[Federal Register: July 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 127)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38645-38671]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jy10-28]
[[Page 38645]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, et al.
Standards Improvement Project--Phase III; Proposed Rule
[[Page 38646]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1926, and 1928
[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0049]
RIN 1218-AC19
Standards Improvement Project--Phase III
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
continuing its efforts to remove or revise outdated, duplicative,
unnecessary, and inconsistent requirements in its safety and health
standards. This effort builds on the success of Standards Improvement
Project (SIP)--Phase I published on June 18, 1998, and SIP--Phase II
published on January 5, 2005. The Agency believes that the proposed
revisions will reduce compliance costs, eliminate paperwork burdens,
and clarify requirements without diminishing worker protections.
DATES: Submit comments and hearing requests on or before September 30,
2010. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of
the submission date.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2006-0049, by
any of the following methods:
Electronic. Submit comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov,
which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for
submitting comments.
Facsimile. OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and
hearing requests that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including
attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648; OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents. Instead
of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these
documents (e.g., studies, journal articles), commenters must submit
these attachments, in hard copy, to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical
Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must
clearly identify the sender's name, date, subject, and docket number
(i.e., OSHA-2006-0049) so the Agency can attach them to the appropriate
document.
Regular mail, express delivery, hand (courier) delivery, and
messenger service. Submit comments and any additional material (e.g.,
studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-
2006-0049 or RIN No. 1218-AC19, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350. (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-
5627.) Note that security-related procedures may result in significant
delays in receiving comments and other written materials by regular
mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express
delivery, hand delivery, and messenger service. The hours of operation
for the OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
Instructions. All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (i.e., OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2006-0049). Comments and
other material, including any personal information, are placed in the
public docket without revision, and will be available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions commenters about
submitting statements they do not want made available to the public, or
submitting comments that contain personal information (either about
themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and
medical data.
OSHA requests comments on all issues related to this proposed rule.
It also welcomes comments on its findings that this proposed rule would
have no negative economic, paperwork, or other regulatory impacts on
the regulated community.
Docket. The electronic docket for this proposed rule, established
at http://www.regulations.gov, lists most of the documents in the
docket. However, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not
publicly available to read or download through this Web site. All
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA
Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions.
References and Exhibits
In this Federal Register notice, OSHA references a number of
supporting materials. References to these materials are specified as
"ID," followed by the number of the document. OSHA posts these
referenced materials in Docket No. OSHA-2006-0049 at http://www.regulations.osha.gov.
The documents also are available at the OSHA
Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section of this notice). For further
information about accessing exhibits referenced in this Federal
Register notice, see the "Public Participation" heading in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries, contact Ms. Jennifer Ashley, Office of Communications, Room
N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999. For technical
inquiries, contact Mr. Ryan Tremain, Health Scientist, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2056 or fax (202) 693-1678.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Copies of this Federal Register notice. Electronic copies are
available at http://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice,
as well as news releases and other relevant information, also are
available at OSHA's Web site at http://www.osha.gov. In addition, the
docket material is available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-2625,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone 202-693-2350 (TTY number: 877-889-
5627).
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Legal Considerations
III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Federalism
VIII. State Plans
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
X. Review by the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and
Health
XI. Public Participation
XII. List of Subjects
XIII. Authority and Signature
XIV. Proposed Amendments to Standards
I. Background
OSHA wants to improve its standards by removing or revising
confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent requirements.
Improving OSHA standards will help employers better understand their
obligations, which will lead to increased compliance, ensure greater
safety and health for workers,and reduce compliance costs.
In addition, this action will allow
employers to comply with many standards using newer and more flexible
means than specified in the existing standards. OSHA's effort to
improve standards began in the 1970s, not long after it issued the
first set of standards. In 1973, OSHA issued proposals to clarify and
update rules that it adopted originally on May 29, 1971 (36 FR 10466).
In 1978, OSHA published a rulemaking titled, "Selected General and
Special (Cooperage and Laundry Machinery, and Bakery Equipment)
Industry Safety and Health Standards: Revocation" (43 FR 49726,
October 24, 1978). Commonly known as the "Standards Deletion
Project," this comprehensive final rule revoked hundreds of
unnecessary and duplicative requirements in the general industry
standards at 29 CFR 1910. Another rulemaking in 1984 titled,
"Revocation of Advisory and Repetitive Standards" (49 FR 5318,
February 10, 1984) resulted in the removal of many repetitive and
unenforceable requirements. These rulemaking actions primarily removed
standards that were: (1) Not relevant to worker safety (i.e., the
standards addressed public-safety issues); (2) duplicative of other
standards found elsewhere in the general industry standards; (3)
considered "nuisance" standards (i.e., one having no merit or worker
safety or health benefits); or (4) legally unenforceable.
In 1996, in response to the Presidential Memorandum on Improving
Government Regulations, OSHA began another series of rulemaking
improvement actions. Patterned after the earlier rulemaking actions,
the new effort identified and then revised or removed, standards that
were confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent. This effort
also included standards that could be rewritten in plain language. In
the first action, titled, "Miscellaneous Changes to General Industry
and Construction Standards" (61 FR 37849, July 22, 1996), also known
as the "Standards Improvement Project" or "SIP-I," OSHA focused on
revising standards that were out of date, duplicative, or inconsistent.
OSHA published the final rule on SIP-I on June 18, 1998 (63 FR
33450). Changes made in SIP-I included reducing the frequency of a
medical-testing requirement and eliminating an unnecessary and obsolete
medical test required in both the Coke Oven and Inorganic Arsenic
standards; revising the emergency-response provisions of the Vinyl
Chloride standard; eliminating the public-safety provisions of the
Temporary Labor Camps standard; and eliminating unnecessary cross
references in the textile industry standards. OSHA made these
improvements without reducing worker safety and health protection.
In 2002, OSHA published a proposed rule for phase II of the
Standards Improvement Project (SIP-II) (67 FR 66494, October 31, 2002).
In that notice, OSHA proposed to revise a number of provisions in
health and safety standards that commenters identified during SIP-I, or
that the Agency identified as standards in need of improvement.
In the final rule on SIP-II, published on January 5, 2005 (70 FR
1111), the Agency revised a number of health standards to reduce
regulatory burden, facilitate compliance, and eliminate unnecessary
paperwork without reducing health protections. The improvements made by
SIP-II addressed issues such as worker notification of the use of
chemicals in the workplace, frequency of exposure monitoring, and
medical surveillance.
As stated in the 2006 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
for the SIP-III project (71 FR 76623, December 21, 2006), OSHA
identified a number of standards as potential candidates for
improvement in SIP-III based on the Agency's review of its standards,
suggestions and comments from the public, and recommendations from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB based its
recommendations on comments it received on Regulatory Reform of the
U.S. Manufacturing Sector (2005).\1\ Many commenters during the SIP-II
rulemaking process applauded the SIP process and OSHA for its efforts
to streamline and improve its health standards by removing or revising
outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent requirements (IDs 3-5, 3-10, 3-
11, and 3-13 to Docket S-778A). These commenters encouraged the Agency
to continue the SIP project, hence today's publication of a proposed
SIP-III rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the full Regulatory Reform report, please visit:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/reports/manufacturing_initiative.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In SIP-III, OSHA's objective is to modify individual provisions of
standards by removing or revising requirements that are confusing,
outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent without reducing workers' safety
and health or imposing any additional economic burden on employers. The
ANPRM for SIP-III invited comments on a number of such requirements
identified by OSHA, and also solicited recommendations from commenters
for additional requirements for inclusion in the proposal. Commenters
submitted 134 comments to the docket; OSHA discusses these comments
below, along with the proposed changes.
II. Legal Considerations
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH
Act; 29 U.S.C. 651 et al.) is "to assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources * * *." (29 U.S.C.
651(b).) To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of
Labor to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health
standards, authorizing summary adoption of existing national consensus
and established Federal standards within two years of the effective
date of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(a)); authorizing promulgation of
standards pursuant to notice and comment (29 U.S.C. 655(b)); and
requiring employers to comply with OSHA standards (29 U.S.C. 654(b)).
An occupational safety or health standard is a standard "which
requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices,
means, methods, operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or
appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and places of
employment." (29 U.S.C. 652(8).) A standard is reasonably necessary or
appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8) if it substantially
reduces or eliminates significant risk. In addition, it must be
technologically and economically feasible, cost effective, and
consistent with prior Agency action, or a justified departure. A
standard must be supported by substantial evidence, and be better able
to effectuate the OSH Act's purposes than any national consensus
standard it supersedes. (See 58 FR 16612-16616, March 30, 1993.)
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures
it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available
technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be
expected to be developed. (See American Textile Mfrs. Institute v.
OSHA, 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981) (ATMI); American Iron and Steel
Institute v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (AISI).)
A standard is economically feasible if industry can absorb or pass
on the costs of compliance without threatening its long-term
profitability or competitive structure. See ATMI, 452 U.S. at 530 n.
55; AISI, 939 F.2d at 980. A standard is cost effective if the
protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available
alternatives that achieve the same level of protection.
ATMI, 452 U.S. at 514 n. 32; International
Union, UAW v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (LOTO II).
Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to include among a
standard's requirements labeling, monitoring, medical testing, and
other information-gathering and transmittal provisions. (29 U.S.C.
655(b)(7).) OSHA standards also must be highly protective. (See 58 FR
at 16614-16615; LOTO II, 37 F.3d at 668-669.) Finally, whenever
practical, standards shall "be expressed in terms of objective
criteria and of the performance desired." (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5).)
III. Summary and Explanation of the Proposed Rule
OSHA is proposing a number of actions amending its standards,
including revisions to its general industry, maritime, construction,
and agricultural standards. A detailed discussion of each of the
proposed revisions follows, including a discussion of comments the
Agency received in response to the ANPRM. Some of the revisions
proposed affect more than one industry. For example, the proposed
revisions to the general industry Slings standard also would affect
shipyard employment and the construction industry. When proposed
revisions in a general industry standard would affect additional
industries, OSHA will discuss the revisions fully in the general
industry section, and then reference the provisions affected in the
sections covering the other industries.
A. Proposed Revisions in General Industry Standards (29 CFR Part 1910)
1. Subpart E
OSHA is proposing several revisions to subpart E. First, OSHA
proposes to revise the title of subpart E from "Means of Egress" to
"Exit Routes and Emergency Planning." The Agency originally proposed
to revise the title of subpart E to "Exit Routes, Emergency Action
Plans, and Fire Prevention Plans"(61 FR 47712, September 10, 1996) ;
however, this title is missing from the final standard because of a
printing error (see 67 FR 67949, November 7, 2002). OSHA now proposes
to revise the title to the more concise "Exit Routes and Emergency
Planning." As OSHA explained in the preamble to the 2002 final rule,
the revised title is part of the Agency's use of plain language that
readily conveys the contents of the subpart (67 FR 67949 at 67950).
OSHA also is proposing to revise Sec. 1910.35 to update the
edition of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101, Life
Safety Code, that OSHA references therein as a compliance alternative.
Currently, Sec. 1910.35 accepts employer compliance with the 2000
edition of NFPA 101 instead of complying with corresponding
requirements in Sec. Sec. 1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37. The Agency
analyzed the provisions of the 2006 edition of NFPA 101 (ID 0137), and
preliminarily concluded that the corresponding provisions provide an
equal or higher level of worker safety than Sec. Sec. 1910.34,
1910.36, and 1910.37. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to update
Sec. 1910.35 by stating that employers who demonstrate compliance with
the 2006 version of the Life Safety Code will be deemed to be in
compliance with these requirements.
Finally, OSHA is proposing to revise Sec. 1910.35 to add a second
compliance alternative that will allow employers demonstrating
compliance with the exit-route provisions of the International Code
Council (ICC), 2006 International Fire Code (IFC), to be in compliance
with the corresponding requirements in Sec. Sec. 1910.34, 1910.36, and
1910.37. Also, OSHA is proposing to revise the title of Sec. 1910.35,
listed in the Table of Contents in Sec. 1910.33, a definition in Sec.
1910.34, and two notes in Sec. 1910.36, to correspond to the proposed
new language to Sec. 1910.35.
The proposed revision to add the IFC compliance alternative
receives support from comments made in response to the 2006 ANPRM. In
the ANPRM, OSHA explained the reasons for the recommended revision, and
requested information on the suitability of allowing both the IFC, as
well as ICC's International Building Code (IBC), to serve as an
equivalent compliance option. The ANPRM recommendation was in response
to a petition by the ICC, which submitted a comparison of the 2003 IBC
and IFC provisions and the OSHA requirements. Subsequently, OSHA
analyzed the provisions of the newer (2006) editions of the IFC and
IBC, and compared them with requirements in Sec. Sec. 1910.34,
1910.36, and 1910.37 (ID 0138). In this analysis, OSHA found that the
IFC contains provisions for existing buildings and exit-route
maintenance, while the IBC does not. These provisions are necessary to
achieve equivalency with Sec. 1910.37. Therefore, OSHA determined that
the IFC corresponded to the OSHA requirements, and that the IBC did
not. This analysis concluded that the corresponding provisions of the
IFC provide an equivalent or higher level of worker safety than
Sec. Sec. 1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing to recognize the IFC as a compliance alternative, in addition
to the NFPA 101 compliance alternative, thereby providing additional
flexibility to employers.
In the ANPRM, OSHA asked if the egress provisions of the ICC codes
offer protection equivalent to that required by subpart E. Many
commenters responded affirmatively. For example, the Building Owners
and Managers Association International (BOMA), which represents
thousands of owners and managers of existing commercial properties in
North America, stated that it strongly supports this proposed
additional compliance option (ID 0121). Further, BOMA stated that the
IBC and IFC are "responsive to not only the health safety and welfare
needs of those who lease real estate, but for those who are employers
in the industry as well."
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings
Service, the landlord of the civilian Federal government, with a total
inventory of over 345 million square feet of workspace for a million
Federal workers, commented:
[T]he requirements for egress in the IBC and IFC will satisfy
the OSHA rules and clearly demonstrate that a building designed and
constructed to the requirements of the IBC and IFC provides
equivalent protection to the federal egress requirements. (ID 0130.)
A comment from the New York Department of State (ID 0023) included a
detailed discussion of the IBC, IFC, and subpart E. This commenter
concluded that the combined requirements of these two national model
codes provide an equivalent level of protection to all occupants.
Many of the subpart E provisions are general, performance-oriented
requirements, and do not cover conditions in every building. Employers
may use a compliance alternative as guidance on specific situations.
OSHA believes allowing employers two compliance options--compliance
with either the NFPA 101 (2006) or the IFC (2006)--will give employers
additional flexibility to use whichever compliance option best serves
their needs, while meeting the level of worker protection provided by
OSHA's subpart E rules.
OSHA notes that a number of commenters supporting the proposed
revision stated that such a revision would involve a potential cost
savings for them because it "can reduce design and construction
delays. * * *" (See, for example, ID 0117.) Other commenters (IDs
0019, 0020) supported the flexibility the revision would provide to
employers by allowing them to comply with either NFPA 101 or with
the ICC Codes, explaining that health-care facilities participating in
Medicare and Medicaid used NFPA 101, even in those jurisdictions that
use the ICC codes.
The ANPRM also included a question about whether other, alternative
national building codes were available that OSHA should consider.
Commenters (IDs 0018, 0021, 0023, 0119, 0121) responded that no other
building codes are available for OSHA to consider. One commenter (ID
0121) noted, "Currently, 47 states and the District of Columbia use
the IBC, and 42 states and the District of Columbia use the IFC." GSA
stated (ID 0130) that they have "adopted the technical requirements of
the IBC and the IFC. * * *"
Opposition to the revision came from the NFPA (IDs 0022, 0134).
However, much of NFPA's comment centered on whether the ICC codes
provide a level of safety equivalent to NFPA 101, rather than whether
compliance with the ICC codes would provide a level of safety
equivalent to that required by OSHA in subpart E. As noted previously,
OSHA plans to retain and update existing Sec. 1910.35. Thus, the
comparison provided by NFPA (ID 0022) of the provisions of NFPA 101 and
the ICC codes does not address the issue regarding the ability of the
ICC codes to serve as an additional compliance option to OSHA's subpart
E.
Another concern raised by the NFPA comments (IDs 0022, 0134) was
that the ICC developed the ICC Codes using consensus principles that
differed from the consensus principles used to develop NFPA codes.
Again, this comment does not address the issue of whether the ICC Codes
provide a level of protection equal to that provided by subpart E,
regardless of the method of development. While it is true that OSHA, in
conformance with section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act, the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), and OMB
Circular A-119, must consider consensus standards in developing its
mandatory standards, the Agency is not restricted to the use of
consensus standards. OSHA does not plan to promulgate a government-
unique standard instead of a consensus standard, but to allow
compliance alternatives that provide workers with a level of safety
that is at least equivalent to the level of safety provided by OSHA's
existing subpart E requirements.
The Denver Fire Department (ID 0013) also objected to the proposed
revision because the IBC and IFC do not specify minimum exit access
widths for every type of occupancy. The Denver Fire Department did not
explain how the lack of such specificity would impact worker safety; as
noted earlier, OSHA does not believe worker safety would be compromised
by including IFC 2006 as a compliance alternative. OSHA notes that both
NFPA 101 and the ICC Codes allow exit access widths narrower than the
28-inch minimum specified in Sec. 1910.36, but only in limited
situations in which the occupancy type and occupant load ensure an
equal level of safety.
OSHA believes that most of the information received in response to
the ANPRM supports the proposal to allow the 2006 NFPA 101 or the 2006
IFC provisions as independent compliance alternatives to the
corresponding requirements in Sec. Sec. 1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37.
The Agency believes the proposed revisions will increase compliance
flexibility, and achieve greater compatibility with many State and
local jurisdictions, while maintaining worker protection.
2. Subpart I
a. Training Certification Records
OSHA is proposing to remove paragraph (f)(4) of the general
industry Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) standard (Sec. 1910.132),
paragraph (e)(4) of the shipyard employment PPE standard (Sec.
1915.152), and paragraph (n)(4) of the general industry and
construction Cadmium standards (Sec. Sec. 1910.1027 and 1926.1127),
which require employers to prepare and maintain a written record
certifying compliance with the training requirements of these sections.
Specifically, employers must currently verify that affected workers
received training as required by the standards through a written
certification record that includes, at a minimum, the name(s) of the
workers trained, the date(s) of training, and the types of training the
workers received. The Cadmium standards for general industry and
construction are the only substance-specific standards that require
written certification to document training. The Agency estimates that
it takes over 1.8 million hours for employers to develop and maintain
the training-certification records mandated by the PPE standards in
Sec. Sec. 1910.132 and 1915.152, and over 3,000 hours for the
training-certification records required by the Cadmium standards for
general industry (Sec. 1910.1027) and construction (Sec.
1926.1127).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 74 FR 61175, 74 FR 45883, 73 FR 74199, and 73 FR 74197,
respectively, for information on accessing the information-
collection requests (ICRs) for these training-certification records.
The ICRs describe the procedures and data used to determine the
hours required to develop and maintain the training-certification
records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA does not believe that the training certification records
required by the four standards listed previously provide a safety or
health benefit sufficient to justify the time and cost to employers.
OSHA believes that employers observe employees as they work to ensure
that work practices and personal-protective equipment are consistent
with the training received. In addition, OSHA generally conducts
enforcement of training requirements by observation and worker
interviews; thus, the lack of a written record would not interfere with
OSHA's enforcement of training requirements. Therefore, OSHA believes
that removing these training-certification requirements would not
compromise worker safety or health. For these reasons, the Agency is
proposing to remove the requirements to prepare and maintain training-
certification records from the above-referenced standards.
In addition to the four training-certification records proposed for
revocation, OSHA notes that 12 other standards in the general industry,
construction, and shipyard employment require employers to prepare
written records or documents to certify that they complied with
training requirements. OSHA requests comment, including rationale, on
whether it should revoke all or some of these 12 records. (See section
VI.C ("Proposed Revisions to Information-Collection Requirements")
below in this notice for a detailed description of the paperwork-burden
hours associated with these training-certification requirements.)
b. Respiratory Protection
OSHA is proposing seven revisions related to the Respiratory
Protection standard in Sec. 1910.134. The following paragraphs discuss
each of these revisions.
(1) Updating DOT regulations referenced in Sec. 1910.134(i)(4)(i)
An industrial hygienist with the Michigan OSHA On-Site Consultation
Program raised a question regarding the general OSHA requirements for
requalifying cylinders for self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
specified by Sec. 1910.134(i)(4)(i). This provision of the Respiratory
Protection standard references the Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulations in 49 CFR parts 173 and 178 for retesting air cylinders
such as those used with SCBAs. In August 2002, the DOT revised its
standard, which resulted in the reorganizing and renumbering its
regulations for testing air cylinders. New subpart C of 49 CFR part 180
now specifies the general DOT requirements for requalifying air
cylinders; these requirements replicate the requirements in former 49
CFR parts 173 and 178 for requalifying air cylinders. OSHA, therefore,
is proposing to revise the language in Sec. 1910.134(i)(4)(i) by
referencing the new DOT standard for cylinder testing at 49 CFR part
180. OSHA believes that the proposed revision will clarify the
requirements of the Respiratory Protection standard by accurately
identifying the location of the appropriate DOT reference standard. By
expediting this process, the proposed revision will ease the regulatory
burden on employers without reducing employee protection.
(2) Updating the NIOSH Respirator-Certification Requirement in Sec.
1910.134(i)(9)
Existing paragraph (i)(9) of OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard
(Sec. 1910.134) requires the employer to use breathing-gas containers
marked in accordance with the NIOSH respirator-certification standard
at 42 CFR part 84. In its presentation at the December 10, 2009, ACCSH
meeting (see section X of this preamble below), NIOSH stated that it
has seen some confusion in the regulated community as to how this
provision applies to after-market cylinders. NIOSH recommended that
OSHA revise the provision to clarify that after-market cylinders not
manufactured under the quality-assurance program incorporated as part
of the NIOSH approval process for self-contained breathing apparatus
(SCBA) are not acceptable for use. Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to
revise this provision to read: "The employer shall use only the
respirator manufacturer's NIOSH-approved breathing gas containers,
marked and maintained in accordance with the Quality Assurance
provisions of the NIOSH approval for the SCBA as issued in accordance
with the NIOSH respirator-certification standard at 42 CFR part 84."
OSHA requests public comment on this NIOSH-recommended revision.
(3) Appendix C to Sec. 1910.134
In response to the ANPRM, OSHA received a request from the Mexican
Consulate in Omaha Nebraska. The request was to revise question 2a in
the OSHA Medical Evaluation Questionnaire, Appendix C, Part A, Section
2, of its Respiratory Protection standard (Sec. 1910.134) by deleting
the word "fits," leaving only the word "seizures" to describe the
medical condition. The request described the use of the term "fits"
as outdated, unnecessary, and offensive. OSHA agrees, and is proposing
to remove it from the questionnaire. OSHA believes this revision to the
questionnaire would have no effect on administration of, or responses
to, the questionnaire.
(4) Appendix D to Sec. 1910.134
OSHA is proposing to clarify that Appendix D of the Respiratory
Protection standard (Sec. 1910.134) is mandatory by removing paragraph
(o)(2) from the standard, and by revising paragraph (o)(1) of the
standard to include Appendix D among the designated mandatory
appendices. As stated in the ANPRM, the proposed revision to paragraph
(o)(1) would reduce public confusion by clarifying the Agency's purpose
regarding Appendix D when it published the Respiratory Protection
standard on January 8, 1998, (63 FR 1152); namely, that Appendix D is
mandatory. Evidence of this purpose is provided in paragraph (c)(2)(i),
the introductory text to paragraph (k), and paragraph (k)(6) of the
Respiratory Protection standard; these provisions mandate that
employers provide voluntary respirator users with the information
contained in Appendix D. Additionally, the title of Appendix D states
that it is mandatory. In the ANPRM, OSHA posed the following three
questions about this proposed revision for public consideration:
Have employers understood that the requirement to provide
Appendix D information to employees, who voluntarily use respirators,
is a mandatory requirement?
Is the information contained in Appendix D appropriate for
alerting employees to considerations related to voluntary respirator
use?
To what extent, if any, would deleting paragraph (o)(2)
and clarifying that Appendix D is mandatory, increase burden on
employers?
The Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO
(BCTD; ID 0118) stated that the basic information in Appendix D is
worthwhile, but construction workers find the language in the appendix
difficult to understand. They suggested that OSHA better explain "why
respirators should not be shared with other workers." The BCTD also
stated that deleting paragraph (o)(2) would not increase burden to
employers since the obligation to use Appendix D already exists under
paragraphs (k)(6) and (c)(2), and that "deleting (o)(2) would
definitely clarify an apparent contradiction about the mandatory
requirements already in the standard."
The AFL-CIO (ID 0024) stated that, since paragraph (k)(6) states
that, since employers must provide a copy of Appendix D to workers, it
would be helpful to clarify that Appendix D is mandatory by including
it among the list of mandatory appendices in paragraph (o)(1) as OSHA
proposed, and that this action would clarify the mandatory requirement
in (k)(6). The AFL-CIO further stated that "any additional burden from
this action, if there is any, will be more than offset by the worker
protection information conveyed in Appendix D during voluntary use
situations."
The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE; ID 0021) also
stated that employers already must provide the information in Appendix
D to workers, and that failure to do so may result in OSHA citations.
ASSE supported revising the language to make Appendix D mandatory
because it "may foster compliance and actually reduce the potential
for citations by clarifying the employer's responsibilities."
The 3M Company (ID 0028) also supported revising paragraph (o)(2).
3M stated that deleting paragraph (o)(2) would reduce confusion as to
whether it is mandatory to provide Appendix D to workers when
respiratory use is voluntary. 3M also stated that the information in
Appendix D is appropriate.
The Associated General Contractors of America (AGCA; ID 0120)
opposed deleting paragraph (o)(2) and revising paragraph (o)(1). In its
response, AGCA urged, "OSHA to follow the complete rulemaking process
to gauge the impact of this revision," and that any revisions should
preserve employers' flexibility in informing their employees of the
various uses of different respirators.
OSHA reviewed the comments received on revising the language in
paragraph (o)(1) of Sec. 1910.134 to indicate that Appendix D as
mandatory, and on deleting paragraph (o)(2), which describes Appendix D
as non-mandatory. Based on the current record, OSHA preliminarily
concludes that the language in paragraph (o)(2) is confusing for
employers since it contradicts the requirement in paragraphs (c)(2) and
(k) that employers must provide employees with the information in
Appendix D in voluntary respirator-use situations. Accordingly, OSHA
agrees with commenters who stated that revising the language in
paragraph (o) of Sec. 1910.134 would clarify the employer's
responsibilities and reduce confusion about whether information
specified in Appendix D is mandatory. Regarding the comment by AGCA,
OSHA notes that the SIP-III
proposal is a notice-and-comment rulemaking that provides the regulated
public with an appropriate opportunity for determining the impact, if
any, of the proposed revision on the public. In addition, OSHA does not
believe that the proposed revisions would have any impact on the
employers' flexibility in informing their employees of the various uses
of respirators. Therefore, OSHA decided to propose revising the
language in paragraph (o) of Sec. 1910.134 to state that Appendix D is
mandatory, and to delete the confusing and inconsistent language in
paragraph (o)(2).
(5) Asbestos (Sec. 1915.1001)
The introductory paragraph to OSHA's Respiratory Protection
standard (Sec. 1910.134) specifies that the standard applies to
general industry (29 CFR 1910), shipyards (29 CFR 1915), marine
terminals (29 CFR 1917), longshoring (29 CFR 1918), and construction
(29 CFR 1926). Three of these parts, general industry, shipyards, and
construction, contain standards regulating employee exposure to
asbestos, with each of these standards having a provision entitled,
"Respirator program." These paragraphs specify the requirements for
an employer's respirator program with respect to asbestos exposure. In
the final rulemaking for the Respiratory Protection standard, the
Agency updated these paragraphs in the Asbestos standards for general
industry and construction so that the program requirements would be
consistent with the provisions of the newly revised Respiratory
Protection standard (see 63 FR 1285 and 1298). However, the Agency
inadvertently omitted revising the respirator-program requirements
specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the Asbestos standard for shipyards
(Sec. 1915.1001). OSHA is proposing to correct this oversight by
revising paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the Asbestos standard for shipyards to
read the same as paragraphs (g)(2)(i) of the Asbestos standard for
general industry (Sec. 1910.1001) and (h)(2)(i) of the Asbestos
standard for construction (Sec. 1926.1101), which state, "[t]he
employer must implement a respiratory protection program in accordance
with Sec. 1910.134 (b) through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f)
through (m)."
Similarly, the Agency is considering removing paragraphs
(h)(3)(ii), (h)(3)(iii), and (h)(4) from the shipyard Asbestos
standard, which address filter changes, washing faces and facepieces to
prevent skin irritation, and fit testing, respectively. OSHA believes
this action is appropriate because the continuing-use provisions
specified in paragraph Sec. 1910.1001(g)(2)(ii) duplicate paragraphs
(h)(3)(ii) and (h)(3)(iii) of the Asbestos standard for shipyards.
Also, the fit-testing requirements provided in paragraph (f) of the
Respiratory Protection standard either meet or exceed the provisions
specified in (h)(4) of the shipyard Asbestos standard, except that the
frequency of fit-testing is different. The current shipyard-employment
Asbestos standard at Sec. 1915.1001(h)(4)(ii) requires employers to
perform quantitative and qualitative fit testing "at the time of
initial fitting and at least every 6 months thereafter for each
employee wearing a negative-pressure respirator." The Respiratory
Protection standard at Sec. 1910.134(f)(2) requires employers to fit
test employees using a tight-fitting respirator "prior to initial use
of the respirator, whenever a different facepiece * * * is used, and at
least annually thereafter."
By adding the reference to the Sec. 1910.134 Respiratory
Protection standard to Sec. 1915.1001(h)(3)(i) of the shipyard
Asbestos standard, OSHA would incorporate the fit-testing requirements
of Sec. 1910.134(f), which include the requirement to use the OSHA-
accepted qualitative fit-testing and quantitative fit-testing protocols
and procedures contained in Appendix A of Sec. 1910.134. Accordingly,
the-fit testing requirements specified in Appendix C of Sec. 1915.1001
would be redundant; therefore, OSHA is considering deleting this
Appendix C from Sec. 1915.1001.
In the ANPRM, OSHA asked the following questions regarding the
Sec. 1915.1001 respirator provisions:
Would revising Sec. 1915.1001(h)(3)(i) to be consistent
with similar provisions in the asbestos standard for general industry
and construction create additional compliance requirements?
Does this change maintain the same level of employee
protection? Would making the recommended changes increase the economic
or paperwork burden?
Besides altering the frequency of fit testing, how would
making the recommended change to delete paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) through
(h)(4)(ii) affect the requirements of the standard?
OSHA received several comments in response to these questions. The
3M Company (ID 0028) addressed this issue by stating:
[M]aking Sec. 1915.1001(h)(3)(i) consistent with similar
provisions in other asbestos standards will [not] create additional
compliance requirements. 3M believes it will result in less
confusion among employers who work with asbestos in many different
industries. * * * This change would maintain the same level of
protection as provided by the other asbestos standards.
The American Society of Safety Engineers (ID 0021) supported revising
the shipyard-employment respirator provisions to comply with the
requirements in the Asbestos standards for general industry and
construction, and deleting the Asbestos standard's specific fit-testing
requirements while adopting the Sec. 1910.134 requirements. OSHA
believes, after reviewing of the comments received in response to the
ANPRM, that it is appropriate to propose to remove paragraphs
(h)(3)(ii), (h)(3)(iii), and paragraph (h)(4) from the shipyard-
employment asbestos standard, and to add a reference to Sec. 1910.134
in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of that standard. It also is appropriate to
propose to delete the fit-testing requirements of Appendix C of Sec.
1915.1001, and to replace Appendix C with a reference to Appendix A of
Sec. 1910.134 and the fit-testing requirements of Sec. 1910.134(f).
The Agency believes these proposed revisions would not increase
employers' compliance burden, but instead would reduce this burden by
providing consistency between the shipyard-employment Asbestos standard
and the requirements of the Asbestos standards for general industry and
construction.
(6) 13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.) (Sec. 1910.1003)
In the SIP-III ANPRM, OSHA discussed correcting an inadvertent
omission from the respiratory-protection requirements for four of the
13 carcinogen standards. Each of the 13 original standards included
respiratory-protection requirements appropriate to the hazards
associated with the individual carcinogen. When OSHA combined these
standards into a single standard (61 FR 9242, March 7, 1996), it
treated the 13 carcinogens as particulates. However, four of the 13
carcinogens are liquids and not particulates (i.e., methyl chloromethyl
ether, bis-chloromethyl ether, ethyleneimine, and beta-propiolactone).
In the 1996 regulatory action, the Agency inadvertently omitted the
full-facepiece, supplied-air respirators in the continuous-flow or
pressure-demand mode for employees involved in handling any of the four
liquid carcinogenic chemicals. Instead, OSHA required half-mask
particulate-filter respirators for the 13 carcinogens, which are
inappropriate respirators for use with the four liquid carcinogens.
In the SIP-III ANPRM, OSHA discussed the reasons for reinstating
the original respirator-use requirement in paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of
Sec. 1910.1003 for these four liquid carcinogens. OSHA also asked the
following four questions in the ANPRM regarding this revision (71 FR 76627):
What types of respirators are currently being used to
protect employees from exposure to these four chemicals?
If OSHA reinstates the requirements for full facepiece
air-supplied respirators, does the respirator-use requirement conflict
with OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard (Sec. 1910.134)?
Would the reinstated respirator use requirement be more or
less protective than the protection offered by OSHA's Respiratory
Protection Standard?
How would reinstating the respirator use requirement
change the economic or paperwork burden?
The American Society of Safety Engineers (ID 0021) supported
reinstating the former respirator-use requirements in Sec.
1910.1003(c)(4)(iv), and did not know of any conflict this section
would have with the requirements contained in Sec. 1910.134. The AFL-
CIO (ID 0024) stated that the inadvertent action OSHA took with these
four carcinogens resulted in workers receiving substantially less
respiratory protection than previously required, and that OSHA should
correct this error immediately. The AFL-CIO strongly recommended that
OSHA issue a technical correction to Sec. 1910.1003 within 30 days to
reinstate the original respiratory-protection requirements for these
four carcinogens. The AFL-CIO also recommended that "the remaining 9
chemicals require the same, more protective respirators that are
applicable to the 4 substances." AFL-CIO added, "With that approach,
you would now have real and consistently applied worker protection
measures that achieve desirable improvement in the standards."
The 3M Company (ID 0028) stated that, since these four carcinogens
are liquids with significant vapor pressure, the current requirements
for using half masks with dust, mist, and fume filters are
inappropriate, and conflict with the Sec. 1910.134 respirator-
selection requirements. Further, 3M believed that reinstating the
requirement for a full-facepiece, supplied-air respirator would provide
the appropriate minimum assigned protection factor (APF) required for
the four liquid carcinogens, and would be consistent with the
respirator-selection requirements of Sec. 1910.134. Therefore, the
protection afforded to workers would be different for liquid-carcinogen
vapors than that for the particulate carcinogens (an APF of 10 for
particulates versus an APF of 1,000 for liquids using supplied-air
respirators).
In its comments, 3M also maintained that requiring supplied-air
respirators would result in the use of a more protective class of
respirator than the Sec. 1910.134 respirator-selection requirements.
However, 3M also stated that, by requiring full-facepiece, supplied-air
respirators, OSHA would introduce additional hazards for employees
caused by trailing air-supply hoses. The commenter suggested a
preference for half-facepiece respirators with chemical cartridges for
the four liquid carcinogens, which could meet the respirator-selection
requirements in Sec. 1910.134 if the cartridges used to absorb the
liquid carcinogens' vapors have an adequate service life. (Id.)
At the Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH)
meeting on December 12, 2009, the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) representative provided specific comment on
the revisions proposed to the respirator requirements of the 13
Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.) standard. The full committee then
recommended "that OSHA and NIOSH work together to address * * *
technical issues relating to the respiratory protection provisions in
the proposed rule." (ACCSH, Ex.12.2.) The specific NIOSH comment was:
[T]he lack of either a NIOSH REL or an OSHA PEL results in a
NIOSH respirator recommendation of any self-contained breathing
apparatus that has a full facepiece and is operated in a pressure-
demand or other positive-pressure mode, or any supplied-air
respirator that has a full facepiece and is operated in a pressure-
demand or other positive-pressure mode in combination with an
auxiliary self-contained positive-pressure breathing apparatus.
Neither a supplied-air respirator with a full facepiece operated in
a continuous flow mode nor a supplied-air respirator with a full
facepiece operated in a pressure-demand mode would provide the
[NIOSH] recommended level and type of protection unless used in
combination with an auxiliary self-contained positive-pressure
breathing apparatus. (ACCSH Ex. 12.2; comments on the proposed rule
on Standards Improvement Project III by the National Personal
Protective Technology Laboratory, NIOSH.)
Based on the NIOSH comments, OSHA is considering revising the 13
Carcinogens standard to ensure that employers provide respiratory
protection meeting the NIOSH recommendation. Therefore, OSHA requests
comment on whether it should include in the final SIP-III standard a
revision to the respirator provisions of the 13 Carcinogens standard
that explicitly requires employers to use self-contained breathing
apparatus with a full facepiece and operated in a pressure-demand or
other positive-pressure mode, or any supplied-air respirator that has a
full facepiece and operated in a pressure-demand or other positive-
pressure mode in combination with an auxiliary self-contained positive-
pressure breathing apparatus. Alternatively, OSHA could modify the
proposed language to require respirator selection pursuant to Sec.
1910.134, which would require employers to evaluate the specific hazard
to determine and select the appropriate NIOSH-approved respirator for
use by employees exposed to these carcinogens. OSHA also requests
comment on these alternative approaches, as well as any other
regulatory approaches that would address the issue raised by NIOSH.
In this rulemaking, OSHA is proposing to reinstate the requirement
that employers provide full-facepiece, supplied-air respirators to
workers exposed to methyl chloromethyl ether, bis-chloromethyl ether,
ethyleneimine, and beta-propiolactone. OSHA notes that reinstatement of
the requirement to use supplied-air respirators with the four liquid
carcinogens will provide needed safety for employees working with these
chemicals. Deleting this requirement was an inadvertent omission that
needs correction. Whether OSHA should allow the use of chemical
cartridges with NIOSH-certified air-purifying half-mask respirators for
these four liquid carcinogens depends on employers proving that the
cartridges used to absorb the vapors emitted from these chemicals would
have an adequate service life. OSHA requests comment on, and data
describing, the availability of such chemical cartridges for use with
these four carcinogens.
(7) 1,3-Butadiene (Sec. 1910.1051)
OSHA is proposing to remove paragraph (m)(3) from the 1,3-Butadiene
standard (Sec. 1910.1051), which requires that employers keep fit-test
records for employees who use respirators to reduce toxic exposures. In
the ANPRM, OSHA raised the possibility of deleting this recordkeeping
provision from the 1,3-Butadiene standard for general industry, relying
instead on the fit-testing recordkeeping requirement in Sec. 1910.134.
The American Society of Safety Engineers (ID 0021) agreed with OSHA
that deleting the fit-testing records requirement in the 1,3-Butadiene
standard was appropriate since the requirement duplicates the
recordkeeping requirement in Sec. 1910.134. The 3M Company (ID 0028)
also supported deleting the 1,3-Butadiene fit-testing record
requirement, noting that removing this requirement would not reduce
protection because the requirement in Sec. 1910.134 is
at least as protective as the 1,3-Butadiene requirement.
Based on its review of the comments received in response to the
ANPRM, OSHA believes that deleting the fit-testing recordkeeping
requirement in paragraph (m)(3) of the 1,3-Butadiene Standard and
relying instead on the fit-testing recordkeeping requirements in Sec.
1910.134 would not reduce employee protection. Therefore, OSHA is
proposing this revision in this rulemaking.
3. Subpart J
a. Definition of "Potable Water" (Sec. 1910.141(a)(2))
OSHA is proposing to revise and update the definition of the term
"potable water" in the Sanitation standards for general industry
(Sec. 1910.141(a)(2)) and construction (Sec. 1926.51(a)(6)), and the
Field Sanitation standard for agriculture (Sec. 1928.110(b)). The
proposed definition would bring consistency to OSHA regulations.
OSHA currently defines potable water as "water which meets the
quality standards prescribed in the U.S. Public Health Service Drinking
Water Standards, published in 42 CFR part 72, or water which is
approved for drinking purposes by the State or local authority having
jurisdiction." OSHA adopted the existing definition from a Public
Health Service Code that is no longer in existence.
OSHA proposes to define potable water as "water that meets the
standards for drinking purposes of the state or local authority having
jurisdiction, or water that meets the quality standards prescribed by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Primary Water
Regulations (40 CFR part 141)." OSHA earlier proposed the same
revision to the shipyard-employment standards (72 FR 72451-72520).
b. Washing Facilities (Sec. 1910.141(d))
OSHA is proposing to revise the Bloodborne Pathogens standard by
removing from the definition of "handwashing facilities" at Sec.
1910.1030(b) the term "hot" in the phrase "hot air drying
machines." The definition currently reads as follows:
"Handwashing Facilities means a facility providing an adequate
supply of running potable water, soap, and single use towels or hot air
drying machines." OSHA is proposing this revision in response to an
inquiry from Dyson B2B Inc. (Dyson; ID 0015.1), which describes a new
air blower that uses high-velocity (non-heated) air, rather than hot or
warm air, to dry hands. On July 13, 2007, OSHA issued a letter of
interpretation to Dyson in which it recognized that some air-blower
techniques provide the appropriate level of employee protection, and
agreeing to include this proposed revision in the SIP-III rulemaking
(ID 0144). In this letter, OSHA also acknowledged that current
technology allows for the use of hand-drying products that do not
involve hot air, and noted that, when it published the Bloodborne
Pathogens standard, adequate non-heated, high-velocity air blowers were
not available.
OSHA also is proposing to apply this revision to four Sanitation
standards, including the Sanitation standard for general industry
(Sec. 1910.141(d)(2)(iv)), marine terminals (Sec.
1917.127(a)(1)(iii)), longshoring (Sec. 1918.95(a)(1)(iii)), and
construction (1926.51(f)(3)(iv)). The general industry and construction
Sanitation standards at Sec. Sec. 1910.141(d)(2)(iv) and
1926.51(f)(3)(iv), respectively, use identical language as follows:
Individual hand towels or sections thereof, of cloth or paper,
warm air blowers or clean individual sections of continuous cloth
toweling, convenient to the lavatories, shall be provided. [Emphasis
added.]
While the definitions for Marine Terminals at Sec. Sec.
1917.127(a)(1)(iii) and Longshoring at 1918.95(a)(1)(iii) differ
slightly from this definition, the term "warm air blowers" is used in
both definitions. OSHA notes that, whether the definitions include the
term "hot" or "warm," the definitions do not include high-velocity
air blowers. In this rulemaking, OSHA is proposing to remove the term
"hot" or "warm" from these definitions, which then would permit
employers to use high-velocity air blowers in the workplace. OSHA
believes the proposal does not revise these definitions substantively
in that employers still could use hot-/warm-air drying machines, as
well as air blowers or other air-drying machines that may become
available.
4. Slings (Sec. 1910.184)
OSHA is proposing to amend its standards regulating slings at Sec.
1910.184 (general industry), Sec. Sec. 1915.112, 1915.113, and
1915.118 (shipyard employment), and Sec. 1926.251 (construction) by
removing outdated tables that specify safe working loads, and revising
other provisions (e.g., Sec. Sec. 1910.184(e)(6) and 1915.112) that
reference the outdated tables. The proposal would replace the outdated
tables with a requirement that would prohibit employers from loading
slings in excess of the recommended safe working load as prescribed on
permanently affixed identification markings. The proposed revisions
also would expressly prohibit the use of slings that do not have such
markings.
Manufacturers produce slings with markings that indicate the
sling's rated capacity (i.e., safe working load), the name or trademark
of the manufacturer, and other specifications (e.g., size, material
used in manufacturing the sling); this information prevents misuse of
slings, thereby increasing employee safety. OSHA currently requires
these markings for three of the five types of slings regulated by its
standards (i.e., alloy-steel-chain, metal-mesh, and synthetic-web
slings).
Many slings are sufficiently large for manufacturers to emboss or
stitch identification markings onto the sling's surface. Other slings
have identification markings on tags attached to the sling by other
means, such as a separate wire or cable. However, such tags may detach
from the sling during use, in which case, the employer must remove the
sling from service until the tag is replaced.
OSHA published the existing Slings standard (Sec. 1910.184) on
June 27, 1975 (see 40 FR 27368), based on the then-current 1971
consensus standard, ANSI B30.9-1971, Slings. OSHA made Sec. 1910.184
applicable to the construction industry on February 9, 1979 (44 FR
8577). After 1975, OSHA made no revisions to these standards except for
minor corrections. The load-capacity tables in these standards are now
obsolete, and no longer conform to the load-capacity tables of the
updated ANSI B30.9 standard. For example, the current ANSI B30.9
standard includes tables for slings made of alloy-steel chain (grades
80 and 100) not included in the existing OSHA standards.
In 1996, the National Association of Chain Manufactures (NACM)
petitioned OSHA to adopt requirements of the recently updated ANSI
B30.9 standard. NACM believed that the existing OSHA standard was not
as safe as the updated ANSI standard. The NACM petition recommended
that, at a minimum, OSHA remove Table N-1-184-1 in Sec. 1910.184,
which lists outdated load-capacity requirements for alloy-steel-chain
slings.
Therefore, OSHA is proposing to remove the existing load-capacity
tables for slings from the following standards: Sec. 1910.184 (general
industry; tables N-184-1, and N-184-3 through N-184-22); Sec. 1915.118
(shipyard employment; tables G-1 through G-5, G-7 through G-8, and G-
10), including references to these tables in Sec. 1915.112 and
Sec. 1915.113; and Sec. 1926.251 (construction; tables H-1 and H-3
through H-19). Also, OSHA is proposing to add the requirement for
identification markings on wire-, natural-, and synthetic-fiber rope
slings in Sec. Sec. 1910.184 and 1926.251, as well as manila rope and
manila rope slings, wire rope and wire-rope slings, and chain and chain
slings in Sec. 1915.112. The proposal would provide similar protection
for shackles in Sec. 1915.113 and Sec. 1926.251. In addition, OSHA is
proposing that employers follow the safe working-load capacity
information on the identification markings affixed to slings by the
sling manufacturer. Further, if the sling is missing its identification
marking, OSHA is proposing, consistent with the latest ASME/ANSI B30.9
standard, that employers remove these slings from service until they
reaffix the identification markings.
OSHA believes the proposed revisions will eliminate duplicative,
inconsistent, and outdated information, thus minimizing confusion over
the rated capacity of any type of sling used by employers. Further,
reliance on the information marked on the sling simplifies compliance
for employers by eliminating the need to check tables or other sources
of information. Finally, the proposed revisions will maintain or
increase employee safety by ensuring that employers use slings with
readily available, up-to-date load ratings.
OSHA requests comment from the public on the following questions
regarding the use of slings in this country: (1) Are all slings
manufactured in accordance with the specifications prescribed by the
ASME/ANSI B30.9 slings standard; (2) are all slings equipped with
markings or tags; (3) what other information do manufacturers mark on
slings; and (4) do the markings and tags remain affixed to the sling,
or are the markings and tags easily removed or damaged?
5. Subpart T
OSHA is proposing to remove two unnecessary requirements from
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(5) of its Commercial Diving Operations
standard at Sec. 1910.440. Paragraph (b)(3)(i) requires employers to
retain dive-team member medical records for five years, even though the
standard contains no requirement for diver medical examinations. In
this regard, a 1979 court decision (Taylor Diving and Salvage v. U.S.
Department of Labor (599 F.2d 622) (5th Cir., 1979)) resulted in the
removal of the requirement (formerly located at Sec. 1910.411) to
provide medical examinations, and OSHA never removed the corresponding
medical recordkeeping requirement from the standard. Also, OSHA is
proposing to correct a typographical error in paragraph (b)(4) that
refers to Sec. 1910.20 instead of Sec. 1910.1020.
6. Subpart Z
OSHA is proposing to remove the requirements to transfer records to
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for
15 substance-specific standards in subpart Z, as well as from the
standard regulating access to employee exposure and medical records
(Sec. 1910.1020). In addition, the following paragraphs describe
miscellaneous proposed revisions to several other health standards.
a. Transfer of Exposure and Medical Records to NIOSH
OSHA is proposing to remove provisions in its substance-specific
standards that require employers to transfer exposure and medical
records to NIOSH. Most of OSHA's existing substance-specific standards,
as well as the Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records standard
(Sec. 1910.1020), require employers to transfer to NIOSH specified
medical and exposure records when: An employer ceases to do business
and leaves no successor; the period for retaining the records expires;
or an employee terminates employment (including retirement or death).
OSHA proposes to remove the record-transfer requirement from the
following standards:
Asbestos--Sec. Sec. 1910.1001(m)(6)(ii),
1915.1001(n)(8)(ii), and Sec. 1926.1101(n)(8)(ii);
13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.)--Sec.
1910.1003(g)(2)(i) and (ii);
Vinyl Chloride--Sec. 1910.1017 (m)(3);
Inorganic Arsenic--Sec. 1910.1018 (q)(4)(ii) and (iii);
Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records--Sec.
1910.1020(h)(3)(i), (ii) and (h)(4);
Lead--Sec. Sec. 1910.1025(n)(5)(ii) and (iii) and
1926.62(n)(6)(ii) and (iii);
Benzene--Sec. 1910.1028(k)(4)(ii);
Coke Oven Emissions--Sec. 1910.1029(m)(4)(ii) and (iii);
Bloodborne Pathogens--Sec. 1910.1030(h)(4)(ii);
Cotton Dust--Sec. 1910.1043(k)(4)(ii) and (iii);
1,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropropane--Sec. 1910.1044(p)(4)(ii) and
(iii);
Acrylonitrile--Sec. 1910.1045(q)(5)(ii) and (iii);
Ethylene Oxide--Sec. 1910.1047(k)(5)(ii);
Methylenedianiline--Sec. 1910.1050(n)(7)(ii);
1,3-Butadiene--Sec. 1910.1051(m)(6)(i).
In addition, OSHA is proposing as part of this rulemaking to remove
paragraph (b)(5)(ii) from Sec. 1910.440 ("Recordkeeping
requirements") of its standards for Commercial Diving Operations; this
provision requires employers to transfer diving medical records to
NIOSH in the event no successor employer is available.
These proposed revisions are in response to a comment from NIOSH
(ID 0135) recommending that OSHA reexamine the need for this
requirement, and consider removing it from these standards because
"the records unfortunately have not proved suitable for research
purposes." NIOSH stated further (ID 0142) that "[g]iven that these
records have proven to have no research utility, the costs associated
with the processing and maintaining these records are not justified."
In its comments, NIOSH noted that, in addition to the 2,900 records
for the 13 Carcinogens standards mentioned in their January 2006
response to OSHA's Information Collection Request for OMB-1218-0085 (ID
0142), it catalogued another 170,000 records over a 30-year period, and
used none of these records for research purposes. NIOSH further stated
(ID 0135) that "boxes [of records] are currently in temporary storage
at a NIOSH facility awaiting resources to become available to process
them. There is also another shipment of 2,300 boxes from a defunct
manufacturing company in temporary storage waiting NIOSH processing."
NIOSH also noted that contractors hired by companies that are
ceasing business operations often are responsible for sending records
to NIOSH. However, many of these contractors have no knowledge of what
records to send, and may send inappropriate documents. In this regard,
NIOSH stated:
[I]n fact, some companies have used the opportunity to simply
empty their files and send NIOSH everything. As a result, we often
receive extraneous information unrelated to the requirements of the
standards (e.g., contract reports, drug test clearances, records for
hazards that are not required to be submitted to NIOSH,
environmental/pollution records, company operating manuals). On some
occasions, even when valid medical records are sent, the records do
not identify the particular hazard(s) that the workers were exposed
to.
NIOSH stated that, once records are in its possession, it must "expend
increasingly scarce research resources in processing them in accordance
with the NIOSH Records Schedule." Lastly, NIOSH presented data on the
cost it incurs with processing, shipping, and long-term storage, noting:
NIOSH has previously estimated the in-house cost of processing
to be about $1.35/record for records received under the OSHA
carcinogen standards. It should be noted that these carcinogen
records are the best organized of any we receive. They require the
least amount of processing effort and are therefore the least
costly. Other more poorly organized records and those containing
extraneous materials that NIOSH has processed using contractor staff
have cost about $3.50-$4.00/record. In addition there are other
minimal costs associated with preparing the paperwork for shipment
to the FRC [Federal Records Center] as well as the actual shipping
costs. Finally, there are the long-term FRC storage costs (currently
$0.30/record/year). For the 170,000 records currently at the FRC,
that represents a total lifetime storage cost of more than
$2,000,000. (ID 0135.)
In conclusion, NIOSH stated, "Based on our experience over the last 30
years, NIOSH believes that the significant costs associated with the
records transfer requirements cannot be justified in light of the
complete lack of scientific utility of the records."
Because the data generated by the records-transfer requirements
appears to be of little or no value to NIOSH, OSHA is proposing to
remove the record-transfer requirements from its substance-specific
health standards and from paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(4) of Sec.
1910.1020 (Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records). However,
before making a final determination on this proposal, the Agency is
requesting workers, researchers, and other interested parties to
provide comment on the possible usefulness of these records. For
example, the Agency is interested in determining whether workers who
become ill after exposure to a hazardous substance would have a need to
retrieve their records to verify their exposure after the employer
responsible for exposing them to the substance is no longer in business
(and the records cannot be obtained from a bankruptcy trustee or legal
receiver), or whether the data would be useful for medical, industrial-
hygiene, or economic research purposes. OSHA also is asking for
examples of instances in which individuals or organizations previously
used the data. Additionally, the Agency requests comment on the
availability of this type of data from sources other than NIOSH (such
as attorneys who hold medical and exposure records when companies cease
business operations). The Agency welcomes any ideas or suggestions on
how the data could be made more useful for these purposes.
b. Miscellaneous Revisions
(1) Substance-Specific PPE and Respirator Training Requirements
OSHA proposes to remove specific training requirements from several
of its substance-specific standards because standards regulating
personal-protective equipment (PPE) and respirators in 29 CFR 1910,
subpart I, already require the training. Specifically, Sec. 1910.132
requires employers to train employees on: when PPE (i.e., protective
equipment for the eyes, face, head, hands, and feet) is necessary; what
PPE is necessary; how to properly don, doff, adjust, and wear the PPE;
the limitations of the PPE; and the proper care, maintenance, useful
life, and disposal of the PPE. Additionally, Sec. 1910.134 requires
employers to train employees on why respirators are necessary; how
improper fit, use, or maintenance can compromise the effectiveness of
respirators; the capabilities and limitations of respirators; how to
use respirators effectively in emergency conditions; how to inspect,
don, and doff respirators; how to use and check the seals of
respirators; and how to recognize medical signs and symptoms that may
limit or prevent the effective use of respirators.
The standards regulating PPE and respirator training apply to every
operation in which an employer uses PPE and respirators. Therefore, the
training requirements in substance-specific standards mandating
training on such equipment duplicate the requirements for PPE and
respirator training in Sec. Sec. 1910.132 and 1910.134. OSHA believes
that these revisions will reduce confusion regarding the training
requirements, thereby improving employer compliance and worker
protection.
(2) Lead (Sec. 1910.1025) (Trigger Levels in the Lead Standards
(Sec. Sec. 1910.1025 and 1926.62))
In the Lead standards for general industry and construction, at
Sec. Sec. 1910.25 and 1926.62, respectively, OSHA is proposing to
amend the trigger levels at which employers must initiate specific
actions to protect workers exposed to lead because the airborne
concentrations at which these actions must occur vary slightly. In this
regard, a number of provisions in the Lead standards trigger actions at
airborne concentrations that are "above the AL," and "at or above
the PEL." The terminology in the Lead standards for these airborne
concentrations is inconsistent and can be confusing. For example, Sec.
1910.1025(d)(6)(iii) currently states that "[t]he employer shall
continue monitoring at the required frequency until at least two
consecutive measurements, taken at least 7 days apart, are below the
PEL but at or above the action level[.]" OSHA is proposing to revise
this provision to state that "[t]he employer shall continue monitoring
at the required frequency until at least two consecutive measurements,
taken at least 7 days apart, are below the PEL but at or above the
action level[.]" Similar issues arise with respect to the blood-lead
levels that trigger medical-removal protection or return to work in the
Lead standards. OSHA is proposing to revise these terminologies in the
Lead standards to make these provisions internally consistent and
consistent with each other.
Tables 1 and 2 below describe the existing and proposed revisions
in the general industry and the construction industry standards (with
the proposed revisions in bold font).
Table 1--Sec. 1910.1025 General Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing language Proposed language
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1910.1025(d)(6)(iii)
If the initial monitoring reveals If the initial monitoring
that employee exposure is above reveals that employee exposure
the permissible exposure limit the is at or above the permissible
employer shall repeat monitoring exposure limit the employer
quarterly. The employer shall shall repeat monitoring
continue monitoring at the quarterly. The employer shall
required frequency until at least continue monitoring at the
two consecutive measurements, required frequency until at
taken at least 7 days apart, are least two consecutive
below the PEL but at or above the measurements, taken at least 7
action level at which time the days apart, are below the PEL
employer shall repeat monitoring but at or above the action
for that employee at the frequency level at which time the
specified in paragraph (d)(6)(ii), employer shall repeat
except as otherwise provided in monitoring for that employee
paragraph (d)(7) of this section. at the frequency specified in
paragraph (d)(6)(ii), except
as otherwise provided in
paragraph (d)(7) of this
section.
Sec. 1910.1025(j)(1)(i)
The employer shall institute a The employer shall institute a
medical surveillance program for medical surveillance program
all employees who are or may be for all employees who are or
exposed above the action level for may be exposed at or above the
more than 30 days per year. action level for more than 30
days per year.
Sec. 1910.1025(j)(2)(ii)
Follow-up blood sampling tests. Follow-up blood sampling tests.
Whenever the results of a blood Whenever the results of a
lead level test indicate that an blood lead level test indicate
employee's blood lead level that an employee's blood lead
exceeds the numerical criterion level is at or above the
for medical removal under numerical criterion for
paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A), of this medical removal under
section, the employer shall paragraph (k)(1)(i)(A), of
provide a second (follow-up) blood this section, the employer
sampling test within two weeks shall provide a second (follow-
after the employer receives the up) blood sampling test within
results of the first blood two weeks after the employer
sampling test. receives the results of the
first blood sampling test.
Sec. 1910.1025(k)(1)(i)(B)
The employer shall remove an The employer shall remove an
employee from work having an employee from work having an
exposure to lead at or above the exposure to lead at or above
action level on each occasion that the action level on each
the average of the last three occasion that the average of
blood sampling tests conducted the last three blood sampling
pursuant to this section (or the tests conducted pursuant to
average of all blood sampling this section (or the average
tests conducted over the previous of all blood sampling tests
six (6) months, whichever is conducted over the previous
longer) indicates that the six (6) months, whichever is
employee's blood lead level is at longer) indicates that the
or above 50 [mu]g/100 g of whole employee's blood lead level is
blood; provided, however, that an at or above 50 [mu]g/100 g of
employee need not be removed if whole blood; provided,
the last blood sampling test however, that an employee need
indicates a blood lead level at or not be removed if the last
below 40 [mu]g/100 g of whole blood sampling test indicates
blood. a blood lead level below 40
[mu]g/100 g of whole blood.
Sec. 1910.1025(k)(1)(iii)(A)(1)
For an employee removed due to a For an employee removed due to
blood lead level at or above 60 a blood lead level at or above
[mu]g/100 g, or due to an average 60 [mu]g/100 g, or due to an
blood lead level at or above 50 average blood lead level at or
[mu]g/100 g, when two consecutive above 50 [mu]g/100 g, when two
blood sampling tests indicate that consecutive blood sampling
the employee's blood lead level is tests indicate that the
at or below 40 [mu]g/100 g of employee's blood lead level is
whole blood. below 40 ug/100 g of whole
blood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Sec. 1926.62 Lead
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing language Proposed language
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 1926.62(j)(2)(ii)
Follow-up blood sampling tests. Follow-up blood sampling tests.
Whenever the results of a blood Whenever the results of a
lead level test indicate that an blood lead level test indicate
employee's blood lead level that an employee's blood lead
exceeds the numerical criterion level is at or above the
for medical removal under numerical criterion for
paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this medical removal under
section, the employer shall paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this
provide a second (follow-up) blood section, the employer shall
sampling test within two weeks provide a second (follow-up)
after the employer receives the blood sampling test within two
results of the first blood weeks after the employer
sampling test. receives the results of the
first blood sampling test.
Sec. 1926.62(j)(2)(iv)(B)
The employer shall notify each The employer shall notify each
employee whose blood lead level employee whose blood lead
exceeds 40 [mu]g/dl that the level is at or above 40 [mu]g/
standard requires temporary dl that the standard requires
medical removal with Medical temporary medical removal with
Removal Protection benefits when Medical Removal Protection
an employee's blood lead level benefits when an employee's
exceeds the numerical criterion blood lead level exceeds the
for medical removal under numerical criterion for
paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this medical removal under
section. paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this
section.
Sec. 1926.62(k)(1)(iii)(A)(1)
For an employee removed due to a For an employee removed due to
blood lead level at or above 50 a blood lead level at or above
[mu]g/dl when two consecutive 50 [mu]g/dl when two
blood sampling tests indicate that consecutive blood sampling
the employee's blood lead level is tests indicate that the
at or below 40 [mu]g/dl. employee's blood lead level is
below 40 [mu]g/dl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories
(Sec. 1910.1450)
OSHA is proposing to revise a statement in non-mandatory Appendix A
of the standard that regulates occupational exposure to hazardous
chemicals in laboratories (the lab standard) at Sec. 1910.1450.
Specifically, OSHA is proposing to revise the statement on ingestion.
OSHA included the statement in Appendix A of the lab standard when it
published the standard on January 31, 1990 [55 FR 3327-3335]. The
purpose of the statement was to provide guidance to employers
developing a chemical-hygiene plan. OSHA based the statement on Prudent
Practices for Handling Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories, a committee
report by the National Research Council. The statement addressed by
this proposal appears in Section E of Appendix A in Sec. 1910.1450,
entitled, Basic Rules and General Procedures for Working with
Chemicals. In paragraph 1(a), Accidents and spills, the existing text
recommends that, when an employee ingests a hazardous chemical,
"[e]ncourage the victim to drink large amounts of water."
OSHA is proposing to revise this recommendation in response to a
commenter from Rexall Sundown (ID 0141), who noted, "I have a strong
concern for the blanket statement concerning ingestion. I realize that
it may have been taken from Prudent Practices; however, a strong word
of caution may need to be added." The commenter indicated the
containers for some hazardous chemicals warn, "Do not give anything by
mouth. Contact medical advice immediately." The commenter recommended
that OSHA adopt the approach found in the Cornell University Laboratory
Safety Manual and Chemical Hygiene Plan, where treatment depends on the
type and amount of chemical involved. Based on these considerations and
the suggestion that drinking large amounts of water may do more harm than good,
OSHA is revising the language to read, "This is the one route of entry for
which treatment depends on the type and amount of chemical involved.
Seek medical attention immediately." OSHA believes the language
proposed would enhance employee protection by providing appropriate
advice in situations in which an employee may ingest a hazardous
chemical.
B. Proposed Revisions to the Standards for Shipyard Employment (29 CFR
Part 1915)
1. Appendix A of Subpart B
OSHA is proposing to amend Appendix A ("Compliance Assistance
Guidelines for Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous
Atmospheres") to subpart B of 29 CFR 1915 by revising the sentence in
example number 1 under the section titled, "Section 1915.11(b)
Definition of `Hot work,' " to read, "Abrasive blasting of the
external hull for paint preparation does not necessitate pumping and
cleaning the tanks of a vessel." The proposed revision adds the word
"external" to the existing sentence to indicate that the information
provided by the section applies only to work performed on the outside
of a ship. OSHA believes the proposed revision will clarify the
compliance obligation under these conditions.
In 1994, OSHA published the final rule regulating confined and
enclosed spaces and other dangerous atmospheres in shipyard employment
(59 FR 37816, July 25, 1994). In that rulemaking, OSHA defined "hot
work" in 29 CFR 1915.11 as:
[A]ny activity involving riveting, welding, burning, and the use
of powder-actuated tools or similar fire-producing operations.
Grinding, drilling, abrasive blasting, or similar spark-producing
operations are also considered hot work except when such operations
are isolated physically from any atmosphere containing more than 10
percent of the lower explosive limit of a flammable or combustible
substance.
OSHA's purpose in developing Appendix A to subpart B was to assist
employers in complying with the requirements of that subpart. The
section of Appendix A that OSHA is proposing to revise provides several
examples of situations that do not involve hot work, including the
example of abrasive blasting on the hull for paint preparation.
However, in the final rule, OSHA did not explain that this example only
applies to work performed on the external hull, not inside the hull, of
a ship. To correct this oversight, OSHA is proposing to add the word
"external" to this example.
2. Sec. Sec. 1915.112, 1915.113, and 1915.118
OSHA proposes to revise and update the slings provisions of Sec.
1915.112 (Ropes, chains and slings), paragraph (a) of Sec. 1915.113
(Shackles and hooks), and Sec. 1915.118 (Tables). See previous section
A.4 for a detailed discussion of these proposed revisions.
3. Sec. 1915.154--Respiratory Protection
The revisions OSHA is proposing to Appendix C of the Respiratory
Protection standard at Sec. 1910.134, described in previous section
A.2.b(2), also would affect shipyard employment through the Respiratory
Protection standard at Sec. 1915.154.
4. Sec. 1915.1001--Asbestos
OSHA proposes to revise Sec. 1915.1001, Asbestos, to require
employers to institute a respiratory-protection program in accordance
with Sec. 1910.134. See previous section A.2.b(6) for a detailed
discussion of these proposed revisions.
C. Proposed Revisions to the Standards for Marine Terminals (29 CFR
Part 1917)
1. Sec. Sec. 1917.2--Definitions
OSHA is proposing to add a definition for the term "ship's
stores" in Sec. 1917.2. Currently, five provisions in Title 29 of the
Code of Federal Regulations use the term "ship's stores"; however,
OSHA provides no definition of the term in this title. OSHA uses the
term in the definition of "longshoring operation" in Sec. Sec.
1910.16(c)(1) and 1918.2; in the definition of "vessel cargo handling
gear" in Sec. 1918.2; in the scope and application section of 29 CFR
1917 at Sec. 1917.1(a); and in Sec. 1917.50(j)(3) (exceptions to the
gear-certification requirements).
After publishing the final rule for marine terminals on June 30,
2000 (65 FR 40935), OSHA received a number of requests asking the
Agency to define the term "ship's stores" as used in Sec.
1917.50(j)(3). In a directive published on May 23, 2006 (CPL 02-00-
139), OSHA defined the term to mean materials that are on board a
vessel for the upkeep, maintenance, safety, operation, or navigation of
the vessel, or for the safety or comfort of the vessel's passengers or
crew. The definition in the directive is similar to the U.S. Coast
Guard definition at 46 CFR 147. OSHA believes that the definition used
in the directive is appropriate, and, therefore, is proposing to revise
the definitions section of Sec. 1917.2 to include this definition.
2. Sec. 1917.127--Sanitation
OSHA proposes to revise and update the sanitation provisions in
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec. 1917.127 by removing the word "warm"
from the phrase "warm air blowers." See previous section A.3.b for a
detailed discussion of this proposed revision.
D. Proposed Revisions to the Standards for Longshoring (29 CFR 1918)
1. Sec. 1918.2--Definitions
OSHA proposes to add a definition in Sec. 1918.2 for the term
"ship's stores." See previous section C.1 for a detailed discussion
of this proposed revision.
2. Sec. 1918.95--Sanitation
OSHA proposes to revise and update the sanitation provisions in
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec. 1918.95 by removing the word "warm"
from the phrase "warm air blowers." See previous section A.3.b for a
detailed discussion of this proposed revision.
E. Proposed Revisions to the Standards for Gear Certification (29 CFR
1919)
1. Sec. Sec. 1919.6, 1919.11, 1919.12, 1919.15, and 1919.18
OSHA is proposing to update Sec. Sec. 1919.6(a)(1), 1919.11(d),
1919.12(f), 1919.15(a), and 1919.18(b) to require employers to inspect
a vessel's cargo-handling gear as recommended by International Labor
Organization (ILO) Convention 152. This revision would require
employers to test and thoroughly examine gear before initial use;
thoroughly examine it every 12 months thereafter; and retest and
thoroughly examine the gear every five years. The proposed revision is
consistent with the current ILO Convention 152. The existing standards,
based on outdated ILO Convention 32, require testing and examination
every four years. OSHA believes these proposed revisions represent the
usual and customary practice of the maritime industry, and, therefore,
will increase employee protection while not adding to employers'
compliance burden.
The proposed revisions would make the 29 CFR 1919 standards
consistent with the existing requirement of the Longshoring standard at
Sec. 1918.11(a). Section 1918.11(a) requires an employer using a
vessel's cargo-handling gear to ensure that the vessel has a current
and valid cargo-gear register and certificates that comply with the
recommendations of ILO Convention 152 for testing and examination of
cargo gear. Paragraph (b) of Sec. 1918.11 specifies that OSHA will
consider vessels holding a valid certificate of inspection from the
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), as well as public vessels, to meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of Sec. 1918.11. Paragraphs (c) and (d)
of Sec. 1918.11 specify the competencies that persons or organizations
making entries and issuing the certificates required by paragraph (a)
of this section must have, both with regard to U.S. vessels not
holding a valid USCG Certificate of Inspection, and vessels
under foreign registry.
In 1997, when OSHA updated the Marine Terminals and Longshoring
standards (62 FR 40141, July 25, 1997), it updated Sec. 1918.11
requiring inspections of vessels' cargo-handling gear as recommended by
ILO Convention No. 152, which replaced ILO 32 (upon which OSHA's
current rule is based). Accordingly, this revision requires employers
to test and thoroughly examine gear before initial use; thoroughly
examine it every 12 months thereafter; and retest and thoroughly
examine the gear every five years. The original standards, similar to
existing requirements in 29 CFR 1919, required retesting and thorough
examination every four years. OSHA is proposing to update the
inspection and testing requirements in Sec. Sec. 1919.6(a)(1),
1919.11(d), 1919.12(f), 1919.15(a), and 1919.18(b) to be consistent
with the inspection and testing requirements in existing 29 CFR 1917
(Marine Terminals) and 1918 (Longshoring).
F. Proposed Revisions to the Construction Standards (29 CFR 1926)
1. Subpart D
a. Sec. 1926.51(a)(6)
OSHA proposes to revise Sec. 1926.51, Sanitation, by updating the
definition of the term "potable water." See previous section A.3.a
for a detailed discussion of this proposed revision.
b. Sec. 1926.51(f)(3)
OSHA proposes to revise and update the sanitation provisions in
paragraph (f)(3)(iv) of Sec. 1926.51 by removing the word "warm"
from the term "warm air blowers." See previous section A.3.b for a
detailed discussion of this proposed revision.
c. Sec. 1926.60
OSHA is proposing to revise paragraph (o)(8) of the
Methylenedianiline standard, which requires employers to comply with
the requirements in Sec. 1926.33 regarding the transfer of records to
NIOSH. See previous section A.6.a for a detailed discussion of this
proposed revision.
d. Sec. 1926.62
The following paragraphs describe several revisions OSHA is
proposing to the Lead standard for construction at Sec. 1926.62.
(1) OSHA is proposing to revise the trigger levels at which
employers must initiate specific actions to protect workers exposed to
lead. See previous section A.6.b for a detailed discussion of this
proposed revision.
(2) OSHA proposes to remove paragraphs (n)(6)(ii) and (iii) of
Sec. 1926.62, which require employers to comply with the requirements
in Sec. 1926.33 regarding the transfer records to NIOSH. See previous
section A.6.a for a detailed discussion of this proposed revision.
2. Subpart H
OSHA proposes to revise and update the slings requirements at Sec.
1926.251 (Rigging equipment for material handling). See previous
section A.4 for a detailed discussion of this proposed revision.
3. Subpart Z
a. Asbestos (Sec. 1926.1101)
(1) OSHA is proposing to correct the references in paragraphs
(n)(7) and (n)(8) of the Asbestos standard for construction to refer to
Sec. 1926.33 rather than Sec. 1910.20, because Sec. 1910.20 does not
exist.
(2) Section 1926.33 requires compliance with Sec. 1910.1020, from
which OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement to transfer employee
exposure and medical records to NIOSH. See previous section A.6.a for a
detailed discussion of this proposed revision.
(3) OSHA proposes to remove the requirement in existing (n)(8)(ii)
specifying that employers must transfer employee medical and exposure
records to NIOSH. See previous section A.6.a for a detailed discussion
of this proposed revision.
b. Cadmium (Sec. 1926.1127)
(1) OSHA is proposing to revoke the training-certification record
requirement at paragraph (n)(4) of Sec. 1926.1127. See previous
section A.2.a for a detailed discussion of this proposed revision.
(2) OSHA is proposing to correct the reference in paragraph (n)(6)
of the Cadmium standard for construction to refer to Sec. 1926.33,
rather than paragraph (h) of Sec. 1926.33, because Sec. 1926.33 has
no paragraph (h).
(3) Section 1926.33 requires compliance with Sec. 1910.1020, from
which OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement to transfer employee
exposure and medical records to NIOSH. See previous section A.6.a for a
detailed discussion of this proposed revision.
G. Proposed Revisions to the Agriculture Standards (29 CFR Part 1928)
1. Subpart I (General Environmental Controls)
OSHA proposes to revise Sec. 1928.110(b) by updating the
definition of the term "potable water." See section A.3.a for a
detailed discussion of this proposed revision.
H. Miscellaneous Issues
OSHA asked in question 40 of the ANPRM whether any other
standards needed revision consistent with the purpose of the SIP
process (71 FR 76629). The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE;
ID 0021) responded that the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits for air
contaminants need revision. However, such an extensive rulemaking is
beyond the limited scope of the SIP process.
The 3M Company (3M; ID 0028) recommended that OSHA remove from
Sec. 1910.134(d)(3)(iv)(B) the reference to filters certified under 30
CFR part 11, and instead require that air-purifying respirators use
filters certified for particulates by NIOSH under 42 CFR part 84. The
3M Company also recommended that OSHA remove separate provisions
regulating filter selection from its substance-specific standards, and
replace these provisions with a reference to Sec.
1910.134(d)(3)(iv)(B). In response to 3M's first recommendation, OSHA
may consider such a revision when it receives sufficient evidence that
employers are no longer purchasing or using dust-mist and dust-fume-
mist filters. Regarding 3M's second recommendation, OSHA removed many
of these separate filter-selection provisions from its substance-
specific standards in the recent final rulemaking for assigned
protection factors (APFs) (see 71 FR 50122). OSHA believes that to
propose additional revisions to these provisions is inappropriate
because, as it explained in the final APF rulemaking, "[T]he Agency
decided to retain former respirator selection provisions in the
existing substance-specific standards that it found supplemented or
supplanted the proposed APFs and MUCs [maximum use concentrations] * *
*. OSHA did so because these provisions enhance the respirator
protection afforded to employees." (Id. at 50177.)
3M also addressed the 1,3-Butadiene standard's provisions that
limit the use of organic-vapor cartridges and canisters to specific
levels of butadiene. The Sec. 1910.134 standard allows employers to make
service-life calculations in developing replacement schedules for vapor
cartridges and canisters. 3M presented calculations in its ANPRM
comments that resulted in service-life durations ranging from 16.5
hours at a 5 parts per million (ppm) butadiene concentration, to 4.75
hours at 50 ppm butadiene. 3M stated that permitting service-life
calculations for butadiene exposure concentrations would allow
employers to use powered air-purifying respirators for some butadiene
exposures, thereby eliminating the problems that occur with trailing
air hoses associated with the use of supplied-air respirators. OSHA
disagrees with this recommended revision because butadiene is a
compound with a high vapor pressure and, as a result, droplets captured
in the filter may vaporize and penetrate through the filter, and expose
the employee to excess levels of butadiene.
The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) and the
American Composites Manufacturers Association (ACMA) petitioned OSHA to
revise its standards at 29 CFR 1910, subpart H (see Sec. Sec. 1910.106
and 1910.107) by adopting the provisions of National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code, and NFPA
33, Standard for Spray Application using Flammable and Combustible
Materials, which apply to the manufacturing of styrene cross-linked
composites (i.e., glass-fiber reinforced plastics). In response to the
petition, OSHA sought comment through the ANPRM for SIP-III. In the
ANPRM, the Agency noted that it lacked data from which to draw
conclusions on the relative level of protection provided by the NFPA
and OSHA standards. OSHA requested data and information on the level of
employee protection provided by these standards using the following
questions:
Are the provisions in the 2003 edition of NFPA 30 as
protective or more protective of employee's safety and health than the
equivalent provisions in Sec. 1910.106? Should OSHA revise Sec.
1910.106 to be consistent with these provisions? Please submit specific
available information or data supporting your comments.
Are the provisions in the 2003 edition of NFPA 33 as
protective or more protective of employee's safety and health than the
equivalent provisions in Sec. 1910.107? Should OSHA revise Sec.
1910.107 to be consistent with these provisions? Please submit specific
available information or data supporting your comments.
In response to these questions, OSHA received a number of comments (IDs
0017, 0018, 0020, 0021, 0025, 0122, and 0128) supporting the composites
provisions in these NFPA standards. However, none of the commenters
provided persuasive data or information regarding the protection
afforded to employees by the NFPA standards.
In addition to the comments, OSHA received a document from the ACMA
entitled, "Fire Hazard Analysis of Composite Resin Manufacturing Spray
Application Areas" (ID 0139). This document describes a study that
identified issues regarding electrical classification, sprinkler
protection, ventilation, and the use of flammable liquids in clean-up
operations. The study, based on preliminary research, was part of an
ACMA-sponsored effort to analyze the hazards in this industry, and to
conduct testing to compare the level of safety provided by the OSHA
standards and the NFPA standards. However, this document, like the
comments described previously, does not provide the Agency with
sufficient information to support proposing a revision to the 29 CFR
1910, subpart H standards. Therefore, OSHA decided not to include any
specific revisions to Sec. Sec. 1910.106 or 1910.107 of subpart H in
the SIP-III proposal. Rather, it will continue to seek additional
information and data for use in determining the need for revisions.
Accordingly, OSHA again seeks information that may help determine if
NFPA 33 provides protection for employees equivalent to that provided
in Sec. 1910.107, and requests comments and supporting data on the
previous questions.
In the ANPRM, OSHA expressed its position on the need for training,
noting, "Training is an essential part of every employer's safety and
health program for protecting employees from injury and illness" (71
FR 76629). OSHA asked for comment on four questions concerning training
requirements, and noted that, in SIP-II, it revised the notification
and timing requirements in several health standards to make them
consistent with each other (67 FR 66493). OSHA explained that it made
these revisions to reduce confusion and to facilitate compliance,
without diminishing employee protection. In the ANPRM, OSHA asked the
following questions:
How could the Agency modify the training requirements in
various OSHA safety and health standards to promote compliance with
training requirements?
How should training content and frequency of retraining be
addressed to improve employees' safety and health? Please identify
changes that could be made to improve the training process.
Would making training requirements uniform among various
standards facilitate employers' compliance with OSHA regulations?
To what extent, if any, do other agencies' training
requirements overlap with OSHA's?
OSHA received several comments in response to these four questions.
With regard to retraining, the Building and Construction Trades
Department of the AFL-CIO (BCTD; ID 0118) said:
OSHA should specify the frequency of retraining. The retraining
should not be based on subjective criteria such as "when needed"
or "if worker shows lack of understanding." Too often criteria
like [these[ are ignored or retraining is only implemented after an
accident. All safety and health retraining should be required on an
annual basis.
The BCTD (ID 0118) also recommended that OSHA require employers to
prepare a written certification record for all training requirements,
noting that some OSHA standards require certification records and
others do not. It further recommended that OSHA add a new training
requirement to the construction industry standards, one that would
mandate that all construction workers receive the 10-hour OSHA safety-
and-health course for construction. Additional training revisions
recommended by the BCTD are beyond the scope of the SIP-III rulemaking,
but OSHA will consider them for further action. (For a discussion of
OSHA proposals regarding training-certification-record requirements,
see item 2.a ("Training certification records") under previous
section A ("Subpart I").
The Associated General Contractors of America (ID 0120) also
addressed the frequency of training, noting, "[T]he amount of training
should match the severity of the hazard and the prevalence of the
hazard to particular occupations." Duke Energy (ID 0018) agreed with
standardizing the language of the health standards, and suggested that,
rather than specifying detailed training requirements in its health
standards, OSHA should revise these standards to allow employers to
comply with performance-based requirements, such as the requirements in
OSHA's Hazard Communication standard at 1910.1200.
Both the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE; ID 0021) and
Northrop Grumman Newport News (ID 0027) argued against the "one-size-
fits-all" approach. Northrop Grumman stated:
A toolbox meeting may be appropriate for some employers while
formal classroom, computer-based training, or on-the-job training
may be effective for other employers. We also note that different
audiences within the same employer may learn best using different
methods or frequencies. For instance, employees retain information
better on tasks they perform frequently versus tasks they perform
infrequently. For an infrequent task, "just in time" training or a
job briefing on the day of the job may be the best method to ensure
an employee understands how to perform the work safely versus
"annual" training that may have been conducted 11 months before
the employee performs the work. Furthermore, information technology,
such as virtual reality and computer-based training, is opening up
tremendous new opportunities to enhance training beyond the
traditional means.
ASSE recommended that OSHA consider the ANSI Z490.1 consensus standard
when addressing training requirements. OSHA believes that the Z490.1
standard is useful for employers in developing and providing a
framework for training programs, but that standard prescribes measures
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. For example, the standard
prescribes detailed criteria for developing and evaluating training
programs, including needs assessment, learning objectives, course
content, and a written training program plan, as well as detailed
records documenting the successful completion of training.
After reviewing the commenters' submissions, OSHA is not convinced
currently that employees or employers would benefit from any revisions
to the frequency or content of the training requirements contained in
its existing substance-specific standards. Additionally, as part of a
separate rulemaking on the Global Harmonization System (74 FR 50279,
September 30, 2009), OSHA is addressing the training provisions in
several of its substance-specific standards. Furthermore, as discussed
earlier, OSHA is proposing revisions to the training-certification
requirements in several standards.
IV. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
A. Overview
OSHA determined that the proposed standard is not an economically
significant regulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. E.O.
12866 requires regulatory agencies to conduct an economic analysis of
rules that meet specific criteria. The most frequently used criterion
under E.O. 12866 is that the rule will impose on the economy an annual
cost in excess of $100 million. Neither the benefits nor the costs of
this rule exceed $100 million. OSHA provided OMB's Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs with this assessment of the costs,
benefits, and alternatives, as required by section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O.
12866.
OSHA also determined that the proposal is not a major rule under
the Congressional Review provisions of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires OSHA
to determine whether the Agency's regulatory actions will have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. OSHA's
conclusion, based on the analysis described in this section of the
preamble, indicates that the proposed rule will not have significant
impacts on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposal deletes and revises a number of provisions in existing
OSHA standards. OSHA believes that the proposal is technologically
feasible because it reduces or removes current requirements on
employers.
The Agency considered both regulatory and non-regulatory
alternatives to the proposed revisions. Non-regulatory alternatives are
not an appropriate remedy to effect these revisions because the
proposed provisions reduce requirements or provide flexibility to
employers by revising existing standards. As discussed in the previous
Summary and Explanation section, the Agency considered alternatives for
amending several provisions. In most instances, the Agency chose to
revise outdated provisions to improve clarity, as well as consistency,
with standards more recently promulgated by the Agency. In some
instances, the proposal provides more flexibility in the way
information is communicated to employees or the Agency. The purpose of
the proposed provisions was to reduce burden on employers, or provide
employers with compliance flexibility, while maintaining the level of
protection for employees.
B. Costs and Cost Savings
1. Removing Requirements To Transfer Records to NIOSH
The Agency is deleting provisions from Sec. 1910.1020(h)(3) and
(h)(4) of its standard regulating access to employee medical and
exposure records that will end employers' responsibility to send
exposure and medical records to NIOSH. Under existing Sec.
1910.1020(h)(3), if an employer ceases business operations without a
successor, the employer must send employee exposure and medical records
to NIOSH if required to do so by a substance-specific standard. For
records associated with other substances, the employer must notify the
Director of NIOSH in writing three months before disposing of them.
Under Sec. 1910.1020(h)(4), an employer who regularly disposes of
employee records more than 30 years old must notify the Director of
NIOSH, at least three months prior to disposal, of the records planned
for disposal in the coming year.
Deleting these requirements from OSHA standards provides several
sources of savings to NIOSH. In a comment to the rulemaking record (ID
135), NIOSH reported that it catalogued about 170,000 employee medical
and exposure records during the past 30 years. NIOSH noted that the
records were of no use for research purposes, and estimated that
removing the duty to collect the records would result in a savings of
$2 million for long-term storage of the catalogued records. In this
regard, NIOSH stated that long-term storage costs are currently $0.30/
record/year, which "represents a total lifetime storage cost of more
than $2,000,000." In addition, NIOSH periodically receives records
from employers who are terminating business operations. These employers
often fail to contact NIOSH in advance regarding the appropriateness of
the records they are sending to NIOSH. NIOSH protocol requires it to
keep records, even inappropriate records, until it reviews the records;
NIOSH keeps unreviewed records in temporary storage. Removal of the
records-transfer requirement, as proposed, would relieve NIOSH of
receiving and temporarily storing these records.
The proposal also would save NIOSH the resources it expends on
processing received data on an on-going basis. NIOSH noted that the
cost of processing records ranges from $1.35 to $4.00 per record, but
the agency did not provide comment on how many records it typically
processes annually. In its analyses of the paperwork burden associated
with this records-transfer requirement, OSHA estimated that employers
expend 3,611 hours at a cost of $157,459 annually (see section VI
below, "OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995"). This
savings also constitutes a benefit of the proposed rule.
2. Removing Training-Certification and Other Requirements
A second source of cost savings from the proposed rule is removing
the certification requirements for employee training under the PPE and
Cadmium standards. The Agency estimates that this action will save
employers, across a wide range of industries, about 1.86 million
hours annually, with an estimated value of about $42.9 million
(see OSHA's estimate of paperwork costs below in section VI).
The proposal's provisions on slings require employers to mark
equipment (i.e., slings and shackles) with safe working loads (SWL) and
other rigging information. OSHA's current standards require this
information for three of the five types of slings, and the Agency
believes that it is industry practice for manufacturers to permanently
mark all slings with this information. Thus, the Agency preliminarily
concludes that these provisions will not impose any new cost burden on
affected employers. OSHA believes that having the SWL information
marked on slings instead of located in tables would provide employers
with readily available and up-to-date sling information, thereby
reducing employer cost. The Agency seeks comment on any economic
effects that may result from replacing the tables with marks.
The proposal also relaxes the frequency of rigging inspections
required under 29 CFR 1919 from every four years to every five years.
The Agency seeks comment on whether this revision will result in any
cost savings for employers.
C. Summary
OSHA preliminarily concludes that the provisions of the proposal do
not impose any new costs on employers. Since the proposal does not
impose costs of any significance on any employer, the Agency concludes
that the proposed standard is economically feasible. The table below
provides a summary of the cost savings OSHA estimates will result from
this proposed rulemaking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Cost savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIOSH record storage (one-time savings)...... $2.00 million.
Removing requirements that employers transfer $0.16 million.
records to NIOSH (annual savings).
Removing requirements for written $42.90 million.
certification of training (annual savings).
--------------------------
Total.................................... $45.06 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of the
proposal to determine whether these proposed requirements would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Since no employer of any size will have new costs, the Agency
preliminarily concludes that the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
VI. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
A. Overview
The Standards Improvement Project-Phase III (SIP-III) proposal
would revoke existing collection-of-information (paperwork)
requirements contained in 41 existing Information-Collection Requests
(ICRs) currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and OMB's regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. PRA-95 defines
"collection of information" as "the obtaining, causing to be
obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or
the public of facts or opinions by or for an agency regardless of form
or format" (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)). Under PRA-95, a Federal agency
cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is
approved by OMB, and displays a currently valid OMB control number.
B. Solicitation of Comments
OSHA prepared and submitted one ICR for the SIP-III proposal to the
OMB for review in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The Agency
solicits comments on the proposed new and modified collection-of-
information requirements and the estimated burden hours associated with
these requirements, including comments on the following items:
Whether the proposed collection-of-information
requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's
functions, including whether the information is useful;
The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
cost) of the information-collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
Ways to minimize the compliance burden on employers, for
example, by using automated or other technological techniques for
collecting and transmitting information.
C. Proposed Revisions to Information-Collection Requirements
As required by 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) and 1320.8(d)(2), the
following paragraphs provide information about this ICR, including the
reductions in reporting burden associated with the proposed revisions
to information-collection requirements.
1. Title: Standards Improvement Project-Phase III (SIP-III)
2. Description of revisions to the ICRs: The proposal would remove
the requirements for employers to transfer employee exposure-monitoring
and medical records to the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) under the standard regulating access to employee
exposure and medical records at Sec. 1910.1020, as well as an
additional 18 standards in the general, construction, and shipyard-
employment industries. (See the earlier detailed discussion of this
proposed revision under section IV.B.1.) In addition, the Agency is
proposing to remove, from four of its standards, training-certification
records that require employers to develop and maintain written records
certifying that they complied with training requirements. In addition
to the four training-certification records proposed for removal, OSHA
is considering removing the training-certification requirements from 12
other general industry, construction, and shipyard-employment
standards. (See the detailed discussion of this proposed revision
located in previous section III.A.2.)
3. Changes in reporting burden and responses resulting from
removing requirements to transfer records to NIOSH: The following table
describes the estimated changes in burden hours and cost resulting from
removing provisions from OSHA standards (identified by the current OMB
control numbers) requiring employers to transfer employee exposure and
medical records to NIOSH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control Change
Standard and Provision No. (burden hours) Change (cost)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Diving Operations--29 CFR 1910.440(b)(5)(ii)......... 1218-0069 -301 -$5,764
Asbestos--29 CFR 1910.1001(m)(6)(ii)............................ 1218-0133 -1 -$20
Asbestos--29 CFR 1915.1001(n)(8)(ii)............................ 1218-0195 -1 -$22
Asbestos--29 CFR 1926.1101(n)(8)(ii)............................ 1218-0134 -4 -$101
13 Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.)--29 CFR 1218-0085 -6 -$139
1910.1003(g)(2)(i) and (ii)....................................
Vinyl Chloride--29 CFR 1910.1017 (m)(3)......................... 1218-0010 -1 -$20
Inorganic Arsenic--29 CFR 1910.1018 (q)(4)(ii) and (iii)........ 1218-0104 -1 -$23
Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records--29 CFR 1218-0065 -2,939 -$145,216
1910.1020(h)(3)(i),(ii) and (h)(4).............................
Lead--29 CFR 1910.1025(n)(5)(ii) and (iii)...................... 1218-0092 -2 -$42
Lead--29 CFR 1926.62(n)(6)(ii) and (iii)........................ 1218-0189 -1 -$22
Cadmium--29 CFR 1910.27(n)(6)................................... 1218-0185 0 0
Cadmium--29 CFR 1926.1127(n)(6)................................. 1218-0186 0 0
Benzene--29 CFR 1910.1028(k)(4)(ii)............................. 1218-0129 -1 -$23
Coke Oven Emissions--29 CFR 1910.1029(m)(4)(ii) and (iii)....... 1218-0128 -3 -$60
Bloodborne Pathogens--29 CFR 1910.1030(h)(4)(ii)................ 1218-0180 0 0
Cotton Dust--29 CFR 1910.1043(k)(4)(ii) and (iii)............... 1218-0061 -3 -$69
1,2 Dibromo-3-Chloropropane--29 CFR 1910.1044(p)(4)(ii) and 1218-0101 0 0
(iii)..........................................................
Acrylonitrile--29 CFR 1910.1045(q)(5)(ii) and (iii)............. 1218-0126 -3 -$74
Ethylene Oxide--29 CFR 1910.1047(k)(5)(ii)...................... 1218-0108 -3 -$55
Formaldehyde--29 CFR 1910.1048(o)(6)(ii) and (iii).............. 1218-0145 -2 -$41
Methylenedianiline--29 CFR 1910.1050(n)(7)(ii).................. 1218-0184 -1 -$18
Methylenedianiline--29 CFR 1926.60(n)(7)(ii).................... 1218-0183 -1 -$21
1,3-Butadiene--29 CFR 1910.1051(m)(6)(i)........................ 1218-0170 -3 -$65
Methlyene Chloride--29 CFR 1910.1052(m)(5)...................... 1218-0179 -1 -$21
Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories--29 1218-0131 -333 -$5,644
CFR 1910.1450(j)(2)............................................
-----------------------------------------------
Totals...................................................... .............. -3,611 -$157,460
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table describes the estimated changes in burden hours
and cost resulting from removing provisions of the four OSHA standards
that specify that employers must develop and maintain written records
certifying their compliance with training requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control Change (burden
Standard and Provision No. hours) Change (cost)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Protective Equipment--29 CFR 1910.132(f)(4)............ 1218-0205 -1,855,180 -$42,743,347
Cadmium--29 CFR 1910.1027(n)(4)................................. 1218-0185 -1,226 -$26,371
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)--29 CFR 1915.152(e)(4)...... 1218-0215 -2,776 -$48,664
Cadmium--29 CFR 1926.1127(n)(4)................................. 1218-0186 -2,100 -$43,218
-----------------------------------------------
Totals...................................................... .............. -1,861,282 -$42,861,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table describes the estimated changes in burden hours
and cost to the training-certification provisions that OSHA is
considering removing from 12 of its standards; these training-
certification provisions specify that employers must develop and
maintain written records certifying their compliance with training
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Control Change (burden
Standard and Provision No. hours) Change (cost)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powered Platforms for Building Maintenance--29 CFR 1218-0121 -469 -$11,247
1910.66(i)(1)(v)...............................................
Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM)-- 1218-0200 -30,767 -$627,954
29 CFR 1910.119(g)(3)..........................................
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER)--29 1218-0202 -3,352 -$113,231
CFR 1910.120(e)(6), (p)(7)(i), (q)(6)(ii)-(v)..................
Permit-Required Confined Spaces-- Sec. 1910.146(g)(4)......... 1218-0203 -39,185 -$805,251
The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)--29 CFR 1218-0150 -180,768 -$3,947,973
1910.147(c)(7)(iv).............................................
Powered Industrial Trucks--29 CFR 1910.178(l)(1)-(3), (l)(6).... 1218-0242 -29,785 -$638,591
Logging Operations--29 CFR 1910.266(i)(10)(i)-(ii).............. 1218-0198 -3,329 -$56,105
Telecommunications--29 CFR 1910.268(c).......................... 1218-0225 -1,087 -$38,958
Electrical Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution--29 1218-0190 -4,554 -$65,851
CFR 1910.269(a)(2)(vii)........................................
Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres in 1218-0011 -1,601 -$35,996
Shipyard Employment--29 CFR 1915.12(d)(5)(i) and (ii)..........
Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment--29 CFR 1915.508(f)...... 1218-0248 -625 -$22,408
Training Requirements for Fall Protection--29 CFR 1926.503(b)... 1218-0197 -481,885 -$18,759,783
-----------------------------------------------
Totals...................................................... .............. -777,407 -$25,123,348
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Number of respondents: 20,559,996.
5. Frequency of responses: On occasion.
6. Number of responses: 80,383,596.
7. Average time per response: Three minutes for a secretary to
develop and maintain certification records to one hour for employers to
send records to NIOSH.
8. Estimated total burden hours (reduction): -2,642,300 hours.
9. Estimated cost (capital--operation and maintenance): OSHA
estimates that a capital-cost decrease of $2,929/year will result from
the proposed revisions to the record-transfer provisions because
employers would no longer have to mail worker exposure and medical
records to NIOSH.
D. Submitting Comments
OSHA requests members of the public to comment on the paperwork
requirements in this proposal by submitting their written comments to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC
20503; Attn: OSHA Desk Officer (RIN-1218-AC19). The Agency encourages
commenters also to submit their comments on these paperwork
requirements to the rulemaking docket, along with their comments on
other parts of the proposed rule. Commenters may submit their comments
by using the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
OSHA posts comments and submissions without change; therefore, OSHA
cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as
Social Security numbers and date of birth. Information on using the
http://regulations.gov Web site to submit comments, and to access the
docket, is available at the Web site's "User Tips" link. For
instructions on submitting comments to the rulemaking docket, see the
sections of this Federal Register notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES.
E. Docket and Inquiries
To access the docket to read or download comments and other
materials related to these paperwork determinations, including the
complete Information Collection Request (ICR) (containing the
Supporting Statement describing the paperwork determinations in
detail), use the procedures described under the section of this notice
titled ADDRESSES. Obtain an electronic copy of the complete ICR by
visiting the Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,
scroll under "Currently Under Review" to "Department of Labor
(DOL)" to view all of the DOL's ICRs, including those ICRs submitted
for proposed rulemakings. To make inquiries, or to request other
information, contact Ms. Jamaa N. Hill, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2222.
VII. Federalism
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Executive
Order on Federalism (Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), which requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible,
refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with States prior
to taking any actions that would restrict State policy options, and
take such actions only when clear constitutional authority exists and
the problem is national in scope. Executive Order 13132 provides for
preemption of State law only with the expressed consent of Congress.
Agencies must limit any such preemption to the extent possible.
Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(OSH Act; U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress expressly provides that States
may adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards; States that
obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as "State-Plan
States." (29 U.S.C. 667.) Occupational safety and health standards
developed by State-Plan States must be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the
Federal standards. Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are
free to develop and enforce their own requirements for occupational
safety and health standards.
While OSHA drafted this proposed rule to protect employees in every
State, Section 18(c)(2) of the OSH Act permits State-Plan States and
Territories to develop and enforce their own standards, provided the
requirements in these standards are at least as safe and healthful as
the requirements specified in this proposed rule.
In summary, this proposed rule complies with Executive Order 13132.
In States without OSHA-approved State Plans, any standard developed
from this proposed rule would limit State policy options in the same
manner as every standard promulgated by OSHA. In States with OSHA-
approved State Plans, this rulemaking would not significantly limit
State policy options.
VIII. State Plans
When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or a more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, the 27 States and U.S. Territories
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans
(State-Plan States) must amend their standards to reflect the new
standard or amendment, or show OSHA why such action is unnecessary
(e.g., because an existing State standard covering this area is already
"at least as effective" as the new Federal standard or amendment. (29
CFR 1953.5(a).) The State standard must be at least as effective as the
final Federal rule, must be applicable to both the private and public
(State and local government employees) sectors, and the State must
complete the standard within six months after the publication date of
the final Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates a new standard or
amendment that does not impose additional or more stringent
requirements than the existing standard, State-Plan States are not
required to amend their standards, although OSHA may encourage them to
do so.
OSHA determined that the State-Plan States must adopt provisions
comparable to the provisions in this proposed rule within six months
after the effective date of the rule. OSHA believes that the provisions
of this proposed rule provide employers in State-Plan States and
Territories with new and critical information and methods necessary to
protect their employees from the hazards found in and around
workplaces. The 27 States and territories with OSHA-approved State
Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands,
Washington, and Wyoming. Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York,
and the Virgin Islands have OSHA-approved State Plans that apply to
State and local government employees only. Until a State-Plan State or
Territory promulgates its own comparable provisions based on the final
rule developed from this proposed rule, Federal OSHA will provide the
State or Territory with interim enforcement assistance, as appropriate.
IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA;
2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Executive Order 12875 (56 FR 58093). As
discussed in section IV ("Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory
Flexibility Act Certification") of this notice, the Agency determined
that this proposed rule will not impose additional costs on any
private- or public-sector entity. Accordingly, this proposed rule
requires no additional expenditures by either public or private
employers.
As noted under section VIII ("State Plans") of this notice, the
Agency's standards do not apply to State and local governments except
in States that elect voluntarily to adopt a State Plan approved by the
Agency. Consequently, this proposed rule does not meet the definition
of a "Federal intergovernmental mandate" (see Section 421(5) of the
UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)). Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the
Agency certifies that this proposed rule does not mandate that State,
local, or tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory
obligations, or increase expenditures by the private sector of more
than $100 million in any year.
X. Review by the Advisory Committee for Construction Safety and Health
The proposed provisions would improve OSHA's standards, including
construction standards, by clarifying, updating, or removing standards
that are confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent with other
OSHA requirements. OSHA does not expect these proposed revisions to
reduce worker protection or increase employer burden.
OSHA's regulation governing the Advisory Committee on Construction
Safety and Health (ACCSH) at 29 CFR 1912.3 requires OSHA to consult
with the ACCSH whenever the Agency proposes a rulemaking that involves
the occupational safety and health of construction employees.
Accordingly, in early November, 2009, OSHA distributed to the ACCSH
members for their review, before their regular meeting, a copy of the
proposed revisions that applied to construction, as well as a brief
summary and explanation of these revisions. At the regular meeting on
December 10, 2009, OSHA staff made a presentation to the ACCSH members
that summarized the material provided to them earlier, and then
responded to their questions. The ACCSH subsequently recommended that
OSHA publish the proposal.
In addition to two general recommendations regarding respiratory-
protection requirements for the 13 Carcinogens standard (see previous
discussion in section A.2.b.(4)) and the retention of medical records,
ACCSH recommended that OSHA revise the language in Sec. 1926.95(a) to
include the requirement in Sec. 1910.132(d)(1) that employers must
"select * * * the types of PPE that will protect the affected employee
from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment."
The ANPRM addressed revising the construction standards to include
hazard-assessment and-certification requirements. However, OSHA decided
that the personal-protective equipment provisions of the construction
standards needed substantially more revision than this rulemaking could
provide. For example, the PPE requirements in the construction
standards for eyes, face, head, and extremities refer to consensus
standards that are over 30 years old. These revisions would be
extensive and complex, and would require a detailed analysis of risk,
costs, and benefits. Therefore, OSHA will defer these revisions,
including any revisions requiring employers to select the "types of
PPE that will protect the affected employee from the hazards identified
in the hazard assessment," to a future rulemaking.
XI. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments and Access to the Docket
OSHA invites comments on the proposed revisions described, and the
specific issues raised, in this notice. These comments should include
supporting information and data. OSHA will carefully review and
evaluate these comments, information, and data, as well as any other
information in the rulemaking record, to determine how to proceed.
When submitting comments, parties must follow the procedures
specified in the previous sections titled DATES and ADDRESSES. The
comments must provide the name of the commenter and docket number. The
comments also should identify clearly the provision of the proposal
each comment is addressing, the position taken with respect to the
proposed provision or issue, and the basis for that position. Comments,
along with supporting data and references, submitted on or before the
end of the specified comment period will become part of the proceedings
record, and will be available for public inspection and copying at
http://www.regulations.gov.
B. Requests for an Informal Public Hearing
Under section 6(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 and 29 CFR 1911.11, members of the public may request an informal
public hearing by following the instructions under the section of this
Federal Register notice titled ADDRESSES. Hearing requests must include
the name and address of the party requesting the hearing, and submitted
(e.g., postmarked, transmitted, sent) on or before September 30, 2010.
All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other evidence of the
submission date.
XII. List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 1910
Abrasive blasting, Carcinogens, Commercial diving, Egress, Hazard
assessment, Hazardous substances, Medical records, Occupational safety
and health, Personal protective equipment, Sanitation, Slings,
Training, Training certification records, and Respiratory protection.
29 CFR Parts 1915, 1917, 1918, and 1919
Confined spaces, Dangerous atmospheres, Gear certification, Hazard
assessment, Hazardous substances, Hot work, Occupational safety and
health, Personal protective equipment, Sanitation, Shackles, Slings.
29 CFR Part 1926
Construction, Hazardous substances, Medical records, Occupational
safety and health, Potable water, Shackles, Slings.
29 CFR Part 1928
Agriculture, Sanitation, Potable water.
XIII. Authority and Signature
David Michaels, PhD MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the
preparation of this proposed rule. OSHA is issuing this proposed rule
pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657), Section 41 of the Longshore
and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), Section 3704 of
the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701 et
seq.), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), and 29 CFR
part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, on June 17, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
XIV. Proposed Amendments to Standards
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration proposes to amend 29 CFR parts 1910, 1915,
1917, 1918, 1919, 1926, and 1928 as set forth below:
PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
Subpart A--General [Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart A continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order
Numbers 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736),
1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002
(67 FR 65008), and 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), as applicable.
Sections 1910.7 and 1910.8 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1910.7(f) also issued under 31 U.S.C. 9701, 29 U.S.C. 9a, 5
U.S.C. 553; Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); and OMB
Circular A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).
2. Amend Sec. 1910.6 as follows:
a. Redesignate existing paragraphs (q)(25) through (q)(33) as
paragraphs (q)(26) through (q)(34).
b. Add new paragraph (q)(25) and
c. Add a new paragraph (x).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 1910.6 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(q) * * *
(25) NFPA 101-2009, Life Safety Code, IBR approved for Sec.
1910.35. Copies of NFPA 101-2009 are available for purchase from the:
National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA
02169-7471; telephone: 1-800-344-35557; e-mail: custserv@nfpa.org.
* * * * *
(x) The following material is available for purchase from the:
International Code Council, Chicago District Office, 4051 W. Flossmoor
Rd., Country Club Hills, IL 60478; telephone: 708-799-2300, x3-3801;
facsimile: 001-708-799-4981; e-mail: order@iccsafe.org.
(1) IFC-2009, International Fire Code, IBR approved for Sec.
1910.35.
(2) [Reserved]
Subpart E--Means of Egress [Amended]
3. Revise the authority citation for subpart E to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR
9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008),
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
4. Revise the title of subpart E from "Means of Egress" to "Exit
Routes and Emergency Planning."
5. In Sec. 1910.33, revise the title listed for Sec. 1910.35 in
the undesignated center heading, from "Compliance with NFPA 101, Life
Safety Code," to "Compliance with Alternate Exit Route Codes."
6. Revise the definition of the term "Occupant load" in paragraph
(c) of Sec. 1910.34 to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.34 Coverage and definitions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
* * * * *
Occupant load means the total number of persons that may occupy a
workplace or portion of a workplace at any one time. The occupant load
of a workplace is calculated by dividing the gross floor area of the
workplace or portion of the workplace by the occupant load factor for
that particular type of workplace occupancy. Information regarding the
"Occupant load" is located in Chapter 7 ("Means of Egress") of NFPA
101-2009, Life Safety Code, and in Chapter 10 ("Means of Egress") of
IFC-2009, International Fire Code.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 1910.35, revise the heading of the section and revise
the introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.35 Compliance with alternate exit-route codes.
OSHA will deem an employer demonstrating compliance with the exit-
route provisions of Chapter 7 ("Means of Egress") of NFPA 101, Life
Safety Code, 2009 edition, or the exit-route provisions of Chapter 10
("Means of Egress") of the International Fire Code, 2009 edition, to
be in compliance with the corresponding requirements in Sec. Sec.
1910.34, 1910.36, and 1910.37.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 1910.36, revise the notes to paragraphs Sec. Sec.
1910.36(b) and 1910.36(f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.36 Design and construction requirements for exit routes.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
Note to paragraph Sec. 1910.36(b) of this section: For
assistance in determining the number of exit routes necessary for
your workplace, consult Chapter 7 ("Means of Egress") of NFPA 101-
2009, Life Safety Code, or Chapter 10 ("Means of Egress") of IFC-
2009, International Fire Code.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
Note to paragraph Sec. 1910.36(f) of this section: Information
regarding the "Occupant load" is located in Chapter 7 ("Means of
Egress") of NFPA 101-2009, Life Safety Code, and in Chapter 10
("Means of Egress") of IFC-2009, International Fire Code.
* * * * *
Subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment [Amended]
9. The authority citation for subpart I continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR
9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008),
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
10. Remove paragraph (f)(4) from Sec. 1910.132.
11. In Sec. 1910.134, revise paragraphs (i)(4)(i), (i)(9), and
(o), and question 2a in Part A, Section 2 (Mandatory) of Appendix C, to
read as follows:
Sec. 1910.134 Respiratory protection.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Cylinders are tested and maintained as prescribed in the
Shipping Container Specification Regulations of the Department of
Transportation (49 CFR part 180);
* * * * *
(9) The employer shall use only the respirator manufacturer's
NIOSH-approved breathing gas containers, marked and maintained in
accordance with the Quality Assurance provisions of the NIOSH approval
for the SCBA as issued in accordance with the NIOSH respirator-
certification standard at 42 CFR part 84.
* * * * *
(o) Appendices. Compliance with Appendix A, Appendix B-1, Appendix
B-2, Appendix C, and Appendix D to this section are mandatory.
* * * * *
Appendix C to Sec. 1910.134: * * *
* * * * *
Part A. Section 2. * * *
* * * * *
1. * * *
2. * * *
a. Seizures: Yes/No
* * * * *
Subpart J--General Environmental Controls [Amended]
12. The authority citation for subpart J continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR
9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008),
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.141, 1910.142, 1910.145, 1910.146, and 1910.147
also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
13. Amend paragraph (a)(2) by revising the definition of "Potable
water" and revise paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of Sec. 1910.141 to read as
follow:
Sec. 1910.141 Sanitation.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
* * * * *
Potable water means water that meets the standards for drinking
purposes of the State or local authority having jurisdiction, or water
that meets the quality standards prescribed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR
part 141).
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Individual hand towels or sections thereof, of cloth or paper,
air blowers or clean individual sections of continuous cloth toweling,
convenient to the lavatories, shall be provided.
* * * * *
Subpart N--Materials Handling and Storage [Amended]
14. Revise the authority citation for subpart N to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71
(36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR
9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008),
or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.176, 1910.177, 1910.178, 1910.179, 1910.180,
1910.181, and 1910.184 also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.
15. Amend Sec. 1910.184 as follows:
a. Add new paragraphs (c)(13) and (c)(14).
b. Revise paragraphs (e)(6), (e)(8), (f)(1), and (h)(1).
c. Remove and reserve paragraphs (e)(5), (g)(6), and (i)(5).
d. Remove Tables N-184-1 and N-184-3 through N-184-22.
e. Redesignate Table N-184-2 as N-184-1.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1910.184 Slings.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(13) Employers must not load a sling in excess of its recommended
safe working load as prescribed by the sling manufacturer on the
identification markings permanently affixed to the sling.
(14) Employers must not use slings without affixed and legible
identification markings.
* * * * *
(e) Alloy steel-chain slings-- * * *
* * * * *
(5) [Removed and Reserved]
(6) Safe operating temperatures. Employers must permanently remove
an alloy steel-chain slings from service if it is heated above 1000
degrees F. When exposed to service temperatures in excess of 600
degrees F, employers must reduce the maximum working-load limits
permitted by the chain manufacturer in accordance with the chain or
sling manufacturer's recommendations.
* * * * *
(8) Effect of wear. If the chain size at any point of the link is
less than that stated in Table N-184-1, the employer must remove the
chain from service.
* * * * *
(f) Wire-rope slings--(1) Sling use. Employers must use only wire-
rope slings that have permanently affixed and legible identification
markings as prescribed by the manufacturer, and that indicate the
recommended safe working load for the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the
angle upon which it is based, and the number of legs if more than one.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
* * * * *
(6) [Removed and Reserved]
* * * * *
(h) Natural and synthetic fiber-rope slings--(1) Sling use.
Employers must use natural and synthetic fiber-rope slings that have
permanently affixed and legible identification markings stating the
rated capacity for the type(s) of hitch(es) used and the angle upon
which it is based, type of fiber material, and the number of legs if
more than one.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
* * * * *
(5) [Removed and Reserved]
* * * * *
Subpart T--Commercial Diving Operations [Amended]
16. Revise the authority citation for subpart T to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Section 107, Contract and Work Hours
Safety Standards Act (the Construction Safety Act) (40 U.S.C. 333);
Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C.
941); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017),
5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable, and 29
CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1910.440 [Amended]
17. Remove and reserve paragraphs (b)(3)(i), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of
Sec. 1910.440.
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances [Amended]
18. Revise the authority citation for subpart Z to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as
applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.
All of subpart Z issued under section 6(b) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, except those substances that have exposure
limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The
latter were issued under section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).
Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 553, Section 1910.1000 Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3, but not under
29 CFR part 1911, except for the arsenic (organic compounds), benzene,
cotton dust, and chromium (VI) listings.
Section 1910.1001 also issued under Section 107 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3704) and 5 U.S.C. 553.
Section 1910.1002 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553, but not under 29
U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911.
Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029, and 1910.1200 also issued under 29
U.S.C. 653.
Section 1910.1030 also issued under Pub. L. 106-430, 114 Stat.
1901.
19. Amend Sec. 1910.1001 by removing paragraph (m)(6)(ii), and
redesignating paragraph (m)(6)(i) as (m)(6).
20. Amend Sec. 1910.1003 as follows:
a. Revise paragraph (c)(4)(iv).
b. Remove paragraph (g)(2)(i), and redesignate paragraphs
(g)(2)(ii) and (g)(2)(iii) as (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 1910.1003 13 Carcinogens (4-nitrobiphenyl, etc.).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(iv) Employers must provide each employee engaged in handling
operations involving the carcinogens 4-Nitrobiphenyl, alpha-
Naphthylamine, 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine (and its salts), beta-
Naphthylamine, Benzidine, 4-Aminodiphenyl, 2-Acetylaminofluorene, 4-
Dimethylaminoazo-benzene, and N-Nitrosodimethylamine, addressed by this
section, with, and ensure that each of these employees wears and uses,
a NIOSH-certified air-purifying, half-mask respirator with particulate
filters. Employers also must provide each employee engaged in handling
operations involving the carcinogens methyl chloromethyl ether, bis-
Chloromethyl ether, Ethyleneimine, and beta-Propiolactone, addressed by
this section, with, and ensure that each of these employees wears and
uses, a full-facepiece, supplied-air respirator operated in the
continuous-flow or pressure-demand mode. Employers may substitute a
respirator affording employees higher levels of protection than these
respirators.
* * * * *
Sec. 1910.1017 [Amended]
21. Remove paragraph (m)(3) from Sec. 1910.1017.
Sec. 1910.1018 [Amended]
22. Amend Sec. 1910.1018 by removing paragraphs (q)(4)(ii) and
(q)(4)(iii), and redesignating paragraph (q)(4)(iv) as (q)(4)(ii).
Sec. 1910.1020 [Amended]
23. Remove paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(4) from Sec. 1910.1020.
24. Amend Sec. 1910.1025 as follows:
a. Revise paragraphs (d)(6)(iii), (j)(1)(i), (j)(2)(ii),
(j)(2)(iv), (k)(1)(i)(B), and (k)(1)(iii)(A)(1).
b. Remove paragraphs (n)(5)(ii) and (n)(5)(iii), and redesignate
paragraph (n)(5)(iv) as (n)(5)(ii).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1025 Lead.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(iii) If the initial monitoring reveals that employee exposure is
at or above the permissible exposure limit, the employer shall repeat
monitoring quarterly. The employer shall continue monitoring at the
required frequency until at least two consecutive measurements, taken
at least 7 days apart, are below the PEL but at or above the action
level, at which time the employer shall repeat monitoring for that
employee at the frequency specified in paragraph (d)(6)(ii), except as
otherwise provided in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The employer shall institute a medical surveillance program for
all employees who are or may be exposed at or above the action level
for more than 30 days per year.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Follow-up blood sampling tests. Whenever the results of a
blood lead level test indicate that an employee's blood lead level is
at or above the numerical criterion for medical removal under paragraph
(k)(1)(i)(A), of this section, the employer shall provide a second
(follow-up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the employer
receives the results of the first blood sampling test.
* * * * *
(iv) Employee notification. Within five working days after the
receipt of biological monitoring results, the employer shall notify in
writing each employee whose blood lead level is at or above 40 ug/100
g: * * *
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The employer shall remove an employee from work having an
exposure to lead at or above the action level on each occasion that the
average of the last three blood sampling tests conducted pursuant to
this section (or the average of all blood sampling tests conducted over
the previous six (6) months, whichever is longer) indicates that the
employee's blood lead level is at or above 50 ug/100 g of whole blood;
provided, however, that an employee need not be removed if the last
blood sampling test indicates a blood lead level below 40 ug/100 g of
whole blood.
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) For an employee removed due to a blood lead level at or above
60 ug/100 g, or due to an average blood lead level at or above 50 ug/
100 g, when two consecutive blood sampling tests indicate that the
employee's blood lead level is below 40 ug/100 g of whole blood;
* * * * *
25. Amend Sec. 1910.1027 by removing paragraph (n)(4),
redesignating paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) as paragraphs (n)(4) and
(n)(5), and revising new paragraph (n)(4)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1027 Cadmium.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Except as otherwise provided for in this section, access to all
records required to be maintained by paragraphs (n)(1) through (4) of
this section shall be in accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR
1910.1020.
* * * * *
26. Revise paragraph (k)(4) of Sec. 1910.1028 to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1028 Benzene.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(4) Transfer of records. The employer shall comply with the
requirements involving transfer of records as set forth in 29 CFR
1910.1020(h).
* * * * *
Sec. 1910.1029 [Amended]
27. Amend Sec. 1910.1029 by removing paragraphs (m)(4)(ii) and
(m)(4)(iii), and redesignating paragraph (m)(4)(iv) as (m)(4)(ii).
28. Amend Sec. 1910.1030 as follows:
a. Amend paragraph (b) by revising the definition of "Handwashing
facilities"; and
b. Remove paragraph (h)(4)(ii) and redesignate paragraph (h)(4)(i)
as (h)(4).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 1910.1030 Bloodborne pathogens.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
* * * * *
Handwashing facilities means a facility providing an adequate
supply of running potable water, soap, and single-use towels or air-
drying machines.
* * * * *
Sec. 1910.1043 [Amended]
29. Amend Sec. 1910.1043 by removing paragraphs (k)(4)(ii) and
(k)(4)(iii), and redesignating paragraph (k)(4)(iv) as (k)(4)(ii).
Sec. 1910.1044 [Amended]
30. Amend Sec. 1910.1044 by removing paragraphs (p)(4)(ii) and
(p)(4)(iii), and redesignating paragraph (p)(4)(iv) as (p)(4)(ii).
Sec. 1910.1045 [Amended]
31. Amend Sec. 1910.1045 by removing paragraphs (q)(5)(ii) and
(q)(5)(iii), and redesignating paragraph (q)(5)(iv) as (q)(5)(ii).
Sec. 1910.1047 [Amended]
32. Amend Sec. 1910.1047 by removing paragraph (k)(5)(ii), and
redesignating paragraph (k)(5)(i) as (k)(5).
Sec. 1910.1050 [Amended]
33. Amend Sec. 1910.1050 by removing paragraph (n)(7)(ii), and
redesignating paragraph (n)(7)(i) as paragraph (n)(7).
34. Amend Sec. 1910.1051 as follows:
a. Remove and reserve paragraph (m)(3).
b. Revise paragraph (m)(6).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1051 1,3-Butadiene.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(6) Transfer of records. The employer shall transfer medical and
exposure records as set forth in 29 CFR 1910.1020(h).
* * * * *
35. In Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1450, revise item (a) under Section
E, subsection 1, to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1450 Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in
laboratories.
* * * * *
Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1450--* * *
* * * * *
E. Basic Rules and Procedures for Working with Chemicals
* * * * *
1. General Rules
* * * * *
(a) Accidents and spills--* * *
Ingestion: This is one route of entry for which treatment depends
on the type and amount of chemical involved. Seek medical attention
immediately.
* * * * *
PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD
EMPLOYMENT
36. Revise the authority citation for part 1915 to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as
applicable.
Sections 1915.120 and 1915.152 of 29 CFR also issued under 29
CFR part 1911.
Subpart B--Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous
Atmospheres in Shipyard Employment [Amended]
37. In Appendix A to subpart B, revise item number 1 under the
heading "Section 1915.11(b) Definition of `Hot work'," to read as
follows:
Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 1915-- Compliance Assistance Guidelines
for Confined and Enclosed Spaces and Other Dangerous Atmospheres
* * * * *
Section 1915.11(b) Definition of "Hot work."
* * * * *
1. Abrasive blasting of the external hull for paint preparation
does not necessitate pumping and cleaning the tanks of a vessel.
* * * * *
Subpart G--Gear and Equipment for Rigging and Materials Handling
38. Revise paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), and (c)(3) of
Sec. 1915.112 to read as follows:
Sec. 1915.112 Ropes, chains, and slings.
* * * * *
(a) Manila rope and manila-rope slings. Employers must ensure that
manila rope and manila-rope slings:
(1) Have permanently affixed and legible identification markings as
prescribed by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe
working load for the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the angle upon which it
is based, and the number of legs if more than one;
(2) Not be loaded in excess of its recommended safe working load as
prescribed on the identification markings by the manufacturer; and
(3) Not be used without affixed and legible identification markings
as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) Wire rope and wire-rope slings.
(1) Employers must ensure that wire rope and wire-rope slings:
(i) Have permanently affixed and legible identification markings as
prescribed by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe
working load for the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the angle upon which it
is based, and the number of legs if more than one;
(ii) Not be loaded in excess of its recommended safe working load
as prescribed on the identification markings by the manufacturer; and
(iii) Not be used without affixed and legible identification
markings as required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) When U-bolt wire rope clips are used to form eyes, employers
must use Table G-1 in Sec. 1915.118 to determine the number and
spacing of clips. Employers must apply the U-bolt so that the "U"
section is in contact with the dead end of the rope.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Employers must ensure that chain and chain slings:
(i) Have permanently affixed and legible identification markings as
prescribed by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe
working load for the type(s) of hitch(es) used, the angle upon which it
is based, and the number of legs if more than one;
(ii) Not be loaded in excess of its recommended safe working load
as prescribed on the identification markings by the manufacturer; and
(iii) Not be used without affixed and legible identification
markings as required by paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) Employers must note interlink wear, not accompanied by stretch
in excess of 5 percent, and remove the chain from service when maximum
allowable wear at any point of link, as indicated in Table G-2 in Sec.
1915.118, has been reached.
* * * * *
39. In Sec. 1915.113, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 1915.113 Shackles and hooks.
* * * * *
(a) Shackles. Employers must ensure that shackles:
(1) Have permanently affixed and legible identification markings as
prescribed by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe
working load;
(2) Not be loaded in excess of its recommended safe working load as
prescribed on the identification markings by the manufacturer; and
(3) Not be used without affixed and legible identification markings
as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 1915.118 [Amended]
40. In Sec. 1915.118, remove Tables G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, G-7,
G-8, and G-10, and redesignate Table G-6 as Table G-1, and Table G-9 as
Table G-2.
Subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) [Amended]
Sec. 1915.152 [Amended]
41. Remove paragraph (e)(4) from Sec. 1915.152.
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances [Amended]
42. Amend Sec. 1915.1001 as follows:
a. Revise paragraph (h)(3)(i).
b. Remove paragraphs (h)(3)(ii), (h)(3)(iii), (h)(4), and
(n)(8)(ii).
c. Redesignate paragraph (h)(3)(iv) as (h)(3)(ii), and paragraph
(n)(8)(i) as (n)(8).
d. Revise Appendix C.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1915.1001 Asbestos.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) When respiratory protection is used, the employer shall
institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR
1910.134(b) through (d) (except (d)(1)(iii)), and (f) through (m) which
covers each employee required by this section to use a respirator.
* * * * *
Appendix C to Sec. 1915.1001--Qualitative and Quantitative Fit Testing
Procedures. Mandatory
Employers must perform fit testing in accordance with the fit-
testing requirements of 29 CFR 1910.134(f) and the qualitative and
quantitative fit-testing protocols and procedures specified in Appendix
A of 29 CFR 1910.134.
* * * * *
PART 1917--MARINE TERMINALS
43. Revise the authority citation for part 1917 to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008) or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as applicable;
and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1917.28 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Section 1917.29 also issued under Sec. 29, Hazardous Materials
Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819), and
5 U.S.C. 553.
Subpart A--General Provisions [Amended]
44. Amend Sec. 1917.2 by adding a definition for the term "Ship's
stores" in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 1917.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Ship's stores means materials that are aboard a vessel for the
upkeep, maintenance, safety, operation, or navigation of the vessel, or
for the safety or comfort of the vessel's passengers or crew.
Subpart F--Terminal Facilities [Amended]
45. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec. 1917.127 to read as
follows:
Sec. 1917.127 Sanitation.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Individual hand towels, clean individual sections of
continuous toweling, or air blowers; and
* * * * *
PART 1918--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR LONGSHORING
46. Revise the authority citation for part 1918 to read as follows:
Authority: Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160),
as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1918.90 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Section 1918.100 also issued under Sec. 29, Hazardous Materials
Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819), and
5 U.S.C. 553.
Subpart A--General Provisions [Amended]
47. Amend Sec. 1918.2, by adding the definition for the term
"Ship's stores" in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 1918.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Ship's stores means materials that are aboard a vessel for the
upkeep, maintenance, safety, operation, or navigation of the vessel, or
for the safety or comfort of the vessel's passengers or crew.
* * * * *
Subpart I--General Working Conditions [Amended]
48. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of Sec. 1918.95 to read as
follows:
Sec. 1918.95 Sanitation.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Individual hand towels, clean individual sections of
continuous toweling, or air blowers; and
* * * * *
PART 1919--GEAR CERTIFICATION
49. Revise the authority citation for part 1919 to read as follows:
Authority: Section 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR
25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-
2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160),
as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Subpart B--Procedures Governing Accreditation [Amended]
50. Revise paragraph (a)(1) introductory text of Sec. 1919.6 to
read as follows:
Sec. 1919.6 Criteria governing accreditation to certificate vessels'
cargo gear.
(a)(1) A person applying for accreditation to issue registers and
pertinent certificates, to maintain registers and appropriate records,
and to conduct initial, annual and quinquennial surveys, shall not be
accredited unless that person is engaged in one or more of the
following activities:
* * * * *
Subpart C--Duties of Persons Accredited to Certificate Vessels'
Cargo Gear [Amended]
51. Revise paragraph (d) of Sec. 1919.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 1919.11 Recordkeeping and related procedures concerning records
in custody of accredited persons.
* * * * *
(d) When annual or quinquennial tests, inspections, examinations,
or heat treatments are performed by an accredited person, other than
the person who originally issued the vessel's register, such accredited
person shall furnish copies of any certificates issued and information
as to register entries to the person originally issuing the register.
* * * * *
52. Revise paragraph (f) of Sec. 1919.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 1919.12 Recordkeeping and related procedures concerning records
in custody of the vessel.
* * * * *
(f) An accredited person shall instruct the vessel's officers, or
the vessel's operator if the vessel is unmanned, that the vessel's register
and certificates shall be preserved for at least 5 years after the date of
the latest entry except in the case of nonrecurring test certificates
concerning gear which is kept in use for a longer period, in which
event the pertinent certificates shall be retained so long as that gear
is continued in use.
* * * * *
Subpart D--Certification of Vessels' Cargo Gear [Amended]
53. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec. 1919.15 to read as follows:
Sec. 1919.15 Periodic tests, examinations and inspections.
* * * * *
(a) Derricks with their winches and accessory gear, including the
attachments, as a unit; and cranes and other hoisting machines with
their accessory gear, as a unit, shall be tested and thoroughly
examined every 5 years in the manner set forth in subpart E of this
part.
* * * * *
54. Revise paragraph (b) of Sec. 1919.18 to read as follows:
Sec. 1919.18 Grace periods.
* * * * *
(b) Quinquennial requirements--within six months after the date
when due;
* * * * *
PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls [Amended]
55. Revise the authority citation for subpart D to read as follows:
Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76
(41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR
111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR
31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 11.
Sections 1926.58, 1926.59, 1926.60, and 1926.65 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 553 and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1926.62 of 29 CFR also issued under section 1031 of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4853).
Section 1926.65 of 29 CFR also issued under section 126 of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, as amended (29
U.S.C. 655 note), and 5 U.S.C. 553.
56. Revise paragraphs (a)(6) and (f)(3)(iv) of Sec. 1926.51 to
read as follows:
Sec. 1926.51 Sanitation.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(6) Potable water means water that meets the standards for drinking
purposes of the State or local authority having jurisdiction, or water
that meets the quality standards prescribed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR
part 141).
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Individual hand towels or sections thereof, of cloth or paper,
air blowers or clean individual sections of continuous cloth toweling,
convenient to the lavatories, shall be provided.
* * * * *
57. Revise paragraph (o)(8) of Sec. 1926.60, to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.60 Methylenedianiline.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
(8) Transfer of records. The employer shall comply with the
requirements concerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR
1926.33.
* * * * *
58. Amend Sec. 1926.62 as follows:
a. Revise paragraphs (j)(2)(ii), (j)(2)(iv)(B), and
(k)(1)(iii)(A)(1).
b. Remove paragraphs (l)(2)(iii), (n)(6)(ii), and (n)(6)(iii).
c. Redesignate paragraphs (l)(2)(iv) through (l)(2)(viii) as
(l)(2)(iii) through (l)(2)(vii).
d. Redesignate paragraph (n)(6)(iv) as (n)(6)(ii), and revise
(n)(6)(ii).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1926.62 Lead.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Follow-up blood sampling tests. Whenever the results of a
blood lead level test indicate that an employee's blood lead level is
at or above the numerical criterion for medical removal under paragraph
(k)(1)(i) of this section, the employer shall provide a second (follow-
up) blood sampling test within two weeks after the employer receives
the results of the first blood sampling test.
* * * * *
(iv) * * *
(B) The employer shall notify each employee whose blood lead level
is at or above 40 ug/dl that the standard requires temporary medical
removal with Medical Removal Protection benefits when an employee's
blood lead level exceeds the numerical criterion for medical removal
under paragraph (k)(1)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(l) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) For an employee removed due to a blood lead level at or above
50 ug/dl when two consecutive blood sampling tests indicate that the
employee's blood lead level is below 40 ug/dl;
* * * * *
Subpart--H Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and Disposal [Amended]
59. Revise the authority citation for subpart H to read as follows:
Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76
(41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR
111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR
31160), as applicable. Section 1926.250 also issued under 29 CFR
part 1911.
60. Amend Sec. 1926.251 as follows:
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(4), (c)(1), (d)(1) and (f)(1).
b. Add new paragraphs (c)(16) and (d)(7).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 1926.251 Rigging equipment for material handling.
(a) * * *.
(2) Employers must ensure that rigging equipment:
(i) Has permanently affixed and legible identification markings as
prescribed by the manufacturer that indicate the recommended safe
working load;
(ii) Not be loaded in excess of its recommended safe working load
as prescribed on the identification markings by the manufacturer; and
(iii) Not be used without affixed, legible identification markings,
required by paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Employers must not use alloy steel-chain slings with loads in
excess of the rated capacities (i.e., working load limits) indicated on
the sling by permanently affixed and legible identification markings
prescribed by the manufacturer.
* * * * *
(c) * * *.
(1) Employers must not use improved plow-steel wire rope and wire-
rope slings with loads in excess of the rated
capacities (i.e., working load limits) indicated on the sling by
permanently affixed and legible identification markings prescribed by
the manufacturer.
* * * * *
(16) Wire rope slings shall have permanently affixed, legible
identification markings stating size, rated capacity for the type(s) of
hitch(es) used and the angle upon which it is based, and the number of
legs if more than one.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Employers must not use natural- and synthetic-fiber rope slings
with loads in excess of the rated capacities (i.e., working load
limits) indicated on the sling by permanently affixed and legible
identification markings prescribed by the manufacturer.
* * * * *
(7) Employers must use natural- and synthetic-fiber rope slings
that have permanently affixed and legible identification markings that
state the rated capacity for the type(s) of hitch(es) used and the
angle upon which it is based, type of fiber material, and the number of
legs if more than one.
* * * * *
(f) * * *.
(1) Employers must not use shackles with loads in excess of the
rated capacities (i.e., working load limits) indicated on the shackle
by permanently affixed and legible identification markings prescribed
by the manufacturer.
* * * * *
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances [Amended]
61. Revise the authority citation for subpart Z to read as follows:
Authority: Section 3704 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.); Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655,
657); and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76
(41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR
111), 3-2000 (65 FR 50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR
31160), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1926.1102 of 29 CFR not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29
CFR part 1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
62. Revise paragraphs (n)(7)(ii) and (iii) and (n)(8) of Sec.
1926.1101 to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.1101 Asbestos.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(7) * * *
(ii) Availability of records. The employer must comply with the
requirements concerning availability of records set forth in 29 CFR
part 1926.33.
(8) Transfer of records. The employer must comply with the
requirements concerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR part
1926.33.
* * * * *
63. Amend Sec. 1926.1127 as follows:
a. Remove and reserve paragraph (n)(4).
b. Revise paragraph (n)(6).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1926.1127 Cadmium.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(6) Transfer of records. The employer must comply with the
requirements concerning transfer of records set forth in 29 CFR part
1926.33.
* * * * *
PART 1928--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURE
64. Revise the authority citation for part 1928 to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); and Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), as
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Section 1928.21 also issued under section 29, Hazardous
Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-
615, 104 Stat. 3244 (49 U.S.C. 1801-1819 and 5 U.S.C. 533)).
Subpart I--General Environmental Controls [Amended]
65. Revise the definition of the term "potable water" in
paragraph (b) of Sec. 1928.110 to read as follows:
Sec. 1928.110 Field sanitation.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Potable water means water that meets the standards for drinking
purposes of the State or local authority having jurisdiction, or water
that meets the quality standards prescribed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR
part 141).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-15156 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
