Semi Annual Regulatory Agenda. | Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Publication Date:

05/14/2001
Publication Type:

Unified Agenda
Fed Register #:
65:25679-25744
Title:

Semi Annual Regulatory Agenda.

NOTE: This section for the Department of Labor (OSHA)
is on pages 25722-25744

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Prerule Stage

Sequence Number	Title	Regulation Identification Number
1947	Occupational Exposure to Ethylene Oxide (Section 610 Review)	1218-AB60
1948	Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals	1218-AB63
1949	Grain Handling Facilities (Section 610 Review)	1218-AB73
1950	Occupational Exposure to Perchloroethylene	1218-AB86
1951	Sanitation in the Construction Industry	1218-AB87
1952	Hearing Loss Prevention in Construction Workers	1218-AB89

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Proposed Rule Stage

Sequence Number	Title	Regulation Identification Number
1953	Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium (Preventing Occupational Illness: Chromium)	1218-AB45
1954	Confined Spaces in Construction (Part 1926): Preventing Suffocation/Explosions in Confined Spaces	1218-AB47
1955	Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment (Part 1915, Subpart P)(Shipyards: Fire Safety)	1218-AB51
1956	Permissible Exposure Limits (PELS) for Air Contaminants	1218-AB54
1957	Metalworking Fluids: Protecting Respiratory Health	1218-AB58
1958	Plain Language Revision of the Flammable and Combustible Liquids Standard	1218-AB61
1959	Plain Language Revision of the Mechanical Power-Transmission Apparatus Standard	1218-AB66
1960	Electric Power Transmission and Distribution; Electrical Protective Equipment in the Construction Industry	1218-AB67
1961	Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica	1218-AB70
1962	Occupational Exposure to Beryllium	1218-AB76
1963	Standards Improvement (Miscellaneous Changes) for General Industry, Marine Terminals, and Construction Standards (Phase II)	1218-AB81
1964	Plain Language Revisions to Spray Applications	1218-AB84
1965	Changes to State Plans	1218-AB91

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Final Rule Stage

Sequence Number	Title	Regulation Identification Number
1966	Respiratory Protection (Proper Use of Modern Respirators)	1218-AA05
1967	Glycol Ethers: 2-Methoxyenthanol, 2-Ethoxyethanol, and Their Acetates: Protecting Reproductive Health	1218-AA84
1968	Walking Working Surfaces and Personal Fall Protection Systems (1910)(Slips, Trips and Fall Prevention)	1218-AB80
1969	Plain Language Revisions to the Exit Route Standard	1218-AB82
1970	Signs, Signals, and Barricades	1218-AB88

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Long-Term Actions

Sequence Number	Title	Regulation Identification Number
1971	Longshoring and Marine Terminals (Parts 1917 and 1918) -- Reopening of the Record (Vertical Tandem Lifts (VTLS))	1218-AA56
1972	Scaffolds in Shipyards (Part 1915 -- Subpart N)	1218-AA68
1973	Access and Egress in Shipyards (Part 1915, Subpart E) (Shipyards: Emergency Exits and Aisles)	1218-AA70
1974	Accreditation of Training Programs for Hazardous Waste Operations (Part 1910)	1218-AB27
1975	Indoor Air Quality in the Workplace	1218-AB37
1976	Safety and Health Programs (for General Industry and Maritime Industries)	1218-AB41
1977	Occupational Exposure to Tuberculosis	1218-AB46
1978	General Working Conditions for Shipyard Employment	1218-AB50
1979	Fall Protection in the Construction Industry	1218-AB62
1980	Safety Standards for Scaffolds Used in the Construction Industry -- Part II	1218-AB68
1981	Safety and Health Programs for Construction	1218-AB69
1982	Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout) in Construction (Part 1926) (Preventing Construction Injuries/Fatalities: Lockout)	1218-AB71
1983	Employer Payment for Personal Protective Equipment	1218-AB77
1984	Consolidation of Records Maintenance Requirements in OSHA Standards	1218-AB78
1985	Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Servicing	1218-AB83
1986	Woodworking Machinery	1218-AB92
1987	Ergonomics Programs in Construction (Part 1926): Preventing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Construction Workers	1218-AB94
1988	Subpart S -- Electrical Standards	1218-AB95
1989	Occupational Health Risks in the Manufacture and Assembly of Semiconductors	1218-AB96
1990	Commercial Diving Operations: Technical Amendment	1218-AB97
1991	Procedures for Handling of Discrimination Complaints Under the Aviation Investment and Reform Act	1218-AB99

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Completed Actions

Sequence Number	Title	Regulation Identification Number
1992	Steel Erection (Part 1926) (Safety Protection for Ironworkers)	1218-AA65
1993	Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (Simplified Injury/Illness Recordkeeping Requirements)	1218-AB24
1994	Ergonomics Programs: Preventing Musculoskeletal Disorders	1218-AB36
1995	Consultation Agreements	1218-AB79
1996	Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens; Needlestick and Other Sharps Injuries	1218-AB85
1997	Cotton Dust: Washed Cotton Exemption	1218-AB90
1998	New Jersey State Paln	1218-AB98

Department of Labor (DOL)	Prerule Stage
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1947. 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 2001.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

Begin Review Publish Report	10/01/96 11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

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: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AB60

1948. 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 is to publish, in November 2001, 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	11/00/01
NPRM Process Safety Management	To Be Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB63

1949. 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 End Review	10/01/97 11/00/01

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

1950. 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 (ANPRM) 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. It will also request information on the health risks posed to workers by alternative processes and solvents, including new detergent formulations.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM	11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

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-AB86

1951. SANITATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

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	11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: 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-AB87

1952. 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 section 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) in November 2001, and to initiate stakeholder meetings 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	11/00/01

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)

1953. 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	11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB45

1954. 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	11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB47

1955. 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

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

1956. 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.

OSHA believes 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. 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. 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.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB54

1957. 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	12/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB58

1958. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISION OF THE FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS STANDARD

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.106

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA has identified this standard for revision as part of an initiative on federal regulations discussed in the U.S. Department of Labor report of June 15, 1995 and to respond to the June 1998 executive memo on plain language. OSHA intends to propose a plain language revision of the regulations contained in 29 CFR 1910.106 addressing flammable and combustible liquids storage.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	11/00/01

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

1959. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISION OF THE MECHANICAL POWER-TRANSMISSION APPARATUS STANDARD

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

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 29 CFR part 1910 for revision as part of an initiative on Federal regulations discussed in the U.S. Department of Labor Report of June 15, 1995 and to respond to the 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	11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB66

1960. 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

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	11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB67

1961. 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 (10 mg/m3 divided by the percent of silica in the dust (respirable + 2)), 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.

Statement of Need: The current OSHA permissible exposure limit for silica is 10 mg/m3 divided by the percent of silica in the dust + 2 (respirable) and 30 mg/m3 divided by the percent of silica in the dust + 2 (total dust). In the interval since this limit was promulgated there have been a number of studies of workers that have estimated that close to 50 percent of workers exposed to silica at the current limit for a 45-year working lifetime would develop silicosis, a disabling, progressive and sometimes fatal disease involving scarring of the lung, coughing, and shortness of breath. There are currently about 300 deaths reported per year from silicosis. However, the actual number of cases and the true risk is unknown due to inadequate case identification, which means that the number of deaths is probably underreported. Also, since the promulgation of OSHA's permissible exposure limit, studies have demonstrated a statistically significant, dose-related increase in lung cancer in several occupational groups.

Because of these recent findings, OSHA believes that it will be necessary to conduct a risk assessment to determine whether the current permissible exposure limit is protective of worker health. OSHA also believes that, in addition to the permissible exposure limit, the ancillary provisions, such as engineering controls, provided by a comprehensive standard will be necessary to reduce worker exposure to crystalline silica.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary determination by the Secretary of Labor that exposure to silica at the Agency's current permissible exposure limits poses a significant risk of material impairment of health and that a standard will substantially reduce that risk.

Alternatives: OSHA has considered or conducted several programs designed to reduce worker exposure to crystalline silica. The OSHA Special Emphasis Program for Silicosis provides inspection targeting to reduce or eliminate workplace exposures to crystalline silica. The National Campaign to Eliminate Silicosis being conducted by OSHA (in conjunction with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, and the American Lung Asssociation) is an ongoing program involving outreach and education and the dissemination of materials on methods to reduce worker exposure to crystalline silica. Other nonregulatory approaches might 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 death or serious physical harm, and the issuance of hazard alerts. Although these approaches may be partially effective in reducing worker exposure to crystalline silica and reducing disease risk, OSHA believes that progress in the prevention of silica-related diseases demands the issuance of a comprehensive silica standard.

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.

Risks: OSHA has not yet completed an assessment of the risks of exposure to crystalline silica. Other studies have shown risks ranging from 35 to 47 percent among workers exposed over a working lifetime and have additionally identified silica as a potential occupational carcinogen.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Acting Director, Directorate of Health 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

RIN: 1218-AB70

1962. 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, wheelchairs, 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 demonstrated 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	12/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB76

1963. STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT (MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES) FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY, MARINE TERMINALS, AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS (PHASE II)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

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 to 1910.1052; 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	11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB81

1964. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISIONS TO SPRAY APPLICATIONS

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

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.107; 29 CFR 1910.94(c) and 1910.94(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	11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB84

1965. CHANGES TO STATE PLANS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 667

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1953

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act), 29 U.S.C. 667, provides that States that wish to assume responsibility for developing and enforcing their own occupational safety and health standards relating to any occupational safety or health issue may do so by submitting and obtaining Federal approval of a State plan. A State plan consists of the laws, standards and other regulations, and procedures under which the State operates its occupational safety and health program. From time to time after initial plan approval, States may make changes to their plans as a result of legislative, regulatory or administrative actions. If the State makes a change to its plan which differs from the Federal program, the State must notify OSHA of the change to its plan which differs from the Federal program (referred to as a plan supplement). OSHA then reviews the changes; if they meet the approval criteria OSHA publishes a notice announcing the approval of the change; if the change does not meet the criteria OSHA initiates procedures to reject the change.

OSHA is proposing to amend its regulations regarding State plan changes to streamline the review and approval process and to allow more organizational flexibility in this process. Changes which are identical to components of the Federal program would not require formal review. The proposal also would reorganize 29 CFR part 1953 to eliminate repetitive language. Cross references to part 1953 in the CFR would be changed as necessary to reflect the correct references.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: State, Federal

Agency Contact: Paula O. White, Director, Federal-State Operations, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3700, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2200
Fax: 202 693-1671
Email: paula.white@osha.gov

RIN: 1218-AB91

Department of Labor (DOL)	Final Rule Stage
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1966. 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.

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 ANPRM Comment Period End NPRM Final Rule Final Rule Effective Final Rule - Assigned Protection Factors	05/14/82 09/13/82 11/15/94 01/08/98 04/08/98 12/00/01	47 FR 20803 59 FR 58884 63 FR 1152

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal

RIN: 1218-AA05

1967. 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: 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 ANPRM Comment Period End NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Final Action	04/02/87 07/31/87 03/23/93 06/07/93 12/00/01	52 FR 10586 58 FR 15526

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AA84

1968. 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

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 has analyzed the record and determined that it is appropriate to move forward with a final rule addressing personal fall protection requirements (subpart I of 29 CFR 1910) and re-proposing certain sections of the walking and working surfaces rule.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Hearing Final Rule (Subpart I)	04/10/90 08/22/90 09/11/90 09/00/01	55 FR 13360 55 FR 29224

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB80

1969. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISIONS TO THE EXIT ROUTE STANDARD

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

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 Public Hearing Final Rule	09/10/96 04/29/97 11/00/01	61 FR 47712 62 FR 9402

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB82

1970. 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 issue a Direct Final Rule to update subpart G to reflect the requirements of the Department of Transportation's MUTCD.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

Direct Final Rule	11/00/01

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB88

Department of Labor (DOL)	Long-Term Actions
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1971. 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

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 2001.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Final Rule on Longshoring/Marine Terminals Public Meeting on VTLs - 1/27/1998 Next Action Undetermined	06/06/94 09/23/94 07/25/97 10/09/97	59 FR 28594 62 FR 40142 62 FR 52671

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AA56

1972. SCAFFOLDS IN SHIPYARDS (PART 1915 -- SUBPART N)

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

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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 NPRM Comment Period End Reopened Record Comment Period End Next Action Undetermined	11/29/88 02/27/89 04/12/94 06/13/94	53 FR 48182 59 FR 17290

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AA68

1973. 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

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AA70

1974. 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 (SARA) 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. OSHA has not yet determined what further steps, if any, are necessary in this rulemaking.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB27

1975. 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: 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. The proposed ETS provisions would apply to all 6 million industrial and nonindustrial work environments under OSHA's jurisdiction. OSHA preliminarily estimated that the proposed standard would prevent a substantial number of air-quality related illnesses per year.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

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

RIN: 1218-AB37

1976. 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.

Safety and health programs 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 proposed 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 rule provided to the SBREFA Panel for this rule for all covered employers to be about $2.3 billion per year. The Agency also preliminarily estimated that 580,000 to 1,300,000 injuries and illnesses and 416 to 918 fatalities would be avoided each year as a result of the rule. OSHA preliminarily anticipates that employers will have direct cost savings associated with this reduction in the number of injuries and illnesses of approximately $7.3 billion 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

1977. 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 reopened 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 reopening 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. Implementation of the standard is estimated to reduce the number of work-related cases of TB by 70 to 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 to 386 infections per 1000 workers exposed to TB on the job and that the average lifetime occupational risk of TB disease ranges from 3 to 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 NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Post Hearing Comment End Record Reopening Second Reopening Comment Period End Reopening Comment Period End Final Rule	09/10/96 10/17/97 02/17/98 10/05/98 06/17/99 06/28/99 08/02/99 To Be Determined	62 FR 54160 62 FR 65388 64 FR 32447 64 FR 34625

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations

Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal

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

1978. GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS FOR SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT

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

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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: Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB50

1979. 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 on the ANPRM closed January 24, 2000. OSHA is now evaluating comments to determine whether further action is required.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

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

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB62

1980. 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: Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB68

1981. 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 nonprofit 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

1982. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY (LOCKOUT) IN CONSTRUCTION (PART 1926) (PREVENTING CONSTRUCTION INJURIES/FATALITIES: LOCKOUT)

Priority: Economically Significant

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

1983. 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.

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 standards.

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 the proposed 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 NPRM Comment Period End Informal Public Hearing End Final Rule	03/30/99 06/14/99 08/13/99 To Be Determined	64 FR 15401

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Federal

RIN: 1218-AB77

1984. CONSOLIDATION OF RECORDS MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS IN OSHA STANDARDS

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

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

1985. 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: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB83

1986. WOODWORKING MACHINERY

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

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.213

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA's standards for woodworking machinery (29 CFR 1910.213) have not been updated since their adoption in 1971. The corresponding industry consensus standards have been updated several times in the intervening years. OSHA intends to work with affected stakeholders to develop an updated woodworking machinery standard that reflects the technological advances and changes in occupational safety and health practices that have taken place since then. The revised standard will take account of approaches included in the most recent voluntary consensus standard.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	To Be Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB92

1987. ERGONOMICS PROGRAMS IN CONSTRUCTION (PART 1926): PREVENTING WORK-RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS AMONG CONSTRUCTION WORKERS

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

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Based on evidence that employers in the construction industry report to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 40,000 lost-time musculoskletal disorders (MSDs) occur among their workers every year. Accordingly, OSHA has decided to begin to gather information for future rulemaking to address these disorders. When the number of non-lost worktime MSDs in this workforce is added to the total, the annual number of MSDs experienced by construction workers is likely to exceed 200,000. Approximately one-third of the costs construction employers incur for workers' compensation every year goes to pay for these costly injuries. However, many work-related MSDs are preventable, and many low-cost methods of reducing worker exposure to ergonomic risk factors are now available for the construction industry. OSHA intends to publish an ANPR to gather information on the construction workers most at risk, feasible methods of reducing this risk, and successful ergonomics programs in construction.

Timetable: Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

RIN: 1218-AB94

1988. SUBPART S -- ELECTRICAL STANDARDS

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

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910. subpart S

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is planning to update the Subpart S-Electrical Standard and will rely heavily on the materials involved in the development of the 2000 Edition of the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA's) 70 E standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces. This revision will provide the first update of Subpart S-Electrical since the standard was originally published in 1981. It will thus allow the latest technological developments to be considered; several of these state-of-the-art safety developments will be addressed by OSHA for the first time. The update of Subpart S-Electrical will also permit the completion of standards covering safety-related maintenance requirements and safety requirements for special equipment.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM	To Be Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB95

1989. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH RISKS IN THE MANUFACTURE AND ASSEMBLY OF SEMICONDUCTORS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The manufacture and assembly of semiconductors requires the use of a variety of complex mixtures of chemicals. For most of these chemicals, adequate data on toxicity are not available, although chemical structure suggests that they may present potential health risks. The types of mixtures used and their components change rapidly in this industry. OSHA is a aware of case reports and epidemiologic studies suggesting excesses of certain cancers and reproductive damage among employees in this industry. Although these effects may be associated with processes and mixtures no longer in common use, the 1995 Priority Planning Process emphasized reproductive hazards as an item of special concern.

Accordingly, OSHA is planning to request information on the chemical content of "photoresist" and other mixtures currently used in semiconductor manufacture and assembly, on employee exposures in this sector, on toxicological information available about the components or mixtures, and about feasible means of reducing vapor-phase exposures in industry "clean rooms."

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM	To Be Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB96

1990. COMMERCIAL DIVING OPERATIONS: TECHNICAL AMENDMENT

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.423

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA's Commercial Diving Operations standard (29 CFR 1910.401 to 1910.441) was published in 1977. In the intervening years, major changes in the technology of diving systems and equipment have occurred. In December 1999, OSHA granted a permanent variance to Dixie Divers, Inc. permitting recreational diving instructors employed by that company to comply with the provisions of the variance rather than with paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(3)(iii) of 1910.423 and paragraph (b)(1) of 1910.426. Since OSHA granted the variance, other employers of recreational diving instructors have asked OSHA to clarify the applicability of the variance to their operations. OSHA intends to issue a Request for Information to obtain data on the appropriateness of amending the commercial diving operations standard to reflect the alternative specified in the permanent variance granted to Dixie Divers, Inc.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

Request for Information	To Be Determined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB97

1991. • PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING OF DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS UNDER THE AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT

Priority: Info./Admin./Other

Legal Authority: PL 106-181, Wendell H. ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act, sec 519; 49 USC 42121

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: On March 8, 2000, Congress enacted the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, commonly known as the Air Act. Section 519 of the Act (49 USC 42121) prohibits air carriers or air carrier contractors or subcontractors from discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees for exercising specified rights under the Act. The Act further provides that the Secretary of Labor investigate employee claims of discrimination and ultimately issue a determination and order after an opportunity for either party to request a hearing on the record. Procedural rules are needed for filing, investigating, litigating, and adjudicating complaints filed pursuant to the Act.

Timetable: Next Action Undetermined

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John Robert Spear, Director, Office of Investigative Assistance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2187
Fax: 202 693-1681
Email: john.spear@osha-no.osha.gov

RIN: 1218-AB99

Department of Labor (DOL)	Completed Actions
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1992. STEEL ERECTION (PART 1926) (SAFETY PROTECTION FOR IRONWORKERS)

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

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. An advisory committee for this rule was formed in 1994. Its work resulted in the publication of a proposed rule on August 13, 1998. A public hearing was held in Washington, DC, on December 1-11, 1998. The post-hearing comment period closed April 12, 1999. OSHA published the final rule on January 18, 2001.

Statement of Need: 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 former rule needed to be revised.

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

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The annualized costs of compliance are $78.4 million dollars. Benefits are expected to include the prevention of about 22 fatalities and 838 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 NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Public Hearing Final Rule Final Rule Effective	05/11/94 08/13/98 11/17/98 12/01/98 01/18/01 09/16/01	59 FR 24389 63 FR 43451 66 FR 5195

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AA65

1993. RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES (SIMPLIFIED INJURY/ILLNESS RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS)

Priority: Other Significant

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 1980s, 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 issued a final rule that incorporates changes based on an analysis of the public comments and testimony on January 19, 2001.

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, the final rule provides clear regulatory guidance to employers and simplifies 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.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The annual costs of the rule are $38.6 million. The potential benefits of the rule are the avoidance of 29,000 to 58,000 injuries and illnesses per year.

Risks: Not applicable

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM NPRM Comment Period End Final Action Final Action Effective	02/02/96 07/02/96 01/19/01 01/01/02	61 FR 4030 66 FR 5916

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB24

1994. 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: On November 14, 2000, OSHA published a final rule addressing ergonomic programs in general industry (65 FR 68262). The rule became effective on January 16, 2001. However, under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has passed and the President has signed, Public Law 107-5, a resolution of disapproval of OSHA's final Ergonomics Program standard. Because Public Law 107-5 invalidates the standard, OSHA has removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations. Removal of the final standard was effective April 23, 2001.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

ANPRM ANPRM Comment Period End SBREFA Panel NPRM Final Action Final Action Effective Final Rule Withdrawel Final Rule Withdrawel Effective	08/03/92 02/01/93 03/02/99 11/23/99 11/14/00 01/16/01 04/23/01 04/23/01	57 FR 34192 64 FR 65768 65 FR 68261

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations

Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal

Agency Contact: Bonnie Friedman, Director, Office of Public Affairs, Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Room N3649, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1999
Fax: 202 693-1634

RIN: 1218-AB36

1995. 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). A final rule was issued in October 2000.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

NPRM Final Rule Final Action Effective	07/02/99 10/26/00 12/26/00	64 FR 35972 65 FR 64281

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB79

1996. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO BLOODBORNE PATHOGENS; NEEDLESTICK AND OTHER SHARPS INJURIES

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657; PL 106-430, Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1030

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has revised the Bloodborne Pathogens (BBP) standard in conformance with the requirements of the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act. This Act directed OSHA to revise the Bloodborne Pathogens standard to include new examples in the definition of engineering controls along with two new definitions; to require that Exposure Control Plans reflect how employers implement new developments in control technology; to require employers to solicit input from employees responsible for direct patient care in the identification, evaluation, and selection of engineering and work practice controls; and to require certain employers to establish and maintain a log of percutaneous injuries from contaminated sharps.

Blood and other potential infectious materials have long been recognized as a potential threat to the health of employees who are exposed to these materials by percutaneous contact (penetration of the skin). Injuries from contaminated needles and other sharps have been associated with an increased risk of disease from more than 20 infectious agents. The primary agents of concern in current occupational settings are the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus (HCV).

Needlesticks and other percutaneous injuries resulting in exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials continue to be of concern due to the high frequency of their occurrence and the severity of the health effects associated with exposure. The centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that healthcare workers in hospital settings sustain 384,325 percutaneous injuries involving contaminated sharps annually. When non-hospital healthcare workers are included, the best estimate of the number of percutaneous injuries involving contaminated sharps is 590,164 per year.

Since publication of the BBP standard, a wide variety of medical devices have been developed to reduce the risk of needlesticks and other sharps injuries. These "safer medical devices" replace sharps with non-needle devices or incorporate safety features designed to reduce the likelihood of injury.

Congress was prompted to take action in response to growing concern over bloodborne pathogen exposures from sharps injuries and in response to recent technological developments that increase employee protection. On November 6, 2000, the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act (PL 106-430) was signed into law. The Act directed OSHA to revise the BBP standard in accordance with specific language included in the Act. On January 18, 2001, OSHA published the final rule (66 FR 5318).

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

Final Rule Final Rule Effective	01/18/01 04/18/01	66 FR 5317

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB85

1997. COTTON DUST: WASHED COTTON EXEMPTION (RULEMAKING RESULTING FROM A SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1043(n)

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA has completed a Lookback Review of the Cotton Dust Standard pursuant to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866. As part of that review OSHA requested public comments (63 FR 32140, June 22, 1998) and held two public meetings. During that review commenters representing the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Washed Cotton Task Force, and industry and union representatives on the task force recommended that OSHA expand the washed cotton partial exemption that appears in the cotton dust standard.

Raw cotton washed according to certain protocols creates a much lower risk of byssinosis, and the current cotton dust standard at 29 CFR 1910.1043(n) provides a partial exemption from the standard for such washed cotton. The Washed Cotton Task Force, made up of representatives of government, industry and unions, has sponsored research which demonstrates that cotton washed pursuant to an additional process, batch kier washing following a specific protocol, also creates a much lower risk of byssinosis.

One of the purposes of a Lookback Review is to streamline regulation when that is appropriate based on experience or new science. Expanding the washed cotton partial exemption is supported by new science and is supported by the affected community. Accordingly, OSHA has issued a direct final rule to expand the partial exemption from the cotton dust standard to batch kier washed in accordance with the protocol recommended by the Task Force. OSHA received no negative comments during the 60-day comment period. The agency has issued a notice to that effect and the rule was effective on April 6, 2001.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

Direct Final Rule Confirmation of Direct Final Rule Effective Date Direct Final Rule Effective	12/07/00 04/06/01 04/06/01	65 FR 76598 66 FR 18191

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: Will permit cotton textile mills, many of which are small businesses pursuant to the SBA definition, to choose an option which will reduce their costs to comply with OSHA's cotton dust standard.

RIN: 1218-AB90

1998. • NEW JERSEY STATE PLAN

Priority: Routine and Frequent

Legal Authority: 29 USC 667

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1956

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The New Jersey Public Employee Only State plan, a State occupational safety and health plan applicable only to public sector employees (employees of the State and its political subdivisions), is approved as a developmental plan under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and 29 CFR part 1956. Under the approved plan, the New Jersey Department of Labor is designated as the State agency responsible for the development and enforcement of occupational safety and health standards applicable to public employment throughout the State. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) retains full authority for coverage of private sector employees in the Sate of New Jersey.

Timetable:

Action	Date	FR Cite

Final Rule Final Rule Effective	01/11/01 01/11/01	66 FR 2265

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

RIN: 1218-AB98