (4) requiring the use of scaffold grade planks.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM	09/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Russell B. Swanson, Director, Directorate of Construction, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3468, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2020
Fax: 202 693-1689
Email: bswanson@dol.gov

RIN: 1218-AB68

1937. GRAIN HANDLING FACILITIES (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 553; 5 USC 610

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.272

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA is undertaking a review of its grain handling standard (29 CFR 1910.272) in accordance with the requirements of section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of EO 12866. The review will cover the continued need for the rule; the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the rule; the complexity of the rule; the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules and, to the extent feasible, with State and local rules; and the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the industries affected by the rule.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

Begin Review	10/01/97
End Review	01/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John F. Martonik, Director, Office of Program Audits and Evaluation, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3641, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2400
Email: jmartonik@dol.gov

RIN: 1218-AB73

1938. COTTON DUST (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 (b); 5 USC 553; 5 USC 610

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1043

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA is undertaking a review of its cotton dust standard (29 CFR 1910.1043) in accordance with the requirements of section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of EO 12866. The review will cover the continued need for the rule; the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the rule; the complexity of the rule; the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules and, to the extent feasible, with State and local rules; and the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the industries affected by the rule.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

Begin Review	10/01/97
End Review	09/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB74

1939. PREVENTION OF NEEDLESTICK AND OTHER SHARPS INJURIES

Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1030

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In 1998, OSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) requesting information from the public on the incidence of needlestick and sharps injuries among workers in healthcare, nursing home, and other related work settings; the availability and extent of use of safer medical devices to prevent such injuries; the potential cost and feasibility implications of relying on such devices; how best to evaluate the efficacy of these devices and encourage worker acceptance of them, and other issues. Workers receiving such injuries may contract such deadly diseases as Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) if the needle or sharp causing the injury is contaminated by blood or other potentially infectious material from a patient or client with bloodborne disease. OSHA received 396 responses to the RFI. It has been estimated that there are 590,000 contaminated needlestick and sharps injuries every year. OSHA decided to take several actions in response to the information received: issuance of the RFI summary report; revision of the compliance directive (CPL 2- 2.44D) for the Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030); and proposed revision of the Bloodborne Pathogens standard to clarify that, where feasible, safer medical devices must be used to satisfy the requirements of that paragraph: "Engineering and work practice controls shall be used to eliminate or minimize employee exposure." The revised compliance directive was issued in 1999. OSHA intends to issue the proposed rule in the Spring of 2001, and to hold stakeholder meetings in the summer of 2000.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM	03/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.

Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Acting Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3718, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678

RIN: 1218-AB85

1940. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO PERCHLOROETHYLENE

Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA intends to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to address the hazards associated with occupational exposure to perchloroethylene (also called "tetrachloroethylene"), (CAS 127-18-4). OSHA's limits for this substance are 100 ppm as an 8- hour TWA; 200 ppm as a 15-minute ceiling; and 300 ppm as a 5-minute peak not to be exceeded in any 3-hour period (29 CFR 1910.1000). These limits have been in place for nearly 30 years and are widely recognized as being inadequately protective. NIOSH classifies perchloroethylene as an occupational carcinogen. Workers exposed to perchloroethylene may experience sensory irritation, narcosis, liver damage, and cancer. The ANPR will solicit information from interested parties on the risk, current exposure levels, current industry control practices, and feasible means of achieving reductions in existing exposure levels among workers in perchloroethylene-using industries.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM	05/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB86

1941. SANITATION

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.51

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On October 7, 1998, the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health(ACCSH) recommended that OSHA consider proposed revisions to the construction sanitation standard (29 CFR 1926.51). OSHA believes that the ACCSH recommendation raises important issues regarding the type of sanitation facilities needed for construction workers. OSHA intends to issue an ANPRM to consider revisions to the sanitation standard that would include washing facilities, gender- separate and lockable toilet facilities, and (where other OSHA standards require change rooms), gender-separate and lockable change facilities.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM	12/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB87

1942. HEARING LOSS PREVENTION IN CONSTRUCTION WORKERS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.52

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA issued a Sec. 6(b)(5) health standard mandating a comprehensive hearing conservation program for noise exposed workers in general industry in 1983. However, a number of recent studies have shown that a large number of construction workers experience work- related hearing loss. In addition, current industry practice with regard to the use of engineering, administrative and personal protective equipment to reduce exposures to noise is low in this industry. OSHA intends to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) early in 2000, and to initiate stakeholder meetings later in the year, to gather information on the extent of noise-induced hearing loss among workers in different trades in this industry, current practices to reduce this loss, and additional approaches and protections that could be used to prevent such loss in the future.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM	04/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB89

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)	Proposed Rule Stage
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1943. PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS (PELS) FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 (b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000; 29 CFR 1915.1000; 29 CFR 1917.1(a)(2)(ii); 29 CFR 1918.1(b)(a); 29 CFR 1926.55

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA enforces hundreds of permissible exposure limits (PELs) for toxic air contaminants found in U.S. workplaces. Most of the air contaminant limits were adopted by OSHA in 1971 from recommendations issued by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and the American National Standards Institute. These PELs, which have not been updated since 1971, thus reflect the results of research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. Since then, much new information has become available that indicates that, in many cases, these early limits are outdated and insufficiently protective of worker health. To correct this situation, OSHA issued a final rule in 1989 (54 FR 2332); it lowered the existing PELs for 212 toxic air contaminants and established PELs for 164 previously unregulated air contaminants. On June 12, 1992 (57 FR 26001), OSHA proposed a rule that would have extended these limits to workplaces in the construction, maritime, and agriculture industries. However, on July 10, 1992, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the 1989 final rule on the grounds that "(1) OSHA failed to establish that existing exposure limits in the workplace presented significant risk of material health impairment or that new standards eliminated or substantially lessened the risk; (2) OSHA did not meet its burden of establishing that its 428 new permissible exposure limits (PELs) were either economically or technologically feasible." The Court's decision forced the Agency to return to the earlier, insufficiently protective limits.

OSHA continues to believe that establishing a rulemaking approach that will permit the Agency to update existing air contaminant limits and establish new ones as toxicological evidence of the need to do so becomes available is a high priority. The rulemaking described in this Regulatory Plan entry reflects OSHA's intention to move forward with this process. In determining how to proceed, OSHA is being guided by the OSH Act and the Eleventh District Court decision regarding quantifying the risk and analyzing the feasibility of any new air contaminant limits. State-of-the-art risk assessment methodologies will be utilized for both carcinogens and noncarcinogens, and the determinations of feasibility contained in the economic analysis accompanying the proposal will be extensive. OSHA published (61 FR 1947) the name of the 20 substances from which the proposed new PELs for the first update were chosen: carbon disulfide, carbon monoxide, chloroform, dimethyl sulfate, epichlorohydrin, ethylene dichloride, glutaraldehyde, n-hexane, 2-hexanone, hydrazine, hydrogen sulfide, manganese and compounds, mercury and compounds, nitrogen dioxide, perchloroethylene, sulfur dioxide, toluene, toluene diisocyanate, trimellitic anhydride, and vinyl bromide. The specific hazards associated with the air contaminants preliminarily selected for regulation include cancer, neurotoxicity, respiratory and skin irritation and sensitivity, and cardiovascular disease, etc. Using the same criteria as those used in the Priority Planning Process, OSHA has evaluated for each substance: the severity of the health effect, the number of exposed workers, toxicity of the substance, uses and prevailing exposure levels of the substance, the potential risk reduction, and the availability and quality of information useful in quantitative risk assessment to ensure that significant risks are addressed and that workers will experience substantial benefits in the form of enhanced health and safety.

Although OSHA has evaluated factors for the twenty substances and plans to develop more PELs in the future, for this first stage in the current rulemaking process OSHA has decided to propose new PELs for four chemicals - carbon disulfide, glutaraldehyde, hydrazine, and trimellitic anhydride - that have different adverse health effects, both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic, requiring different risk assessment approaches. For these four chemicals, OSHA has modified or developed new quantitative risk assessment approaches for cancer, respiratory sensitization and irritation, cardiovascular disease and neurotoxicity effects. Publication of the proposal will allow OSHA to continue to develop a mechanism for updating and extending its air contaminant limits, that will, at the same time, provide added protection to many workers who are currently being overexposed to toxic substances in the workplace.

OSHA is also considering supplemental mechanisms proposed by stakeholders to increase the effectiveness and timeliness of the process. The agency is considering the establishment of an advisory committee to review issues related to the PELs process.

Statement of Need: OSHA has permissible exposure limits for approximately 470 toxic substances, many of which are widely used in industrial settings. These PELs, which were adopted wholesale by OSHA in 1971 and have not been revised since then, often lead to adverse effects when workers are exposed to the contaminants at these levels. In addition, new chemicals are constantly being introduced into the working environment, and exposure to these substances can result in both acute and chronic health effects. Acute effects include respiratory and sensory irritation, chemical burns, and ocular damage; chronic effects include cardiovascular disease, respiratory, liver and kidney disease, reproductive effects, neurological damage, and cancer. For these reasons, it is a high OSHA priority to establish an ongoing regular process that will allow OSHA routinely to update existing PELs and to establish limits for some currently unregulated substances. The first step in achieving this goal is to publish an air contaminants proposal for a number of substances that will establish streamlined but scientifically sound and defensible procedures for conducting risk assessments and performing feasibility analyses that will permit regular updating and review of permissible exposure limits for air contaminants. The ability to lower existing limits and establish limits for new contaminants is an essential component of OSHA's mandate to protect the health and functional well-being of America's workers.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed PELs for selected air contaminants is a preliminary determination by the Secretary of Labor that the substances for which PELs are being proposed pose a significant risk to workers and that the new limits will substantially reduce that risk.

Alternatives: OSHA has considered a variety of nonregulatory approaches to address the problem of the Agency's outdated exposure limits for air contaminants. These include the issuance of nonmandatory guidelines, enforcing lower limits through the "general duty" clause of the OSH Act in cases where substantial evidence exists that exposure presents a recognized hazard of serious physical harm, and the issuance of hazard alerts. OSHA believes, however, that the problem of overexposure to hazardous air contaminants is so widespread, and the Agency's current limits are so out of date, that only a regulatory approach will achieve the necessary level of protection. The regulatory approach also has advantages for employers, because it gives them the information they need to establish appropriate control strategies to protect their workers and reduce the costs of job-related illnesses. This first phase of an ongoing air contaminants updating and revision process will begin to resolve a problem of long standing and major occupational health import.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The scope of the proposed rule is currently under development and thus quantitative estimates of costs and benefits have not been determined at this time. Implementation costs associated with the proposed standard include primarily those related to identifying and correcting overexposures using engineering controls and work practices. Additional costs may be incurred for the implementation of administrative controls and the purchase and use of personal protective equipment. Estimates of the magnitude of the problem of occupational illnesses, both acute and chronic, vary considerably. In 1989, OSHA concluded that its Air Contaminants rule in general industry, which lowered 212 exposure limits and added 164 where none had previously existed, would result in a reduction of approximately 700 deaths, 55,000 illnesses, and over 23,300 lost- workday illnesses annually. Chronic effects include cardiovascular disease, respiratory, liver and kidney disease, reproductive effects, neurological damage, and cancer. Acute effects include respiratory and sensory irritation, chemical burns, and ocular effects.

Risks: Risk assessments for the substances under consideration for this first phase of the air contaminants updating and revision process are being completed at this time.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	08/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Additional Information: During the rulemaking, OSHA will meet with small business stakeholders to discuss their concerns, and will conduct an initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis to identify any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities.

RIN: 1218-AB54

1944. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ETHYLENE OXIDE (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 553; 5 USC 610

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1047

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA has undertaken a review of the ethylene oxide (ETO) standard in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of EO 12866. The review has considered the continued need for the rule, the impacts of the rule, comments on the rule received from the public, the complexity of the rule, whether the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal, State or local regulations, and the degree to which technology, economic conditions or other factors may have changed since the rule was last evaluated. The Agency's findings with respect to this review will be published in a report available to the public in 2000.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

Begin Review	10/01/96
Publish Report	06/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB60

1945. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISION OF THE FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS STANDARD

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 553

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.106

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This project responds to the President's Executive Memo of June 1998 regarding the use of plain language in Federal regulations. With this project, OSHA is initiating rulemaking that will revise the regulations contained in 29 CFR 1910.106 addressing flammable and combustible liquids storage. The purpose of this rulemaking will be to restate this standard in plain language.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM Reactives	12/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: The Flammable and Combustible Liquids Plain Language Revision Project, 29 CFR 1910.106, was originally one of four projects listed under RIN 1218-AB55.

RIN: 1218-AB61

1946. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISION OF THE MECHANICAL POWER-TRANSMISSION APPARATUS STANDARD

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 553

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.219

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA has identified this standard in part 1910 for revision as part of the President's initiative on Federal regulations discussed in the U.S. Department of Labor Report of June 15, 1995 and to respond to the President's June 1998 Executive Memo on Plain Language. OSHA intends to propose a plain language revision of the rule.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM - Mechanical Power-Transmission Apparatus	06/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB66

1947. ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION; ELECTRICAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.136; 29 CFR 1910.137; 29 CFR 1910.269; 29 CFR 1926.97; 29 CFR 1926.950 to 968

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The annual fatality rate for power line workers is over 50 deaths per 100,000 employees. The construction industry standard addressing the safety of these workers during the construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines is over 20 years old. OSHA is developing a revision of this standard that will prevent many of these fatalities, that will add flexibility to the standard, and that will update and streamline the standard. In addition, OSHA intends to amend the corresponding standard for general industry so that requirements for work performed during maintenance of electric power transmission and distribution installations are the same as those for similar work in construction.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM Reactives	12/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB67

1948. STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT (MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES) FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY, MARINE TERMINALS, AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS (PHASE II)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.142; 29 CFR 1910.178; 29 CFR 1910.219; 29 CFR 1910.261; 29 CFR 1910.265; 29 CFR 1910.410; 29 CFR 1910.1001-.1052; 29 CFR 1926.60; 29 CFR 1926.62; 29 CFR 1926.1101; 29 CFR 1926.1127; 29 CFR 1926.1129; 29 CFR 1917.92

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is continuing the process of removing or revising provisions in its standards that are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or inconsistent. The Agency is proposing these changes to reduce the burden imposed on the regulated community by these provisions and to further respond to a March 4, 1995 memorandum from the President. In this document, substantive changes are proposed for standards that will revise or eliminate duplicative, inconsistent, or unnecessary regulatory requirements without diminishing employee protections. Phase I of this Standards Improvement process was completed in June 1998 (63 FR 33450).

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	05/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB81

1949. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISIONS TO SPRAY APPLICATIONS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.107; 29 CFR 1910.94(c), (d)

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This plain language effort will revise one of OSHA's most complex and out-of-date rules, those for spray finishing using flammable and combustible liquids (29 CFR 1010.107). This standard addresses the hazards associated with the use of spray areas or spray booths to apply flammable or combustible liquids to manufactured equipment and objects. It includes specifications for the design of spray booths and areas, and for the use of these booths and areas and associated equipment. The plain language rule will be titled "Spray Applications. This rule was originally listed under RIN:1218-AB55.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	05/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB84

1950. SIGNS, SIGNALS, AND BARRICADES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.200; 29 CFR 1926.201; 29 CFR 1926.202; 29 CFR 1926.203

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA's standard on Signs, Signals and Barricades (Subpart G- 29 CFR 1926.200 through 1926.203) currently incorporates the American National Standards Institute's 1971 industry consensus standard ANSI D6.1-1971. The ANSI organization has withdrawn its 1971 standard and the U.S. Department of Transportation has issued an updated standard entitled: A Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Because the OSHA standard is out-of-date, the Agency intends to propose changes to update Subpart G to incorporate the requirements of the Department of Transportation's MUTCD into the OSHA rule.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	08/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB88

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)	Final Rule Stage
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1951. STEEL ERECTION (PART 1926) (SAFETY PROTECTION FOR IRONWORKERS)

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.750 (Revision); 29 CFR 1926.751 (Revision); 29 CFR 1926.752 (Revision)

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In 1992, OSHA announced that it would develop a proposal for revising steel erection safety requirements using the negotiated rulemaking process. In negotiated rulemaking, OSHA, public, industry and employee representatives meet as an advisory committee and attempt to forge a consensus on a proposed standard. An advisory committee for this rule was formed in 1994. Its work resulted in the publication of a proposed rule on August 13, 1998.

The written comment period ended November 17, 1998. A public hearing was held in Washington, D.C. on December 1-11, 1998. The post-hearing comment period closed April 12, 1999. OSHA is now working to complete a final rule.

Statement of Need: In 1989, the Ironworkers International Union and National Erectors Association petitioned OSHA to revise the steel erection standard through negotiated rulemaking. In light of the significant number of steel erection fatalities and injuries and concerns that the Agency's existing rule fails to adequately address a number of factors affecting safety, OSHA determined that the current rule needed to be revised.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed steel erection rule is a preliminary finding that workers engaged in steel erection work are at significant risk of serious injury or death as a result of that work.

Alternatives: OSHA considered continuing to rely on the existing rule.

The Agency also considered issuing a proposed rule without negotiated rulemaking. Leaving the existing rule unchanged was rejected because of the apparent inadequacies of the standard. Negotiated rulemaking was chosen to help resolve conflicts and produce a proposal sooner.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: OSHA expects compliance with the proposal to impose annualized costs of about $50 million per year. Benefits are expected to include the prevention of about 14 fatalities and 824 lost workday injuries per year.

Risks: OSHA estimates that at least 28 workers die each year while engaged in steel erection. Falls continue to be the leading cause of job-related deaths among construction workers, and steel erection involves a significant degree of exposure to fall hazards.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

Notice of Committee Establishment	05/11/94	59 FR 24389
NPRM	08/13/98	63 FR 43451
NPRM Comment Period End	11/17/98
Public Hearing	12/01/98
Final Rule	07/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AA65

1952. RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES (SIMPLIFIED INJURY/ILLNESS RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS)

Priority: Other Significant

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 657; 29 USC 673

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1904; 29 CFR 1952.4

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA requires employers to keep records of occupational illnesses and injuries. These records are used by OSHA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), among others, to develop data on workplace safety and health by industry and across industries. Over the years concerns about the reliability and utility of these data have been raised by Congress, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the National Academy of Sciences, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Accounting Office, business and labor, as well as BLS and OSHA. In the late 1980's, OSHA contracted with the Keystone Center to bring together representatives of industry, labor, government, and academia in a year-long effort to discuss problems with OSHA's injury and illness recordkeeping system. Keystone issued a report with specific recommendations on how to improve the system. In 1995, OSHA held several meetings with stakeholders from business, labor and government to obtain feedback on a draft OSHA recordkeeping proposal and to gather related information.

OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the February 2, 1996 Federal Register that contained revised recordkeeping requirements and recordkeeping forms. The original 90-day public comment period was extended another 60 days and ended July 2, 1996. During that comment period, the public submitted over 450 written comments to OSHA Docket R-02. In addition, OSHA held two public meetings in Washington, DC (March 26-29 and April 30-May 1) resulting in 1,200 pages of transcripts from nearly 60 presentations. OSHA is now planning to issue a final rule that incorporates changes based on an analysis of the public comments and testimony.

Statement of Need: The occupational injury and illness records maintained by employers are an important component of OSHA's program. The records are used by employers and employees to identify and evaluate workplace safety and health hazards, and they provide OSHA personnel with necessary information during workplace inspections. The records also provide the source data for the Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses conducted by the BLS.

All of these uses of the data are affected by the quality of the records employers maintain. Higher quality data lead to higher quality analyses, which in turn lead to better decisions about occupational safety and health matters. To improve the quality of the records and enhance the use of the information, OSHA needs to provide clearer regulatory guidance to employers and simplify the recordkeeping forms.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for issuance of this final rule is Section 8(c)(1) of the OSH Act, which requires employers to record and report such records as are necessary for the enforcement of the Act and for developing information on the causes and prevention of occupational accidents and illnesses, as required by regulation, and section 24(a) of the Act, which requires OSHA to develop an effective program of occupational safety and health statistics to further the purposes of the Act.

Alternatives: One alternative to publication of a final rule is to take no action and continue to administer the injury and illness recordkeeping system using the current regulation, forms and guidelines. Another alternative is to revise the current rule to expand its coverage and scope (i.e., eliminate the current rule's small employer and Standard Industrial Classification exemptions). The first alternative is unacceptable because it does not address the problems with the current system identified by participants in the Keystone dialogue and other OSHA stakeholders. The second alternative is also unacceptable because it would require many employers, especially small- business employers, in low hazard industries to keep OSHA injury and illness data. This could impose a substantial paperwork burden on those employers without commensurate benefit.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: OSHA has not determined the costs and benefits of the final rule.

Risks: Not applicable.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	02/02/96	61 FR 4030
NPRM Comment Period End	07/02/96
Final Action	06/00/00
Final Action Effective	01/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB24

1953. ERGONOMICS PROGRAMS: PREVENTING MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 651; 29 USC 652; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657; 33 USC 941; 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a leading cause of pain, suffering, and disability in American workplaces. Since the 1980's, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has had a number of initiatives related to addressing these problems, including enforcement under the general duty clause, issuance of guidelines for the meatpacking industry, and development of other compliance-assistance materials.

Ultimately, the Agency decided that, given the magnitude of the problem, a regulatory approach was appropriate to ensure that the largest possible number of employers and employees become aware of the problems and ways of preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. OSHA has examined and analyzed the extensive scientific literature documenting the problem of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, the causes of the problem, and effective solutions; conducted a telephone survey of over 3,000 establishments regarding their current practices to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders; and completed a number of site visits to facilities with existing programs. The Agency has also held numerous stakeholder meetings to solicit input from individuals regarding the possible contents of a standard to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Agency representatives have delivered numerous outreach presentations to people who are interested in this subject and consulted professionals in the field to obtain expert opinions on the options considered by the Agency. Information obtained from these activities is undergoing Agency review.

The Agency believes that the scientific evidence supports the need for a standard and that the availability of effective and reasonable means to control these hazards has been demonstrated. The Agency, therefore, has developed a proposed rule for ergonomics and is currently working on a final rule.

Statement of Need: OSHA estimates that work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the United States account for over 600,000 injuries and illnesses that are serious enough to result in days away from work (34 percent of all lost workday injuries reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)). These disorders now account for one out of every three dollars spent on workers' compensation. It is estimated that employers spend as much as $15-$18 billion a year on direct costs for MSD-related workers' compensation, and up to three to four times that much for indirect costs, such as those associated with hiring and training replacement workers. In addition to these monetary effects, MSDs often impose a substantial personal toll on affected workers who can no longer work or perform simple personal tasks like buttoning their clothes or brushing their hair.

Scientific evidence associates MSDs with stresses to various body parts caused by the way certain tasks are performed. The positioning of the body and the type of physical work that must be done to complete a job may cause persistent pain and lead to deterioration of the affected joints, tissues, and muscles. The longer the worker must maintain a fixed or awkward posture, exert force, repeat the same movements, experience vibration, or handle heavy items, the greater the chance that such a disorder will occur. These job-related stresses are referred to as "ergonomic risk factors," and the scientific literature demonstrates that exposure to these risk factors, particularly in combination, significantly increases an employee's risk of developing a work-related musculoskeletal disorder. Jobs involving exposure to ergonomic risk factors appear in all types of industries and in all sizes of facilities.

Musculoskeletal disorders occur in all parts of the body -- the upper extremity, the lower extremity, and the back. An example of the increasing magnitude of the problem involves repeated trauma to the upper extremity, or that portion of the body above the waist, in forms such as carpal tunnel syndrome and shoulder tendinitis. In industries such as meatpacking and automotive assembly, approximately 10 out of 100 workers report work-related MSDs from repeated trauma each year. The number of work-related back injuries occurring each year is even larger than the number of upper extremity disorders. Industries reporting a large number of cases of back injuries include hospitals and personal care facilities.

The evidence OSHA has assembled and analyzed indicates that technologically and economically feasible measures are available to significantly reduce exposures to ergonomic risk factors and the risk of developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Many companies that have voluntarily implemented ergonomics programs have demonstrated that effective ergonomic interventions are available to reduce MSDs. Many of these interventions are simple and inexpensive, but nevertheless have a significant effect on the occurrence of work- related musculoskeletal disorders. Benefits include substantial savings in workers' compensation costs, increased productivity, and decreased turnover.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the rule is a finding by the Secretary of Labor that workers in workplaces within OSHA's jurisdiction are at significant risk of incurring work-related musculoskeletal disorders.

Alternatives: OSHA has considered many different regulatory alternatives. These include variations in the scope of coverage, particularly with regard to industrial sectors, work processes, and degree of hazard.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Implementation costs of an ergonomics program standard would include those related to identifying and correcting problem jobs using engineering and administrative controls. Benefits expected include reduced pain and suffering, both from prevented disorders as well as reduced severity in those disorders that do occur, decreased numbers of workers' compensation claims, and reduced lost work time. Secondary benefits may accrue from improved quality and productivity due to better designed work systems.

Risks: The data OSHA has obtained and analyzed indicate that employees are at significant risk of developing or aggravating musculoskeletal disorders due to exposure to risk factors in the workplace. In addition, information from site visits, the scientific literature, the Agency's compliance experience, and other sources indicates that there are economically and technologically feasible means of addressing and reducing these risks to prevent the development or aggravation of such disorders, or to reduce their severity. These data and analyses were presented in the preamble to the proposed standard published in the Federal Register.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM	08/03/92	57 FR 34192
ANPRM Comment Period End	02/01/93
SBREFA Panel	03/02/99
NPRM	11/23/99	64 FR 65768
Final Action	12/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB36

1954. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO TUBERCULOSIS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1035

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On August 25, 1993, the Labor Coalition to Fight TB in the Workplace petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to develop an occupational health standard to protect workers against the transmission of tuberculosis (TB). The Coalition stated that although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had developed guidelines for controlling the spread of TB, many of the TB outbreak investigations conducted by CDC showed that many employers were not fully implementing the CDC guidelines. After reviewing the available information, OSHA preliminarily concluded that a significant risk of occupational transmission of TB exists for some workers in some work settings and began rulemaking on a proposed standard.

To assist in the development of the proposed standard, OSHA consulted with parties outside the Agency. The preliminary risk assessment was peer-reviewed by four experts with specific knowledge in the areas of TB disease and risk assessment. In addition, OSHA conducted stakeholder meetings with representatives of various groups that might be affected by the proposed standard. The draft proposed standard was also reviewed and commented on by affected small business entities under the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) and by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

On October 17, 1997 OSHA published its proposed standard for occupational exposure to TB (62 FR 54160). The proposed standard would cover workers in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, correctional facilities, homeless shelters, and certain other work settings where workers are at significant risk of becoming infected with TB while caring for their patients or clients or performing certain procedures. The proposed standard would require employers to protect TB-exposed workers using infection control measures that have been shown to be highly effective in reducing or eliminating work-related TB infections. Such measures include procedures for early identification of individuals with infectious TB, isolation of individuals with infectious TB using appropriate ventilation, use of respiratory protection in certain situations, and skin testing and training of employees.

After the close of the written comment period for the proposed standard on February 17, 1998, informal public hearings were held in Washington, DC (April 7-17), Los Angeles, CA (May 5-7), New York City, NY (May 19- 21), and Chicago, IL (June 2-4). At the end of the public hearings a post-hearing comment period was established. The post-hearing comment period closed on October 5, 1998. On June 17, 1999 OSHA re-opened the rulemaking record to submit the Agency's report on homeless shelters and certain other documents that became available to the Agency after the close of the post-hearing comment period. During this limited re- opening of the rulemaking record, OSHA also requested interested parties to submit comments and data on the Agency's preliminary risk assessment in order to obtain the best, most recent data for providing the most accurate estimates of the occupational risk of tuberculosis.

Statement of Need: TB is a contagious disease caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Infection is acquired by the inhalation of airborne particles carrying the bacterium. These airborne particles, called droplet nuclei, can be generated when persons with pulmonary TB in the infectious stage of the disease cough, sneeze, or speak. In some individuals who inhale the droplet nuclei, TB bacteria establish an infection. In most cases, the bacteria are contained by the individual's immune system. However, in some cases, the bacteria are not contained by the immune system and continue to grow and invade the tissue, leading to the progressive destruction of the organ involved. In most cases, this organ is the lung, although other organs may also become infected.

From 1953, when active cases began to be reported in the United States, until 1984, the number of annual reported cases declined 74 percent, from 84,304 cases to 22,255 cases. However, this steady decline did not continue. Instead, from 1985 to 1992, the number of reported cases increased 20.1 percent. TB control efforts were re-initiated in some areas of the country and from 1993 to 1998, the number of cases in the United States again declined. A large portion of the decrease occurred in high incidence areas, such as New York City, where intervention efforts were focused. However, despite the recent decrease in active cases, there were still 18,371 reported TB cases in 1998. Outbreaks of TB continue to occur and multidrug-resistant forms of TB disease continue to spread to new states. In addition, more than 10 to 15 million persons in the United States have latent TB infection and are at risk of developing TB disease sometime in the future. Moreover, the factors that led to the resurgence from 1985 to 1992 (e.g., increases in homelessness, HIV infection, immigration from countries with high rates of infection) still exist.

Providing health care for individuals with TB increases the risk of occupational exposure among healthcare workers. Many of the outbreaks of TB have occurred in health care facilities, resulting in the transmission of TB to both patients and health care workers. CDC found that the factors contributing to these outbreaks included delayed diagnosis of TB, delayed initiation of effective therapy, delayed initiation and inadequate duration of TB isolation, inadequate ventilation of isolation rooms, lapses in TB isolation practices, and lack of adequate respiratory protection. CDC analyzed data from several of the outbreaks and found that the transmission of TB decreased significantly when recommended TB control measures were implemented. Workers outside health care also provide services to patient or client populations that have an increased rate of TB disease. For example, occupational transmission of TB has been documented in correctional facilities, and the standard would cover such workers.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed TB standard is a preliminary finding by the Secretary of Labor that workers in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, correctional facilities, homeless shelters, and certain other work settings are at a significant risk of incurring TB infection while caring for their patients and clients or performing certain procedures.

Alternatives: Prior to a decision to publish a proposal, OSHA considered a number of options, including whether or not to develop an emergency temporary standard, publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, or to enforce existing regulations.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs will be incurred by employers for engineering controls, respiratory protection, medical surveillance, training, exposure control, recordkeeping, and work practice controls. Benefits will include the prevention of work-related TB transmissions and infections, and a corresponding reduced risk of exposure among the general population. OSHA estimates that more than 5 million workers are exposed to TB in the course of their work. The Agency estimates that the proposed provisions will result in annual costs of 245 million dollars. Implementation of the standard is estimated to reduce the number of work-related cases of TB by 70-90 percent in the work settings covered, thus preventing approximately 21,400 to 25,800 work- related infections per year, 1,500 to 1,700 active cases of TB resulting from these infections, and approximately 115 to 136 deaths resulting from these active cases.

Risks: From 1985 to 1992, the number of reported cases of TB in the United States increased, reversing a previous 30-year downward trend. While there has been a recent decrease in the reported number of cases of TB in the general population, a large part of this decrease can be attributed to focused intervention efforts in areas of high incidence of TB. Fourteen states showed an increase or no change in the number of reported cases in 1998, and the factors that contributed to the resurgence continue to exist, along with exposure of certain workers to patient or client populations with an increased rate of TB. In addition, TB outbreaks continue to occur and multidrug-resistant strains of TB continue to spread to new states. Therefore, employees in work settings such as health care or correctional facilities, who have contact with infectious individuals, are at high risk of occupational transmission of TB. OSHA estimates that the average lifetime occupational risk of TB infection ranges from 30-386 infections per 1000 workers exposed to TB on the job and that the average lifetime occupational risk of TB disease ranges from 3-39 cases of active TB disease per 1000 workers exposed to TB. Active disease can cause signs and symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss, fever, night sweats, loss of appetite, persistent cough, and shortness of breath, and may result in serious respiratory illness or death.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

SBREFA Panel	09/10/96
NPRM	10/17/97	62 FR 54160
NPRM Comment Period End	02/17/98	62 FR 65388
Post Hearing Comment End	10/05/98
Record Reopening	06/17/99	64 FR 32447
Reopening Comment Period End	08/02/99
2nd Reopening Comment Period End	06/28/99	64 FR 34625
Final Rule	07/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations

Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Local, Tribal

Additional Information: During this rulemaking, OSHA met with small business stakeholders to discuss their concerns, and conducted an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to identify any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, OSHA conducted a special study of homeless shelters and set aside certain hearing dates for persons who wished to testify on homeless shelter issues.

RIN: 1218-AB46

1955. NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TESTING LABORATORIES PROGRAMS: FEES

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 31 USC 9701; 29 USC 653; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.7

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: A number of OSHA standards require that certain products and equipment used in the workplace be tested and certified by a laboratory that has been recognized and accredited by OSHA. Through the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Program OSHA has, to date, recognized 16 laboratories operating 40 sites in the U.S., Canada, and the Far East as NRTLs. OSHA has proposed to revise 29 CFR 1910.7 to allow OSHA to charge fees to NRTLs for services that are provided to the NRTLs. The fees will be computed on the basis of the cost of the services to the Government. In determining the amount of such fees, OSHA will follow the guidelines established by the Office of Management and Budget in Circular Number A-25. The proposal was published on August 18, 1999, and the Agency is now working on a final rule.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	08/18/99	64 FR 45098
NPRM Process	10/04/99
Final	06/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Bernard Pasquet, Directorate of Technical Support, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, N3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 693-2300
Fax: 202 693-1644

RIN: 1218-AB57

1956. EMPLOYER PAYMENT FOR PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657; 33 USC 941; 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.132; 29 CFR 1915.152; 29 CFR 1917.96; 29 CFR 1918.106; 29 CFR 1926.95

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Generally, OSHA standards require that protective equipment (including personal protective equipment (PPE)) be provided and used when necessary to protect employees from hazards that can cause them injury, illness, or physical harm. In this discussion, OSHA uses the abbreviation "PPE" to cover both personal protective equipment and other protective equipment. The Agency has proposed to revise its PPE standards to clarify who is required to pay for required PPE and under what circumstances. According to the proposal, employers would be required to provide all OSHA-required PPE at no cost to employees, with the following exceptions: the employer would not need to pay for safety-toe protective footwear or prescription safety eyewear if all three of the following conditions are met: (1) the employer permits such footwear or eyewear to be worn off the job-site; (2) the footwear or eyewear is not used in a manner that renders it unsafe for use off the job-site (for example, contaminated safety-toe footwear would not be permitted to be worn off a job-site); and (3) such footwear or eyewear is not designed for special use on the job. Employers are also not required to pay for the logging boots required by 29 CFR 1910.266(d)(1)(v).

Statement of Need: The regulatory language used in OSHA standards has generally clearly stated that the employer must provide PPE and ensure that employees wear it. However, the regulatory language regarding the employer's obligation to pay for the PPE has varied.

OSHA attempted to clarify its position on the issue of payment for required PPE in a compliance memorandum to its field staff dated October 18, 1994. The memorandum stated that it was the employer's obligation to provide and pay for PPE except in limited situations.

Recently, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission declined to accept this interpretation (Secretary of Labor v. Union Tank Car, OSHRC No. 96-0563). The Commission vacated a citation against an employer who failed to pay for OSHA-required PPE, finding that the Secretary had failed to adequately explain the policy outlined in the 1994 memorandum in light of several inconsistent earlier letters of interpretation from OSHA. Therefore, the Agency needs to clarify who is to pay for PPE under what conditions, to eliminate any confusion and unnecessary litigation.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this proposed rule is the need to clarify OSHA's intent with regard to the payment for protective equipment required by OSHA.

Alternatives: OSHA has considered several alternative approaches to resolving this issue, including leaving this as a labor-management issue, issuing compliance directives to identify what PPE the employer must pay for, or requiring the employer to pay for all PPE. OSHA believes that, in this case, revising the standard to clarify who is to pay for the PPE is the most appropriate way to proceed. It is the only approach that will assure significant public participation in the resolution of this issue, and the codification of that resolution.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: It is estimated that this rule will shift, at most, annualized costs to employers of no more than $62 million across all affected industries. It is also estimated that the proposed rule will prevent over 47,000 injuries and seven fatalities that occur annually as a result of the non-use or misuse of personal protective equipment by employees required to pay for their own PPE.

Risks: Substantive requirements for protective equipment are included in other OSHA standards. This proposed rule is designed solely to clarify OSHA's intent as to what protective equipment must be paid for by the employer. Accordingly, no assessment of risk is required.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	03/30/99	64 FR 15401
NPRM Comment Period End	06/14/99
Informal Public Hearing End	08/13/99
Final Rule	07/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Federal

RIN: 1218-AB77

1957. CONSULTATION AGREEMENTS

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 670

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1908

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA proposed an amendment to 29 CFR 1908, the Agency's regulations governing consultation agreements, to provide for full employee involvement in the consultative process in line with the President's directive to enhance worker participation in the consultation program (The New OSHA: Reinventing Worker Safety and Health, May 1995), and to implement the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Compliance Assistance Authorization Act of 1999(Section 21(d) of the OSH Act.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	07/02/99	64 FR 35972
Final Action	05/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Paula O. White, Director, Directorate of Federal State Operations, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3700, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2213

RIN: 1218-AB79

1958. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISIONS TO THE EXIT ROUTES STANDARD

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 353

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.35; 29 CFR 1910.36; 29 CFR 1910.37; 29 CFR 1910.38

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This plain language effort will revise one of OSHA's most complex and out-of-date standards, Means of Egress, codified at 29 CFR 190.38. This standard addresses exit routes in general industry workplaces, which are essential to guide employees to safety in an emergency. The plain language rule will be titled "Exit Routes." This rule was originally listed under RIN 1218-AB55.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	09/10/96	61 FR 47712
Public Hearing	04/29/97	62 FR 9402
Final Rule	08/00/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB82

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)	Long-Term Actions
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1959. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION (PROPER USE OF MODERN RESPIRATORS)

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941; 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.134; 29 CFR 1915.152; 29 CFR 1918.102; 29 CFR 1926.103

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In January 1998, OSHA published the final respiratory protection standard, except for the reserved provision on assigned protection factors (APFs). APFs are numbers that estimate the degree of performance of the various classes of respirators. OSHA is developing an approach to devising APFs that involves analyzing available data including data from workplace and chamber studies, where such data are available. OSHA will request further public comment on the analyses conducted using this approach. This will assure that OSHA receives and fully considers public input before issuing final APFs. OSHA expects to complete the rulemaking on APFs in 2001.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM	05/14/82	47 FR 20803
ANPRM Comment Period End	09/13/82
NPRM	11/15/94	59 FR 58884
Final Rule	01/08/98	63 FR 1152
Final Rule Effective	01/08/98
Final Rule - Assigned Protection Factors	12/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Local, Tribal

RIN: 1218-AA05

1960. LONGSHORING AND MARINE TERMINALS (PARTS 1917 AND 1918) -- REOPENING OF THE RECORD (VERTICAL TANDEM LIFTS (VTLS))

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 33 USC 941; 29 USC 655

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1918.11; 29 CFR 1918.85

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA issued a final rule on Longshoring on July 25, 1997 (62 FR 40142). However, in that rule, the Agency reserved provisions related to vertical tandem lifts. Vertical tandem lifts (VTLs) involve the lifting of two empty single intermodal containers, secured together with twist locks, at the same time. Because some commenters to the record questioned the safety of allowing such tandem lifts and the record does not contain adequate information to allow the Agency to address this issue, OSHA is gathering additional information. The Agency will make a decision about whether to proceed with rulemaking or to address this issue through a compliance directive in early 2000.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	06/06/94	59 FR 28594
NPRM Comment Period End	09/23/94
Final Rule on Longshoring/Marine Terminals	07/25/97	62 FR 40142
Public Meeting	01/27/98	62 FR 52671
Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AA56

1961. SCAFFOLDS IN SHIPYARDS (PART 1915 -- SUBPART N)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.71

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate the various OSHA standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. Shipyard employers are subject to both shipyard and general industry standards, and this project aimed at establishing a vertical standard for shipyard employment by addressing six shipyard employment safety standards (Confined Spaces, Welding, Access/Egress, Personal Protective Equipment, Fall Protection and Scaffolding). Proposals on these subparts were issued in November 1988 (53 FR 48092). Final rules have been issued on two of these proposals: Personal Protective Equipment and Confined Spaces. The remaining subparts in part 1915 were categorized as Phase II of the consolidation project (including general working conditions and fire protection).

This standard will revise the existing shipyard employment standards covering scaffolds and will consolidate all related and applicable 29 CFR part 1910 provisions into 29 CFR part 1915. It will develop, in part, performance-oriented standards, address current gaps in coverage, and address new technologies. About 75,000 workers are potentially exposed to these hazards annually.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	11/29/88	53 FR 48182
NPRM Comment Period End	02/27/89
Reopened Record Comment Period Ended 6/13/94	04/12/94	59 FR 17290
Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AA68

1962. ACCESS AND EGRESS IN SHIPYARDS (PART 1915, SUBPART E) (SHIPYARDS: EMERGENCY EXITS AND AISLES)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.72; 29 CFR 1915.74; 29 CFR 1915.75; 29 CFR 1915.76

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate OSHA standards that applied to the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. Shipyard employers are subject to both the shipyard and general industry standards and this project aimed at establishing a vertical standard for shipyard employment by addressing six subparts (Confined Spaces, Welding, Access/Egress, Personal Protective Equipment, Fall Protection and Scaffolding). Proposals on these subparts were issued in November 1988 (53 FR 48092). Final rules have been issued on two of these proposals: Personal Protective Equipment and Confined Spaces. The remaining subparts in part 1915 were categorized as Phase II of the consolidation project (including General Working Conditions and Fire Protection).

This standard will revise the existing shipyard employment standards covering access and egress and will consolidate all related and applicable 29 CFR part 1910 provisions into 29 CFR part 1915. The revision will develop, in part, performance-oriented standards, address current gaps in coverage, address new technology, and eliminate outmoded and redundant provisions. About 75,000 workers are potentially exposed to these hazards annually.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	11/29/88	53 FR 48130
NPRM Comment Period End	02/27/89
Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AA70

1963. GLYCOL ETHERS: 2-METHOXYETHANOL, 2-ETHOXYETHANOL, AND THEIR ACETATES: PROTECTING REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657; 29 USC 651

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000; 29 CFR 1910.1031

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On May 20, 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report to OSHA, under section 9(a) of the Toxic Substance Control Act, stating that EPA had reasonable basis to conclude that the risk of injury to worker health from exposure to four glycol ethers during their manufacture, processing and use was unreasonable, and that this risk could be prevented or reduced to a significant extent by OSHA regulatory action. EPA gave OSHA 180 days in which to respond to its report. OSHA published its response on December 11, 1986, stating that OSHA had preliminarily concluded that occupational exposures to the subject glycol ethers at the current OSHA permissible exposure limits may present significant risks to the health of workers. OSHA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on April 2, 1987 (52 FR 10586). OSHA used the information received in response to the ANPRM, as well as other information and analysis, and published a proposal on March 23, 1993 (58 FR 15526), that would reduce the permissible exposure limits for four glycol ethers and provide protection for approximately 46,000 workers exposed to these substances. OSHA is working toward promulgation of a final rule in 2001.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM	04/02/87	52 FR 10586
ANPRM Comment Period End	07/31/87
NPRM	03/23/93	58 FR 15526
NPRM Comment Period End	06/07/93
Final Action	04/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AA84

1964. ACCREDITATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATIONS (PART 1910)

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); PL 101-549 (November 15, 1990); 5 USC 552(a); 5 USC 553

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.121

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499) established the criteria under which OSHA was to develop and promulgate the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response standard. OSHA issued an interim final standard on December 19, 1986 (51 FR 45654) to comply with the law's requirements. OSHA issued a permanent final rule for provisions on training to replace this interim rule on March 9, 1989 (29 CFR 1910.120).

On December 22, 1987, as part of an omnibus budget reconciliation bill (PL 100-202), Congress amended section 126(d)(3) of SARA to include accreditation of training programs for hazardous waste operations. OSHA issued a proposal on January 26, 1990 (55 FR 2776) addressing this issue. OSHA received public comments following the issuance of the proposal. OSHA also reopened the record in June 1992 to allow additional public comment on an effectiveness of training study that the Agency had conducted. OSHA has also developed nonmandatory guidelines to further address minimum training criteria.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	01/26/90	55 FR 2776
NPRM Comment Period End	04/26/90
Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB27

1965. INDOOR AIR QUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE

Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1928

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA was petitioned in May 1987 by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), Public Citizen, and the American Public Health Association to issue an emergency temporary standard on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the workplace. In March 1992, OSHA was petitioned by the AFL-CIO to establish workplace IAQ standards. In December 1992, ASH again petitioned for rulemaking on ETS.

Every day, more than 20 million American workers face an unnecessary health threat because of indoor air pollution in the workplace. Thousands of heart disease deaths, hundreds of lung cancer deaths, and many cases of respiratory disease, Legionnaire's disease, asthma, and other ailments are estimated to be linked to this occupational hazard. EPA estimates that 20 to 35 percent of all workers in modern mechanically ventilated buildings may experience air-quality related signs and symptoms.

After reviewing and analyzing available information, OSHA published a proposed rule on April 5, 1994. The proposal would require employers to write and implement indoor air quality compliance plans that would include inspection and maintenance of current building ventilation systems to ensure they are functioning as designed. In buildings where smoking is allowed, the proposal would require designated smoking areas that would be separate, enclosed rooms where the air would be exhausted directly to the outside. Other proposed provisions would require employers to maintain healthy air quality during renovation, remodeling, and similar activities. The provisions for indoor air quality would apply to 70 million workers and more than 4.5 million nonindustrial indoor work environments, including schools and training centers, offices, commercial establishments, health care facilities, cafeterias and factory break rooms. ETS provisions would apply to all 6 million industrial and nonindustrial work environments under OSHA's jurisdiction. OSHA preliminarily estimates that the proposed standard will prevent a substantial number of air-quality related illnesses per year.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

Request for Information	09/20/91	56 FR 47892
NPRM	04/05/94	59 FR 15968
NPRM Comment Period End	08/13/94	59 FR 30560
Record Closed	02/09/96
Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.

RIN: 1218-AB37

1966. SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS (FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRIES)

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 651; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), many of the States, members of the safety and health community, insurance companies, professional organizations, companies participating in the Agency's Voluntary Protection Programs, and many proactive employers in all industries recognize the value of worksite- specific safety and health programs in preventing job-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. The reductions in job-related injuries and illnesses, workers' compensation costs, and absenteeism that occur after employers implement such programs dramatically demonstrate the effectiveness of these programs. In 1989, OSHA published nonmandatory guidelines to help employers establish safety and health programs (54 FR 3904). Those guidelines were based on a distillation of the best safety and health management practices observed by OSHA in the years since the Agency was established. OSHA has decided to expand on these guidelines by developing a safety and health programs rule because occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities are continuing to occur at an unacceptably high rate. For example, an average of about 17 workers were killed each day in 1997. This number does not include an estimated 137 daily deaths associated with job-related chronic illnesses.

The safety and health programs required by the proposed rule will include the following core elements: management leadership; active employee participation; hazard identification and assessment; hazard prevention and control; information and training ; and program evaluation. In response to extensive stakeholder involvement, OSHA has, among other things, focused the rule on significant hazards and reduced burdens on small business to the extent consistent with the goals of the OSH Act.

Statement of Need: Worksite-specific safety and health programs are increasingly being recognized as the most effective way of reducing job-related accidents, injuries, and illnesses. Many States have to date passed legislation and/or regulations mandating such programs for some or all employers, and insurance companies have also been encouraging their client companies to implement these programs, because the results they have achieved have been dramatic. In addition, all of the companies in OSHA's Voluntary Protection Programs have established such programs and are reporting injury and illness rates that are sometimes only 20 percent of the average for other establishments in their industry. Safety and health programs apparently achieve these results by actively engaging front-line employees, who are closest to operations in the workplace and have the highest stake in preventing job-related accidents, in the process of identifying and correcting occupational hazards. Finding and fixing workplace hazards is a cost- effective process, both in terms of the avoidance of pain and suffering and the prevention of the expenditure of large sums of money to pay for the direct and indirect costs of these injuries and illnesses. For example, many employers report that these programs return between $5 and $9 for every dollar invested in the program, and almost all employers with such programs experience substantial reductions in their workers' compensation premiums. OSHA believes that having employers evaluate the job-related safety and health hazards in their workplace and address any hazards identified before they cause occupational injuries, illnesses, or deaths is an excellent example of "regulating smarter," because all parties will benefit: workers will avoid the injuries and illnesses they are currently experiencing; employers will save substantial sums of money and increase their productivity and competitiveness; and OSHA's scarce resources will be leveraged as employers and employees join together to identify, correct, and prevent job-related safety and health hazards.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary finding by the Secretary of Labor that unacceptably high injury, illness, and fatality rates can be substantially reduced by getting employers to systematically comply with their existing duty to control hazards under sections 5(a)(1) and 5(a)(2) of the OSH Act. The rule is also reasonably related to achieving the purposes of the Act, and would essentially require employers to conduct periodic inspections of the workplace and to inform employees about the hazards they find.

Alternatives: In the last few years, OSHA has considered both nonregulatory and regulatory alternatives in the area of safety and health program management. First, in 1989, OSHA published a set of voluntary management guidelines designed to help employers set up and maintain safety and health programs. Although these guidelines have received widespread praise from many employers and professional safety and health associations, they have not been adequately effective in reducing job-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses, which have continued to occur at unacceptably high levels. Many States have also recognized the value of these programs and have mandated that some or all employers establish them; this has led to inconsistent coverage from State to State, with many States having no coverage and others imposing stringent program requirements.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: OSHA preliminarily estimated the overall program costs of the draft proposed standard provided to the SBREFA Panel for this rule for all covered employers to be about $2.3 billion per year. The Agency also estimates that 580,000 to 1,300,000 injuries and illnesses and 416 to 918 fatalities will be avoided each year as a result of the rule. OSHA anticipates that employers will have direct cost savings associated with this reduction in the number of injuries and illnesses of approximately $7.3 to $16.5 billion per year.

Risks: Workers in all major industry sectors in the United States continue to experience an unacceptably high rate of occupational fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. For 1996, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 6.2 million injuries and illnesses occurred within private industry. For 1997, BLS reported that 6,218 workers lost their lives on the job. There is increasing evidence that addressing hazards in a piecemeal fashion, as employers tend to do in the absence of a comprehensive safety and health program, is considerably less effective in reducing accidents than a systematic approach. Dramatic evidence of the seriousness of this problem can be found in the staggering workers' compensation bill paid by America's employers and employees: about $54 billion annually. These risks can be reduced by the implementation of safety and health programs, as evidenced by the experience of OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program participants, who regularly achieve injury and illness rates averaging one-fifth to one- third those of competing firms in their industries. Because the proposed rule addresses significant job-related hazards, the rule will be effective in ensuring a systematic approach to the control of long- recognized hazards, such as lead, which are covered by existing OSHA standards, and emerging hazards, such as lasers and violence in the workplace, where conditions in the workplace would require control under the General Duty Clause of the Act.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	To Be	Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: State

Federalism: Undetermined

Additional Information: A separate rule is being developed for the construction industry (29 CFR 1926). OSHA will coordinate the development of the two rules.

RIN: 1218-AB41

1967. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (PREVENTING OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS: CHROMIUM)

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In July 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was petitioned for an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium. The Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW) and Public Citizen's Health Research Group (HRG) petitioned OSHA to promulgate an ETS to lower the PEL for chromium (CrVI) compounds to 0.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3) as an eight-hour, time-weighted average (TWA). This would represent a significant reduction in the current PEL. The current PEL in general industry is found in 29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z and is a ceiling value of 100 ug/m3, measured as chromium (VI) and reported as chromic anhydride (CrO3). The amount of chromium (VI) in the compound equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3. This ceiling limit applies to all forms of hexavalent chromium (VI), including chromic acid and chromates, lead chromate, and zinc chromate. The current PEL for chromium (VI) in the construction industry is 100 ug/m3 as a TWA PEL, which also equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3. After reviewing the petition, OSHA denied the request for an ETS and initiated a section 6(b) rulemaking.

The major illnesses associated with occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium are lung cancer and dermatoses. OSHA estimates that approximately one million workers are exposed to hexavalent chromium on a regular basis in all industries. The major uses of hexavalent chromium are: as a structural and anti-corrosive element in the production of stainless steel, ferrochromium, iron and steel, and in electroplating, welding and painting. Work on a proposed rule continues.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	06/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB45

1968. CONFINED SPACES IN CONSTRUCTION (PART 1926): PREVENTING SUFFOCATION/EXPLOSIONS IN CONFINED SPACES

Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.36

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In January 1993, OSHA issued a general industry rule to protect employees who enter confined spaces (29 CFR 1910.146). This standard does not apply to the construction industry because of differences in the nature of the worksite in the construction industry. In discussions with the United Steel Workers of America on a settlement agreement for the general industry standard, OSHA agreed to issue a proposed rule to extend confined-space protection to construction workers appropriate to their work environment. One million construction workers are exposed to the hazards of confined space entry each year. OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule addressing this construction industry hazard next year.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	07/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB47

1969. GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS FOR SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915, subpart F

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate the various OSHA shipyard standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. Publication of a proposal addressing general working conditions in shipyards is part of this project. The operations addressed in this rulemaking relate to housekeeping, illumination, sanitation, first aid, and lockout/tagout. About 75,000 workers are exposed annually to these hazards.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	04/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB50

1970. FIRE PROTECTION IN SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT (PART 1915, SUBPART P) (SHIPYARDS: FIRE SAFETY)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915, subpart P

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate the various OSHA shipyard standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. With the assistance of the Agency's Maritime Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, OSHA formed a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to develop draft regulatory text addressing fire protection in shipyards. The committee includes members representing employers, employees, and other affected parties. The committee has drafted a regulatory text and is now working with OSHA staff to refine and support it in preparation for publication as a proposed rule.

The operations that would be addressed in this rulemaking relate to fire brigades, fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, detection systems, alarm systems, fire watches, and emergency plans. A total of 75,000 workers are potentially exposed to these hazards annually. This proposed standard is expected to be published next year.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	12/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB51

1971. METALWORKING FLUIDS: PROTECTING RESPIRATORY HEALTH

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)(1); 29 USC 656(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In December 1993, the International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, petitioned OSHA to take emergency regulatory action to protect workers from the risks of occupational cancers and respiratory illnesses due to exposure to metalworking fluids. In response to the petition, OSHA established a 15-member Standards Advisory Committee to make recommendations to OSHA regarding the need for a standard, a guideline, or other appropriate response to the dangers of occupational exposures to metalworking fluids. The Committee recommended that OSHA proceed with a rulemaking on metalworking fluids under section 6(b)(5) of the Act. Workers exposed to these fluids are at risk of developing respiratory diseases, including hypersensitivity pneumonitis, occupational asthma, and lung cancer and dermatoses. The committee submitted its report to OSHA in July, 1999. OSHA plans to propose a standard in 2001.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	04/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB58

1972. FALL PROTECTION IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA issued an ANPRM to gather information on fall protection issues regarding certain construction processes such as residential home building, precast concrete operations and post frame construction. The issues relate to the fall protection rules as they now apply to roofing work, residential construction operations, climbing reinforcement steel and vendors delivering materials to construction projects. These issues have arisen since OSHA revised the fall protection standard in August 1994. The comment period closed January 24, 2000. OSHA is now evaluating comments to determine whether further action is required.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM	07/14/99	64 FR 38077
ANPRM Comment Period End	01/24/00
Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB62

1973. REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATION RECORDS FOR TESTS, INSPECTIONS, AND TRAINING

Priority: Other Significant

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will eliminate existing text in the CFR.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333; 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Various OSHA standards require employers to prepare and maintain records to certify that they have tested or inspected certain types of equipment or machinery, or that they have provided training to employees. OSHA is considering whether to propose to revoke some of these certification provisions, in order to reduce paperwork burdens on employers. Such a proposal would not change the substantive requirements for employers to perform the testing, inspecting, and training.

Timetable: Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB65

1974. SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657; 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In response to industry requests and in response to the recommendation of OSHA's Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH), OSHA has determined that the current safety and health program standards contained in subpart C of the construction standards, 29 CFR 1926, need to be revised to provide construction employers with a more comprehensive set of requirements to assist them in establishing safety and health programs. Safety and health programs have proven to be an effective, systematic method of identifying and correcting existing workplace safety and health hazards, as well as preventing those that might arise in the future.

After its April 1996 meeting, ACCSH began to develop language and concepts to submit to OSHA for consideration as a proposed rule. Over 130 stakeholders representing small, medium and large contractors and host employers and stakeholders (such as petroleum producers; contractor associations; labor unions; other governmental agencies; and non-profit institutions) have participated in these ACCSH discussions.

Although OSHA is still developing the details of a new proposed safety and health program standard, the proposal will require employers to set up a program for managing workplace safety and health in order to reduce the incidence of occupational deaths, injuries, and illnesses. The standard will not impose duties on employers to control hazards that they are not already required to control. Instead, the standard will provide a basic framework for systematically identifying and controlling workplace hazards already covered by the OSH Act under section 5(a)(1) and current OSHA standards.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	To Be	Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Federalism: Undetermined

Additional Information: A separate standard is being developed for general industry (29 CFR 1910) and the maritime (29 CFR 1915, 1917 and 1918) industries (see entry for RIN 1218-AB41).

RIN: 1218-AB69

1975. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO CRYSTALLINE SILICA

Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1916; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Silica exposure remains a serious threat to nearly 2 million U.S. workers, including more than 100,000 workers in high risk jobs such as abrasive blasting, foundry work, stonecutting, rock drilling, quarry work and tunneling. The seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica exposure is demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling illnesses that continue to occur in sandblasters and rock drillers and by recent studies that demonstrate a statistically significant increase in lung cancer among silica-exposed workers. In October 1996, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified crystalline silica as "carcinogenic to humans." Exposure studies indicate that some workers are still exposed to very high levels of silica. Although OSHA currently has a permissible exposure limit for crystalline silica (10mg/m3 divided by the percent of silica in the dust + 2 respirable), more than 30 percent of OSHA-collected silica samples from 1982 through 1991 exceeded this limit. Additionally recent studies suggest that the current OSHA standard is insufficient to protect against silicosis. OSHA plans to publish a proposed rule on crystalline silica under section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The standard would protect silica-exposed workers in general industry, construction and maritime.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	06/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB70

1976. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY (LOCKOUT) IN CONSTRUCTION (PART 1926) (PREVENTING CONSTRUCTION INJURIES/FATALITIES: LOCKOUT)

Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA issued a general industry rule on September 1, 1989 (54 FR 36644) to address the hazards posed to workers by the failure to control hazardous energy (i.e., the failure to properly lock out or tag out machines and equipment) during repair and servicing activities. OSHA has not yet issued a standard to prevent these accidents during equipment repair and maintenance activities in the construction industry. Four million workers annually may be exposed to this hazard in construction workplaces.

Construction sites often do not have effective lockout/tagout procedures to control hazardous energy because of several factors, all associated with the nature of the construction industry. These factors basically relate to the types of machines and equipment found in construction; the makeup of the industry (i.e., employment is relatively "short term," lasting only as long as the length of the current project); multiple employers having different employer/employee relationships are present at the same site; and "in-the-field" maintenance activity is usually temporary. OSHA intends to issue a proposal to address this hazard in this industry.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	To Be	Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB71

1977. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO BERYLLIUM

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Beryllium is a lightweight metal that is used for nuclear weapons, for atomic energy, and for metal alloys such as beryllium- copper and beryllium-aluminum. The metal alloys are used in dental appliances, golf clubs, non-sparking tools, wheel chairs, etc. Beryllium is also used in the ceramics industry. OSHA's current permissible exposure limits for beryllium are: an 8-hour TWA of 2 ug/ m3; a 5 ug/m3 ceiling concentration not to be exceeded over a 30-minute period; and a 25 ug/m3 maximum peak exposure never to be exceeded. In 1977, OSHA proposed to reduce the 8-hour TWA exposure to beryllium from 2 ug/m3 to 1 ug/m3 based on evidence that beryllium caused lung cancer in exposed workers. A hearing followed the proposal, but a final standard was never published. Since the previous OSHA hearing, NIOSH has updated its studies on beryllium exposed workers. The study results again demonstrate a significant excess of lung cancer among exposed workers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that beryllium is a carcinogen in humans (Category I). In addition to lung cancer, a new OSHA beryllium standard would address chronic beryllium disease (CBD), a fatal disease involving lung fibrosis and other organ toxicity. Based on several recent studies involving workers employed in the beryllium ceramics industry, in beryllium production, and in Department of Energy facilities, there is now evidence that very low level beryllium exposure (less than 0.5 ug/ m3) may cause CBD. A new medical surveillance tool is now available that allows for the early detection of workers with CBD prior to any signs of clinical disease or symptoms. Beryllium-sensitized workers convert to CBD at an estimated rate of about 10 percent per year. This "beryllium sensitization" test is being used in clinical studies of current and past exposed workers. Recent study results indicate that between 5 percent and 15 percent of beryllium-exposed workers are sensitized and will eventually develop CBD.

In the past year, OSHA was petitioned to issue an emergency temporary standard (ETS) by the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers Union(PACE) to protect workers from developing Chronic Beryllium Disease(CBD) and lung cancer as a result of occupational beryllium exposure. The petition was denied, but the Agency has initiated rulemaking under Section 6(b)(5) to protect beryllium-exposed workers from contracting these diseases.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	09/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB76

1978. CONSOLIDATION OF RECORDS MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS IN OSHA STANDARDS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will eliminate existing text in the CFR.

Legal Authority: 40 USC 333; 29 USC 655; 33 USC 941; 5 USC 553

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915 to 1918; 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1928

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA is initiating a rulemaking to simplify and consolidate many of its requirements for employers to maintain records of training, testing, medical surveillance, and other activities conducted to comply with OSHA health and safety standards. These records maintenance requirements appear in many OSHA standards and are codified at 29 CFR 1910 (General Industry), 29 CFR 1915-1918 (Maritime), 29 CFR 1926 (Construction), and 29 CFR 1928 (Agriculture). The final rule, when published, will facilitate compliance with these requirements and reduce the amount of paperwork associated with these records, but will leave employee protections unchanged.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	To Be	Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB78

1979. WALKING WORKING SURFACES AND PERSONAL FALL PROTECTION SYSTEMS (1910) (SLIPS, TRIPS AND FALL PREVENTION)

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 (b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910, subparts D and I

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In 1990, OSHA proposed (55 FR 13360) a rule addressing slip, trip, and fall hazards and establishing requirements for personal fall protection systems. OSHA is analyzing the record to determine if it is appropriate to repropose the standard or to issue a final rule based on the existing record.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	04/10/90	55 FR 13360
NPRM Comment Period End	08/22/90
Hearing	09/11/90	55 FR 29224
Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB80

1980. OIL AND GAS WELL DRILLING AND SERVICING

Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal governments and the private sector.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.270

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA intends to propose a standard for the oil and gas well drilling and servicing industry. In 1982, OSHA proposed a standard for the industry. OSHA believed at that time that the OSHA general industry standard did not adequately address the hazards of oil and gas well drilling and servicing and that this lack of protection contributed to a high number of deaths and injuries in the industry. No final action was taken with respect to the proposed standard and, therefore, there is still no specific OSHA standard for the oil and gas well drilling and servicing industry. OSHA intends to repropose in the near future, because changes in technology, conditions in the industry, and workforce demographics necessitate the issuance of a new proposal.

The oil and gas well drilling and servicing industry is involved in extracting underground deposits of oil and gas and in maintaining the equipment used to bring the oil and gas to the surface. In 1997, there were 85 deaths resulting from accidents in the industry, caused by such events as falling from equipment/platforms to another level, being struck or crushed by equipment, and being asphyxiated. OSHA has begun collecting information and data with respect to the industry and will soon hold stakeholder meetings to provide an early opportunity to those who may be impacted by a standard to discuss their ideas on the rulemaking.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	To Be	Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB83

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)	Completed Actions
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1981. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY SOURCES (LOCKOUT/TAGOUT) (COMPLETION OF A SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 553; 5 USC 610

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.147

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: As required by section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of Executive Order 12866, OSHA has reviewed the Agency's standard for the protection of employees from exposure to lockout/ tagout hazards, 29 CFR 1910.147, to determine whether the rule should be continued without change or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, to minimize any significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. After a thorough review of the Agency's experience in enforcing this standard, the available literature, and comments received in connection with this review, OSHA has determined that there is a continued need for the rule, that the rule does not appear to overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other Federal rules or with other State and local rules, and that no technological, economic or other factors have arisen since the rule was published that would necessitate amendment or rescission of the rule at this time. OSHA has also concluded that no change that is consistent with the objectives of the OSH Act can be made to the rule that will further minimize any significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Data submitted to the docket in connection with this Lookback Review demonstrate that the rule has decreased lockout-related fatalities in certain industries by 20 percent or more each year since promulgation of the standard. To respond to comments received during this review of the standard, OSHA will revise the compliance directive for this standard, review the Agency's interpretive guidance pertaining to this rule, and develop and disseminate training and other compliance assistance materials to assist employers in complying with the rule. The final report summarizing the results of this Lookback Review has been placed in Docket S-012-B.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

Begin Review	10/01/96
Publish Report	01/30/00

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB59