Federal Registers - Table of Contents Federal Registers - Table of Contents
• Publication Date: 05/13/2002
• Publication Type: Unified Agenda
• Fed Register #: 66:33307-33356
• Title: Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.

NOTE: This section for the Department of Labor (OSHA)
is on pages 33312-33355


Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Prerule Stage

Sequence
Number
Title Regulation Identification Number
1614 Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium (Preventing Occupational Illness: Chromium) 1218-AB45
1615 Confined Spaces in Construction (Part 1926): Preventing Suffocation/Explosions in Confined Spaces 1218-AB47
1616 Occupational Exposure to Ethylene Oxide (Section 610 Review) 1218-AB60
1617 Fall Protection in the Construction Industry 1218-AB62
1618 Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica 1218-AB70
1619 Grain Handling Facilities (Section 610 Review) 1218-AB73
1620 Occupational Exposure to Beryllium 1218-AB76
1621 Hearing Loss Prevention in Construction Workers 1218-AB89
1622 Excavations (Section 610 Review) 1218-AC02
1623 Presence Sensing Device Initiation of Mechanical Power Presses (Section 610 Review) 1218-AC03
1624 Controlled Negative Pressure Fit Testing Protocol: Amendment to the Final Rule on Respiratory Protection 1218-AC05

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Proposed Rule Stage

Sequence
Number
Title Regulation Identification Number
1625 Assigned Protection Factors: Amendments to the Final Rule on Respiratory Protection 1218-AA05
1626 Longshoring and Marine Terminals (Parts 1917 and 1918) -- Reopening of the Record (Vertical Tandem Lifts (VTLs)) 1218-AA56
1627 Glycol Ethers: 2-Methoxyethanol, 2-Ethoxyethanol, and Their Acetates: Protecting Reproductive Health 1218-AA84
1628 Injury and Illness Prevention 1218-AB41
1629 Occupational Exposure to Tuberculosis 1218-AB46
1630 General Working Conditions for Shipyard Employment 1218-AB50
1631 Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment (Part 1915, Subpart P) (Shipyards: Fire Safety) 1218-AB51
1632 Electric Power Transmission and Distribution; Electrical Protective Equipment in the Construction Industry 1218-AB67
1633 Employer Payment for Personal Protective Equipment 1218-AB77
1634 Walking Working Surfaces and Personal Fall Protection Systems (1910) (Slips, Trips and Fall Prevention) 1218-AB80
1635 Standards Improvement (Miscellaneous Changes) for General Industry, Marine Terminals, and Construction Standards (Phase II) 1218-AB81
1636 Commercial Diving Operations: Revision 1218-AB97
1637 Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors 1218-AC01

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Final Rule Stage

Sequence
Number
Title Regulation Identification Number
1638 Access and Egress in Shipyards (Part 1915, Subpart E) (Shipyards: Emergency Exits and Aisles) 1218-AA70
1639 Update and Revision of the Exit Routes Standard 1218-AB82
1640 Signs, Signals, and Barricades 1218-AB88
1641 Changes to State Plans 1218-AB91
1642 Revision and Update of Subpart S -- Electrical Standards 1218-AB95
1643 Procedures for Handling of Discrimination Complaints Under the Aviation Investment and Reform Act 1218-AB99
1644 Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements 1218-AC06

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Long-Term Actions

Sequence
Number
Title Regulation Identification Number
1645 Accreditation of Training Programs for Hazardous Waste Operations (Part 1910) 1218-AB27

Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Completed Actions

Sequence
Number
Title Regulation Identification Number
1646 Scaffolds in Shipyards (Part 1915 -- Subpart N) 1218-AA68
1647 Indoor Air Quality in the Workplace 1218-AB37
1648 Advisory Committees 1218-AC04



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

1614. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (PREVENTING OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS: CHROMIUM)

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

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

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In July 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was petitioned for an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium. The Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW) and Public Citizen's Health Research Group (HRG) petitioned OSHA to promulgate an ETS to lower the PEL for hexavalent chromium (CrVI) compounds to 0.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3) as an eight-hour, time-weighted average (TWA). This would represent a significant reduction in the current PEL. The current PEL in general industry is found in 29 CFR 1910.1000 Table Z and is a ceiling value of 100 ug/m3, measured as chromium (VI) and reported as chromic anhydride (CrO3). The amount of chromium (VI) in the anhydride compound equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3. This ceiling limit applies to all forms of hexavalent chromium (VI), including chromic acid and chromates, lead chromate, and zinc chromate. The current PEL for hexavalent chromium (VI) in the construction industry is 100 ug/m3 as a TWA PEL, which also equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3. After reviewing the petition, OSHA denied the request for an ETS and initiated a section 6(b)(5) rulemaking.

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


Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Request for Information 08/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

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

RIN: 1218-AB45



1615. CONFINED SPACES IN CONSTRUCTION (PART 1926): PREVENTING SUFFOCATION/EXPLOSIONS IN CONFINED SPACES

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

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.36

Legal Deadline: None

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

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Initiate Work for a
  SBREFA Panel
08/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

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

RIN: 1218-AB47



1616. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ETHYLENE OXIDE (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority: Other Significant.

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1047

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA has undertaken a review of the ethylene oxide (ETO) standard in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of EO 12866. The review has considered the continued need for the rule, the impacts of the rule, comments on the rule received from the public, the complexity of the rule, whether the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal, State or local regulations, and the degree to which technology, economic conditions or other factors may have changed since the rule was last evaluated. The Agency's findings with respect to this review will be published in a report available to the public in 2002.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Begin Review
End Review
10/01/96
06/00/02
 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John F. Martonik, Director, Office of Program Audits and Evaluation, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3641, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2043
Fax: 202 693-1641
Email: john.martonik@osha.gov

RIN: 1218-AB60


1617. FALL PROTECTION IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA issued an ANPRM to gather information on fall protection issues regarding certain construction processes such as residential home building, precast concrete operations and post frame construction. The issues relate to the fall protection rules as they now apply to roofing work, residential construction operations, climbing reinforcement steel and vendors delivering materials to construction projects. These issues have arisen since OSHA revised the fall protection standard in August 1994. OSHA has determined that additional information is needed.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

ANPRM
ANPRM Comment Period End
Request for Infomation
07/14/99
01/24/00
12/00/02
64 FR 38077
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

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

RIN: 1218-AB62


1618. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO CRYSTALLINE SILICA

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

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

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA is considering a consensus-based rulemaking to address the hazards posed by silica. Silica exposure remains a serious threat to nearly 2 million U.S. workers, including more than 100,000 workers in high risk jobs such as abrasive blasting, foundry work, stonecutting, rock drilling, quarry work and tunneling. The seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica exposure is demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling illnesses that continue to occur in sandblasters and rock drillers and by recent studies that indicate a statistically significant increase in lung cancer among silica-exposed workers. Exposure studies and OSHA enforcement data indicate that some workers are still exposed to very high levels of silica. OSHA plans in this rulemaking to modernize and standardize the Agency's current PELs for silica so that they will be consistent across all sectors.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Initiate SBREFA
  Process or Initiate
  Consensus-Based
  Process
10/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3718, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950

RIN: 1218-AB70


1619. GRAIN HANDLING FACILITIES (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority: Other Significant

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.272

Legal Deadline: None

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

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Begin Review
End Review
10/01/97
05/00/02
 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John F. Martonik, Director, Office of Program Audits and Evaluation, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3641, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2043
Fax: 202 693-1641
Email: john.martonik@osha.gov

RIN: 1218-AB73


1620. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO BERYLLIUM

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA intends to issue a Request for Information and to evaluate the extensive research related to the mechanisms of disease underlying Chronic Beryllium Disease or beryllium sensitization and to identify the best ways of reducing employee exposure to beryllium. OSHA will also be identifying processes, industries, and kind of businesses that involve the use of beryllium. This information is necessary if OSHA is to develop a rule to reduce worker exposure to dust or fumes from beryllium metal, metal oxides, or alloys, all of which may cause serious and sometimes fatal lung disease (chronic beryllium disease (CBD), lung cancer, and skin disease). In 1999 and in 2001, OSHA was petitioned to issue an emergency temporary standard by the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Workers Union (PACE), Public Citizen Health Research group and others. The Agency denied these petitions but stated its intent to work on a standard to be issued under section 6(b)(5) of the Act to protect workers from beryllium-related disease. Before OSHA can do so, however, it needs a substantial amount of information on beryllium's toxicity, risks, and patterns of use. The Request for Information will be designed to obtain this information.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Request for Information 09/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

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

RIN: 1218-AB76


1621. HEARING LOSS PREVENTION IN CONSTRUCTION WORKERS

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

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.52

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA issued a section 6(b)(5) health standard mandating a comprehensive hearing conservation program for noise exposed workers in general industry in 1983. However, a number of recent studies have shown that a large number of construction workers experience work-related hearing loss. In addition, the use of engineering, administrative and personal protective equipment to reduce exposures to noise is low in this industry. OSHA intends to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in 2002, and to initiate stakeholder meetings to gather information on the extent of noise-induced hearing loss among workers in different trades in this industry, current practices to reduce this loss, and additional approaches and protections that could be used to prevent such loss in the future.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

ANPRM 06/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

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

RIN: 1218-AB89


1622. EXCAVATIONS (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 5 USC 610; 29 USC 651 et seq

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.650 to 1926.652

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA will undertake a review of the Agency's trenching and excavations standard (29 CFR 1926.650 to 1926.652) in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Section 5 of Executive Order 12866. The review will consider the continued need for the rule, the impacts of the rule, public comments on the rule, the complexity of the rule, and whether the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other regulations.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Begin Review
Request for Comments
12/01/01
06/00/02
 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John F. Martonik, Director, Office of Program Audits and Evaluation, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3641, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2043
Fax: 202 693-1641
Email: john.martonik@osha.gov

RIN: 1218-AC02


1623. PRESENCE SENSING DEVICE INITIATION OF MECHANICAL POWER PRESSES (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 5 USC 610; 29 USC 651 et seq

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.217(h), app A,B,C

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA will undertake a review of the Agency's Presence Sensing Device Initiation of Mechanical Power Presses rule (29 CFR 1910.217) in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of Executive Order 12866. The review will consider among other things, the need for the rule, the impacts of the rule, public comments on the rule, the complexity of the rule, and whether the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other regulations.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Begin Review
Request for Comments
06/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: John F. Martonik, Director, Office of Program Audits and Evaluation, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3641, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2043
Fax: 202 693-1641
Email: john.martonik@osha.gov

RIN: 1218-AC03


1624. • CONTROLLED NEGATIVE PRESSURE FIT TESTING PROTOCOL: AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL RULE ON RESPIRATORY PROTECTION

Priority: Info./Admin./Other

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.134

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In January 1998, OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). In the final revised respirator standard, OSHA set up a mechanism for OSHA's acceptance of new fit test protocols under Mandatory Appendix A. Any person may submit to OSHA an application for approval of a new fit test protocol, and if the application meets certain criteria, OSHA will initiate a rulemaking proceeding under 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act to determine whether to list the new protocol as an approved fit test protocol in Appendix A. OSHA has been petitioned to allow the use of a modified Controlled Negative Pressure (CNP) fit test protocol.

Employers, employees, and safety and health professionals use fit testing to select respirators. Currently OSHA relies on fit testing methods specified in Appendix A of the final revised Respiratory Protection standard.

When OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection standard in 1998, it allowed for later rulemaking on new fit test methods. This rulemaking action will allow for the incorporation of new fit test methods into 1910.134.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Next Action To Be Determined 02/00/03  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3718, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950

RIN: 1218-AC05


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

1625. ASSIGNED PROTECTION FACTORS: AMENDMENTS TO THE FINAL RULE ON RESPIRATORY PROTECTION

Priority: Other Significant

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.134

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In January 1998, OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134), except for reserved provisions on assigned protection factors (APFs) and maximum use concentrations (MUCs). APFs are numbers that describe the effectiveness of the various classes of respirators in reducing employee exposure to airborne contaminants (including particulates, gases, vapors, biological agents, etc.). Employers, employees, and safety and health professionals use APFs to determine the type of respirator to protect the health of employees in various hazardous environments. Maximum use concentrations establish the maximum airborne concentration of a contaminant in which a respirator with a given APF may be used.

Currently, OSHA relies on the APFs developed by NIOSH in the 1980s unless OSHA has assigned a different APF in a substance-specific health standard. However, many employers follow the more recent APFs published in the industry consensus standard, ANSI Z88.2-1992. For some classes of respirators, the NIOSH and ANSI APFs vary greatly.

When OSHA published the final Respiratory Protection standard in 1998, it reserved for later rulemaking those provisions of the standard dealing with APFs and MUCs. This rulemaking action will complete the 1998 standard, reduce compliance confusion among employers, and provide employees with consistent and appropriate respiratory protection.

Statement of Need: About 5 million employees wear respirators as part of their regular job duties. Due to inconsistencies between the APFs found in the current industry consensus standard (ANSI Z88.2-1992) and in the NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic, employers, employees, and safety and health professionals are often uncertain about what respirator to select to provide protection against hazardous air contaminants. Several industry and professional groups have asked OSHA to proceed with this rulemaking to resolve these inconsistencies and provide reliable protection of employees' health in cases where respirators must be worn.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this proposed rule is the determination that assigned protection factors and maximum use concentrations are necessary to complete the final Respiratory Protection standard and provide the full protection of that standard.

Alternatives: OSHA has considered allowing the current situation to continue, in which OSHA generally enforces NIOSH APFs but many employers follow the more recent consensus standard APFs. However, allowing the continuation of this situation results in inconsistent enforcement, lack of guidance for employers, and the potential for inadequate employee protection.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The scope of the proposed APF table is still under development, and estimates of the costs and benefits have not yet been developed.

Risks: The preamble to the final Respiratory Protection rule (63 FR 1270, Jan. 8, 1998) discusses the significance of the risks potentially associated with the use of respiratory protection. No independent finding of significant risk will be made for the APF rulemaking, since it only addresses a single provision of the larger rule.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

ANPRM
ANPRM Comment Period End
NPRM
Final Rule
Final Rule Effective
NPRM on APFs or
  Initiate SBREFA
  Process
05/14/82
09/13/82
11/15/94
01/08/98
04/08/98
11/00/02
47 FR 20803

59 FR 58884
63 FR 1152
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3718, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950

RIN: 1218-AA05


1626. LONGSHORING AND MARINE TERMINALS (PARTS 1917 AND 1918) -- REOPENING OF THE RECORD (VERTICAL TANDEM LIFTS (VTLS))

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

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1918.11; 29 CFR 1918.85

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA issued a final rule on Longshoring on July 25, 1997 (62 FR 40142). However, in that rule, the Agency reserved provisions related to vertical tandem lifts. Vertical tandem lifts (VTLs) involve the lifting of two or more empty intermodal containers, secured together with twist locks, at the same time. Because some commenters to the record questioned the safety of allowing such tandem lifts and the record did not contain adequate information to allow the Agency to address this issue, OSHA continues to work with national and international organizations and gathering additional information on the safety of VTLs.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM on
  Longshoring/Marine
  Terminals
NPRM Comment Period End
Final Rule on
  Longshoring/Marine
  Terminals
Public Meeting on
  VTLs - 1/27/1998
Reopening of Record
Second NPRM
06/06/94

09/23/94

07/25/97

10/09/97

10/00/02
06/00/03
59 FR 28594



62 FR 40142

62 FR 52671
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AA56


1627. GLYCOL ETHERS: 2-METHOXYETHANOL, 2-ETHOXYETHANOL, AND THEIR ACETATES: PROTECTING REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

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

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000; 29 CFR 1910.1031

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on April 2, 1987 (52 FR 10586). OSHA used the information received in response to the ANPRM, as well as other information and analysis, and published a proposal on March 23, 1993 (58 FR 15526), that would reduce the permissible exposure limits for four glycol ethers and provide protection for approximately 46,000 workers exposed to these substances. OSHA plans to re-open the record to collect updated information before determining what action should be taken.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

ANPRM
ANPRM Comment
  Period End
NPRM
NPRM Comment
  Period End
Reopen Record
04/02/87
07/31/87

03/23/93
06/07/93

07/00/02
52 FR 10586


5815526
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

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

RIN: 1218-AA84


1628. INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1900.1

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), many States, members of the safety and health community, insurance companies, professional organizations, companies participating in the Agency's Voluntary Protection Programs, and many proactive employers in all industries recognize the value of worksite-specific injury and illness prevention programs in reducing and preventing job-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. The reductions in job-related injuries and illnesses, workers' compensation costs, and absenteeism that occur after employers implement such programs dramatically demonstrate their effectiveness. OSHA has decided to develop an injury and illness prevention rule because occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities are continuing to occur at an unacceptably high rate. For example, an average of about 16 workers were killed each day in 1999. This number does not include an estimated 137 daily deaths associated with job-related chronic illnesses. The Agency is currently evaluating the appropriate scope and form of the proposed rule, as well as the hazards the rule will address, and is considering a number of regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Initiate SBREFA Process 12/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: State

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

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AB41


1629. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO TUBERCULOSIS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal governments.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1035

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In 1993, the Labor Coalition to Fight TB in the Workplace petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to develop an occupational health standard to protect workers who care for or oversee patients or others with active tuberculosis (TB) against the transmission of TB. After reviewing the available information, OSHApreliminarily concluded that a significant risk of occupational transmission of TB exists for some workers in some work settings and began rulemaking on a proposed standard. Examples of workers at risk of contracting TB as a result of their work are health care workers, detention facility personnel, and homeless shelter employees. On October 17, 1997, OSHA published its proposed standard for occupational exposure to TB (62 FR 54160). The proposed standard would require employers to protect TB-exposed workers using infection control measures that have been shown to be highly effective in reducing or eliminating work-related TB infections. Such measures include procedures for the early identification of individuals with infectious TB, isolation of individuals with infectious TB using appropriate ventilation, use of respiratory protection in certain situations, and skin testing and training of employees.

After the close of the written comment period for the proposed standard, informal public hearings were held in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, CA, New York City, NY, and Chicago, IL. The post-hearing comment period closed on October 5, 1998. On June 17, 1999 OSHA reopened the rulemaking record for 90 days to submit the Agency's report on homeless shelters and certain other documents that became available to the Agency after the close of the post-hearing comment period. During this limited reopening of the rulemaking record, OSHA also requested interested parties to submit comments and data on the Agency's preliminary risk assessment in order to obtain the best, most recent data for providing the most accurate estimates of the occupational risk of tuberculosis. At the request of Congress, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences (IOM) conducted a study of OSHA's proposal and the need for a TB standard. That study was completed in January 2001, and concluded that OSHA should move forward with a standard modeled after the CDC guidelines and tailored to the extent of TB risk present in the community. The IOM study concluded that an OSHA standard was needed to maintain national TB rates among health care and other employees at their current levels and to prevent future outbreaks of multi-drug resistant and other forms of TB among these workers. OSHA has reopened the record to obtain comment on the IOM study, the draft final risk assessment and the peer reviewers' comment on the risk assessment.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

SBREFA Panel
NPRM
NPRM Comment Period End
Post Hearing Comment End
Record Reopening
Second Reopening
  Comment Period End
Reopening Comment Period End
Third Reopening Comment Period
Extension of Comment
  Period of Reopening
Reopening Comment Period End
Comment Period End
Next Step To Be Determined
09/10/96
10/17/97
02/17/98
10/05/98
06/17/99
06/28/99

08/02/99
01/24/02
03/05/02

03/25/02
05/24/02
10/00/02

62 FR 54160
62 FR 65388

64 FR 32447
64 FR 34625


67 FR 3465
67 FR 9934
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations

Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal

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

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3718, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950

RIN: 1218-AB46


1630. GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS FOR SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915 subpart F

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate the various OSHA shipyard standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. Publication of a proposal addressing general working conditions in shipyards is part of this project. The operations addressed in this rulemaking relate to general working conditions such as housekeeping, illumination, sanitation, first aid, and lockout/tagout. Over 100,000 workers are exposed annually to these hazards.



Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 01/00/03  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AB50


1631. FIRE PROTECTION IN SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT (PART 1915, SUBPART P) (SHIPYARDS: FIRE SAFETY)

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

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915 subpart P

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: This proposal is being developed through the negotiated rulemaking process. The rule will update and revise an important but outdated part of OSHA's shipyard rules. The original rule was adopted by OSHA in 1971 and has remained unchanged since then. The negotiated rulemaking committee was convened on October 15, 1996; members of the committee include: OSHA, state government, Federal agency, small and large shipyard employers, and maritime and firefighter union representatives.

Statement of Need: Fires in the shipyard environment claim the lives of several workers every year and thus account for a substantial number ofdeaths and more than 50 serious burns occurring in this 100,000-employee workforce. Updating OSHA's outdated shipyard requirements for fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, detection systems, alarm systems, and fire brigades will facilitate compliance by employers and employees and reduce these fire-related injuries and fatalities.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this proposed rule is a preliminary determination that an unacceptable risk of fire-related injuries and fatalities exists in the shipyard industry.

Alternatives: OSHA has considered but rejected the alternative of allowing the existing rule to remain in place, because the Agency believes that doing so would contribute to the unacceptable number of fire-related accidents occurring in shipyards every year.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Detailed cost and benefits estimates have not yet been made for the rule, because it is still in draft form.

Risks: A detailed risk analysis has not yet been completed for this rule.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 09/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AB51


1632. ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION; ELECTRICAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

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

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.136; 29 CFR 1910.137; 29 CFR 1910.269; 29 CFR 1926.97; 29 CFR 1926 subpart V

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Electrical hazards are a major cause of occupational death in the United States. The annual fatality rate for power line workers is about 50 deaths per 100,000 employees. The construction industry standard addressing the safety of these workers during the construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines is nearly 30 years old. OSHA is developing a revision of this standard that will prevent many of these fatalities, add flexibility to the standard, and update and streamline the standard. In addition, OSHA intends to amend the corresponding standard for general industry so that requirements for work performed during the maintenance of electric power transmission and distribution installations are the same as those for similar work in construction.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Initiate SBREFA Process
NPRM
05/00/02
04/00/03
 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AB67


1633. EMPLOYER PAYMENT FOR PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

Priority: Other Significant

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

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

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Generally, OSHA standards require that protective equipment (including personal protective equipment (PPE)) be provided and used when necessary to protect employees from hazards that can cause them injury, illness, or physical harm. In this discussion, OSHA uses the abbreviation "PPE" to cover both personal protective equipment and other protective equipment. The Agency has proposed to revise its PPE standards to clarify who is required to pay for required PPE and under what circumstances. OSHA continues to consider the issue and review the rulemaking docket.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM
NPRM Comment Period End
Informal Public Hearing End
Next Step to be determined
03/30/99
06/14/99
08/13/99
10/00/02
64 FR 15401
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Federal

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AB77


1634. WALKING WORKING SURFACES AND PERSONAL FALL PROTECTION SYSTEMS (1910) (SLIPS, TRIPS AND FALL PREVENTION)

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

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 (b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910, Subparts D and I

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In 1990, OSHA proposed (55 FR 13360) a rule addressing slip, trip, and fall hazards and establishing requirements for personal fall protection systems. Since that time, new technologies and procedures have become available to protect employees from these hazards. The Agency has been working to update these rules to reflect current technology.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM
NPRM Comment Period End
Hearing
NPRM (Subparts D and I)
04/10/90
06/14/99
09/11/90
12/00/02
55 FR 13360

55 FR 29224
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AB80


1635. STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT (MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES) FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY, MARINE TERMINALS, AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS (PHASE II)

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.142; 29 CFR 1910.178; 29 CFR 1910.219; 29 CFR 1910.261; 29 CFR 1910.265; 29 CFR 1910.410; 29 CFR 1910.1001 to 1910.1052; 29 CFR 1926.60; 29 CFR 1926.62; 29 CFR 1926.1101; 29 CFR 1926.1127; 29 CFR 1926.1129; 29 CFR 1917.92; 29 CFR 1910, subpart Z

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposes to remove or revise provisions in its health standards that are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or inconsistent. The Agency is proposing these changes to reduce the burden imposed on the regulated community by these requirements. In this document, substantive changes are proposed for standards that will revise or eliminate duplicative, inconsistent, or unnecessary regulatory requirements without diminishing employee protections. Phase I of this Standards Improvement process was completed in June 1998 (63 FR 33450). OSHA plans to initiate Phase III of this project at a future date to address problems in various safety standards.

Statement of Need: Some of OSHA's standards are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or inconsistent. The Agency needs to periodically review its standards and make needed corrections. This effort results in standards that are easier for employers and employees to follow and comply with, and thus enhances compliance and worker protection.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary finding that the OSHA standards need to be updated to bring them up to date, reduce inconsistency, and remove unneeded provisions.

Alternatives: OSHA has considered updating each standard as problems are discovered, but has determined that it is better to make such changes to groups of standards so it is easier for the public to comment on like standards. OSHA has also considered the inclusion of safety standards that need to be updated. However, the Agency has decided to pursue a separate rulemaking for safety issues because the standards to be updated are of interest to different stakeholders.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This revision of OSHA's standards is a deregulatory action. It will reduce employers' compliance obligations.

Risks: The project does not address specific risks, but is intended to improve OSHA's standards by bringing them up do date and deleting unneeded provisions. The anticipated changes will have no negative effects on worker safety and health.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 09/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

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

RIN: 1218-AB81


1636. COMMERCIAL DIVING OPERATIONS: REVISION

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.423; 29 CFR 1910.426

Legal Deadline: None

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

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM 10/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AB97


1637. CRANES, DERRICKS, HOISTS, ELEVATORS, AND CONVEYORS

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

Legal Authority: 29 USC 651(b); 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Subpart N addresses hazards associated with various types of hoisting equipment used at construction sites. Such equipment includes cranes, derricks, hoists, elevators and conveyors. The existing rule, which dates back to 1971, is based in part on industry consensus standards from 1958, 1968 and 1969. There have been considerable technological changes since those consensus standards were developed. Industry consensus standards for derricks and for crawler, truck and locomotive cranes were updated as recently as 1995. A number of industry stakeholders have asked OSHA to update Subpart N.

OSHA's Subpart N is now 30 years old, and is based in part on industry consensus standards as much as 42 years old. No changes have been made to the OSHA standard since 1971. Significant changes have occurred in the industry since the OSHA standard was promulgated.

A cross-section of the industry has stated that there is a need to update Subpart N. OSHA has determined that the existing rule needs to be revised.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Notice of Intent to
 Establish
 Negotiated
 Rulemaking
 Committee
05/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

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

RIN: 1218-AC01


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

1638. ACCESS AND EGRESS IN SHIPYARDS (PART 1915, SUBPART E) (SHIPYARDS: EMERGENCY EXITS AND AISLES)

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

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

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

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate OSHA standards that applied to the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. Shipyard employers are subject to both the shipyard and general industry standards, and this project aimed at establishing a vertical standard for shipyard employment. A proposal on access and egress was issued in November 1988 (53 FR 48092). OSHA plans to withdraw this proposal.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM
NPRM Comment Period End
Withdrawal Notice
11/29/88
02/27/89
06/00/02
53 FR 48130
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AA70


1639. UPDATE AND REVISION OF THE EXIT ROUTES STANDARD

Priority: Other Significant

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

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

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Many Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards were adopted under section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act; 29 U.S.C. 655(a)). This section of the OSH Act authorized the Agency, in its first 2 years of existence, to adopt national consensus standards without prior notice and comment. The versions of the consensus standards OSHA adopted are now typically well over 30 years old and have been superseded by newer ones. In addition, many of these old standards were written in technical jargon and were hard for many employers and employees to understand.

To address these problems, OSHA is undertaking a consensus standards initiative to revise OSHA's exit routes (also known as means of egress) standard. The revisions will rewrite the standard in simple, easy-to-understand language that will be easier for employers and employees to follow.

Statement of Need: The standard being revised in this initiative is one of OSHA's oldest and most difficult to understand. The Agency has identified the exit routes standard as a standard in need of revision because it is out of date and unnecessarily complex, and stakeholders have recommended that the standard be updated quickly. OSHA also believes that revising the standard will lead to better voluntary compliance and fewer disputes about violations. With OSHA's limited resources, any effort that can substantially increase opportunities for compliance without sacrificing employee safety and health protection will have long-term benefits.

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the final rule will be a finding that, by making these OSHA standards easier to understand and comply with, the Agency will increase compliance and reduce work-related injuries and deaths.

Alternatives: The alternative considered - leaving the outdated standard on the books - has been rejected because doing so would not encourage compliance or enhance safety.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The final standard for exit routes will have no economic impacts because this revision will not increase employers' obligations or reduce employee protections.

Risks: Employees can be injured or killed if they are not able to exit an area safely when a fire or other emergency occurs.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM
Public Hearing
Final Rule
09/10/96
04/29/97
09/00/02
61 FR 47712
62 FR 9402
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AB82


1640. SIGNS, SIGNALS, AND BARRICADES

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 651(b); 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Subpart G of 29 CFR part 1926 addresses the types of signs, signals and barricades that must be used in situations such as work areas on highways. OSHA's rule incorporates a 1971 ANSI standard, known as the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Since the early 1970's, the U.S. Department of Transportation has drafted updates to the MUTCD. DOT requires all States to comply with its updates.

Several years ago, industry stakeholders asked OSHA to update its standard to reflect new technology and provide more flexibility for compliance.

OSHA has decided to use a Direct Final Rule to update its standard since it anticipates widespread support for and few objections to the change. The Agency's Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health endorsed using a Direct Final Rule to make this change in its Winter 2000 meeting.

With the current emphasis on rebuilding the Nation's highways and improving safety in work zone areas, OSHA's update is particularly appropriate.

Statement of Need: The safe and efficient flow of traffic through construction work zones is a major concern to transportation officials, the highway industry and the traveling public. Today the majority of highway funds are being used on system preservation-type projects (resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction) on the existing highway system; highway construction of this type is at an all time high and will continue for several years to come.

The fatality rate for highway construction workers is twice the rate for other types of construction trades (DOT FHWA Office of Program Quality Coordination, Sept. 1998).

Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this direct final rule is a finding by the Secretary of Labor that the number of highway work zone injuries and fatalities is high and that the outdated OSHA standard may be contributing to this result.

Alternatives: The Directorate of Construction has formed a task group to formulate a plan for reducing the number of highway work zone fatalities. In order for this group to accomplish its mission the standards must reflect new technology and best practices. Other alternatives, such as compliance assistance and partnership programs, will not achieve these goals.

Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The overwhelming majority of public roads are currently covered by DOT regulations and their related State traffic control manuals. Moreover, private roads constitute the minority of total roads, and some local governments extend coverage to these roads. Accordingly, OSHA will be solely responsible for regulating only a fraction of all highway work. The costs of compliance for those solely regulated by OSHA will, therefore, be much lower than those estimated for compliance with DOT regulations. Because DOT has found no significant costs of compliance for revisions of the MUTCD over the years, the costs of compliance for OSHA's direct final rule likewise will not be significant under Executive Order 12866.

Risks: OSHA believes that the adoption of the direct final rule will have a direct impact on the safety of workers engaged in work zone activities, although the extent of this risk reduction has not been quantified at this point.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Direct Final Rule 05/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: None

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

RIN: 1218-AB88


1641. CHANGES TO STATE PLANS

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 667

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1953

Legal Deadline: None

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

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

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM
NPRM Comment
  Period End and
  Request for
  Hearings
Final Rule
11/06/01
01/07/02



06/00/02
66 FR 56043
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: State, Federal

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

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

RIN: 1218-AB91


1642. REVISION AND UPDATE OF SUBPART S -- ELECTRICAL STANDARDS

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

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910 subpart S

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is planning to revise and update its 29 CFR 1910 Subpart S-Electrical Standard. OSHA will rely heavily in that process on the 2000 Edition of the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA's) 70 E standard for Electrical Safety Requirements for Employee Workplaces. This revision will provide the first update of Subpart S-Electrical since the standard was originally published in 1981. It will thus allow the latest technological developments to be considered; several of these state-of-the-art safety developments will be addressed by OSHA for the first time. The update of Subpart S-Electrical will also at a future time permit the completion of standards covering safety-related maintenance requirements and safety requirements for special equipment. OSHA intends to complete this project in several stages. The first stage consists of changes OSHA believes to be noncontroversial, and the agency plans to publish it as a direct final rule.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Direct Final Rule 12/00/02  
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AB95


1643. PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING OF DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS UNDER THE AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1979

Legal Deadline: None

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

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Interim Final Rule
Interim Final Rule
  Effective
Interim Final Rule
  Comment Period
  End
04/01/02
04/01/02

05/31/02
67 FR 15453
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Government Levels Affected: None

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

RIN: 1218-AB99


1644. • OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND ILLNESS RECORDING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 657; 29 USC 553

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1904.10; 29 CFR 1904.12; 29 CFR 1904.29(b)(7)(vi)

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a final rule on Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements (66 FR 5916, January 19, 2001), scheduled to become effective on January 1, 2002. Following a careful review conducted pursuant to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card's memorandum (66 FR 7702), the Agency has determined that all but two provisions of the final rule, regarding the recording of occupational hearing loss and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), would take effect as scheduled (66 FR 35113, July 3, 2001). The Agency issued a proposed rule on July 3, 2001, seeking comment on a delay of the two sections, and on the criteria that should be used for the recording of occupational hearing loss (RIN 1218-AC00). The record on this proposal closed on September 4, 2001. OSHA published a final rule delaying the effective dates for sections 1904.10, 1910.12 and a note to 1904.29(b)(7)(vi) until January 1, 2003. The same final rule provided interim guidance on recording hearing loss and MSD cases during 2002 (66 FR 52031, October 12, 2001).

OSHA is continuing to reconsider these two provisions for recording occupational hearing loss based on the occurrence of a Standard Threshold Shift (STS) in hearing acuity (section 1904.10), defining "musculoskeletal disorders" and checking the column on the OSHA 300 Log identifying a recordable case as an MSD (section 1904.12). OSHA will issue a subsequent final rule to deal with these injury and illness recording issues for the years 2003 and beyond.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM
NPRM Comment
  Period End
Final Action Delaying
  Effective Dates
Final Action
07/03/01
09/04/01

10/12/01

06/00/02
66 FR 35113


66 FR 52031
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: State

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3718, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950

RIN: 1218-AC06


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

1645. ACCREDITATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATIONS (PART 1910)

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

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.121

Legal Deadline: None

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

On December 22, 1987, as part of an omnibus budget reconciliation bill (PL 100-202), Congress amended section 126(d)(3) of SARA to include accreditation of training programs for hazardous waste operations. OSHA issued a proposal on January 26, 1990 (55 FR 2776) addressing this issue. OSHA received public comments following the issuance of the proposal. OSHA also reopened the record in June 1992 to allow additional public comment on an effectiveness of training study that the Agency had conducted. Since that time, OSHA has developed nonmandatory guidelines to address training criteria for hazardous waste workers, and these have been widely adopted. In addition, the private sector has since established training accreditation procedures. At this time, the next action in this rulemaking is undetermined.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM
NPRM Comment
  Period End
Next Action Undetermined
01/26/90
04/26/90
55 FR 2776
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AB27


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

1646. SCAFFOLDS IN SHIPYARDS (PART 1915 -- SUBPART N)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.71

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate the various OSHA standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. Shipyard employers are subject to both shipyard and general industry standards, and this project aimed at establishing a vertical standard for shipyard employment. A proposal on scaffolds was issued in November 1988 (53 FR 48092). OSHA plans to withdraw this proposal.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

NPRM
NPRM Comment Period End
Reopened Record
Comment Period End
Withdrawal Notice
11/29/88
02/27/89
04/12/94
06/13/94
03/21/02
53 FR 48182

59 FR 17290

67 FR 13117
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Steven F. Witt, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3605, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1663

RIN: 1218-AA68


1647. INDOOR AIR QUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655

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

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The health of American workers may be affected by indoor air pollution in the workplace. After reviewing and analyzing available information, OSHA published a proposed indoor air quality rule on April 5, 1994. The proposal would require employers to write and implement indoor air quality compliance plans that would include inspection and maintenance of current building ventilation systems to ensure they are functioning as designed. In buildings where smoking is allowed, the proposal would require designated smoking areas that would be separate, enclosed rooms where the air would be exhausted directly to the outside. Other proposed provisions would require employers to maintain healthy air quality during renovation, remodeling, and similar activities. As proposed, the provisions for indoor air quality would apply to 70 million workers and more than 4.5 million nonindustrial indoor work environments, including schools and training centers, offices, commercial establishments, health care facilities, cafeterias and factory break rooms. The proposed environmental tobacco smoke provisions would apply to all 6 million industrial and nonindustrial work environments under OSHA's jurisdiction.

On December 17, 2001, OSHA withdrew its Indoor Air Quality proposal and terminated the rulemaking proceeding (66 FR 64946). In the years since the proposal was issued in 1994 a great many state and local governments and private employers have taken action to curtail smoking in public areas and in workplaces. In addition, the portion of the proposal not related to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) received little attention during the rulemaking proceedings and the record evidence supporting the non-ETS portion of the proposal is sparse. The Agency found that withdrawal of the proposal would allow it to devote its resources to other projects.

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Request for Information
NPRM
NPRM Comment Period End
Record Closed
Withdrawn
09/20/91
04/05/94
08/13/94
02/09/96
12/17/01
56 FR 47892
59 FR 15968
59 FR 30560

66 FR 64946
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: State

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

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

RIN: 1218-AB37


1648. • ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Priority: Info./Admin./Other

Legal Authority: 29 USC 656; 29 USC 657; 5 USC 553

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1912.3; 29 CFR 1912.10; 29 CFR 1912.11; 29 CFR 1912a.3

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA is amending its rules governing membership on advisory committees to clarify that the Secretary has the discretion to remove and replace an advisory committee member at any time. This is a rule of agency organization, practice, or procedure, and does not require notice and comment procedures (5 USC 553(b)).

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Final Action
Final Action Effective
01/07/02
01/07/02
67 FR 658
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No

Small Entities Affected: No

Government Levels Affected: Federal

Agency Contact: Frank Frodyma, Acting Director, Directorate of Policy, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N3641, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, FPBuilding, Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2400
Email: frank.frodyma@osha.gov

RIN: 1218-AC04



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