[Federal Register: September 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 53925-53929]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13se05-13]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. S-023A]
RIN 1218-AC08

 
Updating OSHA Standards Based On National Consensus Standards; 
General, Incorporation by Reference; Hazardous Materials, Flammable and 
Combustible Liquids; General Environmental Controls, Temporary Labor 
Camps; Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment, 
Guarding of Portable Powered Tools; Welding, Cutting and Brazing, Arc 
Welding and Cutting; Special Industries, Sawmills

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: OSHA is issuing this final rule to delete from OSHA standards 
three references to national consensus standards and two references to 
industry standards that are outdated. Deleting these references will 
not reduce employee protections. By eliminating the outdated 
references, however, OSHA will clarify employer obligations under the 
applicable OSHA standards and reduce administrative burdens on 
employers and OSHA. These revisions are part of OSHA's overall effort 
to update OSHA standards that reference, or that include language taken 
directly from, outdated consensus standards.

DATES: This final rule will become effective on November 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates 
the Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 
Office of the Solicitor of Labor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, to receive 
petitions for review of the final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press 
inquiries contact Mr. Kevin Ropp, Director, OSHA Office of 
Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999. For 
technical inquiries contact Mr. Lee Smith, Director, Office of Safety 
Systems, Room N-3609, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2255 or fax 
(202) 693-1663. Copies of this Federal Register notice are available 
from the OSHA Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: 
(202) 693-1888. Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as 
well as news releases and other relevant documents, are available at 
OSHA's Web page at http://www.osha.gov.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: References to comments in the rulemaking 
record are found throughout the text of the preamble. Comments are 
identified by an assigned exhibit number as follows: ``Ex. 4-3'' means 
Exhibit 4-3 in Docket S-023A. A list of the exhibits and copies of the 
exhibits are available in the OSHA Docket Office under Docket S-023A 
and at OSHA's homepage.

Background

    On November 24, 2004, OSHA published a notice in the Federal 
Register announcing its overall project to update OSHA standards that 
are based on national consensus standards (69 FR 68283). The notice 
explained the reasons for the project and the regulatory approaches 
OSHA plans to use to implement the project, including notice and 
comment rulemaking, direct final rulemaking, and technical amendments. 
To review the eleven comments received on this notice, most of which 
were supportive, see Docket S-023 at http://dockets.osha.gov. OSHA 
appreciates these comments and will welcome additional comments as it 
proceeds with the overall update project.
    On the same day, OSHA also published in the Federal Register a 
direct final rule (69 FR 68712) and a companion proposed rule (69 FR 
68706) to delete three references to national consensus standards and 
two references to industry standards that are outdated. OSHA announced 
that the direct final rule would become effective on February 22, 2005, 
unless the Agency received a significant adverse comment before the 
comment period closed.
    OSHA received five comments on the direct final rule and companion 
proposed rule. OSHA considers one of the comments to be significantly 
adverse. On February 18, 2005, OSHA published a notice withdrawing the 
direct final rule (70 FR 8291). OSHA is treating the five comments as 
comments to the proposed rule, and considered all of the comments in 
publishing this final rule.

Discussion of Changes

    OSHA explained in detail its decision to revoke each of the 
references at issue in the direct final and companion proposed rules 
published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68706, 
68712), and OSHA incorporates those discussions in this final rule. The 
five references are to consensus or industry standards issued over 35 
years ago, and in one case over 60 years ago. Some are no longer 
available to the public through the issuing Standards Development 
Organization (SDO). Three of the references have been withdrawn by 
their issuing SDOs and not replaced. In proposing the revocations, OSHA 
found that the changes would enhance employee safety by eliminating 
confusion and clarifying employer obligations. OSHA also determined 
that the revocations would not result in additional costs to employers, 
and may even produce cost savings.
    The Agency carefully considered all comments received. After review 
of the comments, OSHA continues to find that revoking the five 
references is appropriate.
    29 CFR 1910.106(b)(1)(iii)(a)(2): OSHA is revoking from its 
standard for flammable and combustible liquids American Petroleum 
Institute Standard No. 12A, Specification for Oil Storage Tanks with 
Riveted Shells, Seventh Edition, September 1951 (API 12A). OSHA 
included API 12A in the standard to provide employers with one
means of complying with the standard's general requirement for 
atmospheric tanks to be ``built in accordance with acceptable good 
standards of design.'' 29 CFR 1910.106(b)(1)(iii)(a).
    OSHA is revoking the reference for a number of reasons. API 12A is 
over 50 years old and does not consider recent developments in the 
construction of atmospheric tanks. The issuing SDO withdrew API 12A in 
1974, has not replaced it, has not incorporated its provisions into 
another consensus standard, and no longer makes the standard available 
to the public. Under these circumstances, OSHA does not believe it is 
appropriate to reference the standard as a compliance option. Because 
OSHA did not require the use of API 12A in the standard, the revocation 
does not change an employer's responsibility for constructing properly 
designed atmospheric tanks under 29 CFR 1910.106(b)(1)(iii)(a).
    29 CFR 1910.142(c)(4): OSHA is revoking from its temporary labor 
camps standard a requirement that drinking fountains be constructed in 
accordance with the American National Standard Institute Standard 
Specifications for Drinking Fountains, ANSI Z4.2-1942. ANSI Z4.2-1942 
contains ten specific recommendations concerning the construction of 
drinking fountains which are based on the technology and construction 
practices that existed in 1942. All of these recommendations use 
advisory ``should'' language. The issuing SDO withdrew the standard in 
1972 and it has not been replaced.
    OSHA has determined that the reference to ANSI Z4.2-1942 should be 
revoked for two reasons. First, because the specific recommendations in 
ANSI Z4.2-1942 use advisory language, they are unenforceable. See 49 FR 
5318, February 10, 1984; cf. Marshall v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel 
Company, 584 F.2d 638, 643-44 (3d Cir. 1978). Second, referencing 
recommendations issued over 60 years ago for the construction of 
drinking fountains does not enhance the safety and health of employees. 
The technology for constructing drinking fountains has changed 
significantly since the 1940's. Since 1942, a number of drinking 
fountain units have become available to employers that, while not 
strictly manufactured in accordance with ANSI Z4.2-1942, are 
constructed pursuant to good engineering practices and are safe to use 
at temporary labor camps. It does not serve employers or employees to 
reference construction specifications that do not consider this new 
technology.
    29 CFR 1910.243(e)(1)(i): OSHA is revoking from its portable 
powered tools standard a provision that certain power lawnmowers 
designed for sale to the general public meet the American National 
Standard Safety Specifications for Power Lawnmowers, ANSI B71.1-X1968 
(ANSI B71.1-1968). OSHA is replacing this provision with a reference to 
the general machine guarding requirements contained in 29 CFR 1910.212. 
OSHA is also removing the final two sentences of paragraph 
1910.243(e)(1) that describe the types of mowers for which the 
specifications in ANSI B71.1-1968 do not apply. OSHA is making these 
changes to simplify and clarify the scope and coverage of 29 CFR 
1910.243. Deleting the reference and replacing it with a reference to 
29 CFR 1910.212 will both retain the existing degree of employee 
protection, and remove a continuing source of confusion as to the scope 
of the referenced standard.
    ANSI B71.1-1968 provides safety specifications for certain power 
lawnmowers ``designed for sale to the general public.'' Lawnmowers 
designed for commercial use must comply with the guarding requirements 
of 29 CFR 1910.212(a)(1) and (a)(3)(ii). See Memorandum from John Miles 
to Regional Administrators, ``Misapplication of Power Lawnmower 
Standard 29 CFR 1910.243(e),'' 1986. It is difficult for employers to 
determine which lawnmowers are designed for sale to the general public, 
and which are designed for commercial use, and the distinction is not 
particularly relevant to protecting employees from the hazards 
associated with operating power lawnmowers.
    Furthermore, virtually all of the specific provisions contained in 
ANSI B71.1-1968 are included in the text of 29 CFR 1910.243(e). OSHA 
considered updating the 1968 ANSI reference to the 1998 version of ANSI 
B71.1, but determined that doing so would not clarify the standard 
because the scope of the 1998 version would raise additional issues for 
compliance that are not encountered under the existing OSHA standard.
    29 CFR 1910.254(d)(1): OSHA is revoking from its arc welding and 
cutting standard a recommendation that employers be acquainted with the 
American Welding Society's Recommended Safe Practices for Gas-Shielded 
Arc Welding, A6.1-1966. OSHA is revoking the reference for several 
reasons. The hazard information included in AWS A6.1-1966 is extremely 
outdated, particularly compared to the information that employers are 
already required to provide to employees under OSHA's Hazard 
Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200. Second, virtually all of the 
recommendations contained in AWS A6.1-1966 are covered elsewhere in 
OSHA's welding standards. For example, paragraph 1910.254(d)(1) also 
requires employees performing arc welding to be ``acquainted with'' 
1910.252(a), (b), and (c). These three paragraphs specifically address 
many of the safety-related practices discussed in AWS A6.1-1966. Third, 
other applicable OSHA standards protect employees performing gas-
shielded arc welding from many of the underlying hazards discussed in 
AWS A6.1-1966. See, e.g., 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z (Toxic and 
Hazardous Substances).
    29 CFR 1910.265(c)(31)(i): OSHA is revoking a provision from its 
standard on Sawmills which suggests that employers use ``appropriate 
traffic control devices,'' as set forth in American National Standard 
D8.1-1967 for Railroad Highway Grade Crossing Protection (ANSI D8.1-
1967). ANSI withdrew the standard in 1981 and did not replace it. OSHA 
is revoking this reference for two main reasons. First, referencing a 
withdrawn 37-year-old consensus standard that was intended to address 
railroad and highway grade crossings--not crossings specifically in 
sawmills--adds little value to employers and employees in the sawmill 
industry. Second, the reference uses advisory ``should'' language and 
is thus unenforceable. See 49 FR 5318, February 10, 1984; cf. Marshall, 
584 F.2d at 643-644. Removing such provisions clarifies employer 
obligations and enhances OSHA enforcement capabilities. See 47 FR 
23477, May 28, 1982; 49 FR 5321, February 10, 1984. Because OSHA is 
retaining the mandatory provision in paragraph 1910.265(c)(3)(i) that 
employers plainly post railroad tracks and other hazardous crossings, 
employees will continue to be alerted to potential hazards at these 
dangerous areas.

Comments Received

    The majority of comments received expressed support for this 
rulemaking. For example, the National Automobile Dealer's Association 
(NADA) stated that ``without question, OSHA should appropriately update 
or revoke references to or language from consensus standards that are 
outdated or no longer relevant.'' (Ex. 4-3). The International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) stated that it supports OSHA's first 
rulemaking action associated with the update project, and that 
``revoking these references will not reduce employee
protections provided by each affected OSHA standard.'' (Ex. 4-2). 
Similarly, the National Lumber and Building Material Dealer's 
Association (NLBMDA) stated that it ``supports OSHA's current efforts 
to update their regulations.'' (Ex. 4-4).
    One commenter recommended that OSHA establish a policy to review 
and update consensus standards on a regular basis. (Ex. 4-2). As 
explained in this preamble, this rulemaking is the first step in the 
Agency's overall effort to deal with the problem of outdated national 
consensus and industry standards in OSHA's rules. OSHA will continue to 
explore available strategies and approaches to update its standards.
    Two commenters representing small business employers, NADA and 
NLBMDA, expressed concern about the costs and burdens associated with 
obtaining updated versions of national consensus and industry standards 
from the issuing SDOs. (Exs. 4-3, 4-4). One recommended that OSHA make 
the standards readily available to the regulated community by 
publishing referenced consensus standards in full in the relevant 
docket and on the OSHA Web site. (Ex. 4-3).
    The Agency recognizes the commenters' concerns regarding the 
availability and cost of consensus and industry standards. OSHA will 
continue to explore ways to inform employers and employees of their 
compliance obligations at little or no cost. OSHA notes that this final 
rule will not result in any cost to employers because it is deleting 
references to consensus and industry standards. In addition, all 
national consensus and industry standards which are incorporated by 
reference in the OSHA standards are available for public inspection at 
the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA's regional offices, and the U.S. National 
Archives and Records Administration.
    The IBT encouraged OSHA to ensure that the national consensus and 
industry standards OSHA considers adopting in its regulations were 
developed in a fair and participatory manner. (Ex. 4-2). The Agency 
believes that the rulemaking process will address the IBT's concerns. 
When OSHA attempts a substantive update to its regulations, it will 
provide an opportunity for notice and comment. OSHA will only use 
direct final rulemaking or technical amendments for non-controversial 
updates, and will rely on notice and comment rulemaking for 
controversial or potentially controversial updates and those which 
involve substantive changes. Moreover, if a direct final rule results 
in significant adverse comment, OSHA will withdraw the direct final 
rule and proceed with notice and comment rulemaking. Consequently, 
stakeholders will always have an opportunity to share with OSHA 
concerns about the standards development process.
    OSHA received one comment opposed to the Agency's underlying 
approach to this rulemaking. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) 
stated that ``because the kind of changes announced by OSHA can affect 
the compliance options available to employers, they can represent 
substantive changes with potentially significant impact,'' and is 
therefore ordinarily inappropriate for direct final rulemaking. (Ex. 3-
1). The Chamber also recommended that OSHA retain the current 
references at issue in this final rule as compliance options. (Ex. 3-
1).
    While OSHA appreciates the Chamber's concerns, in this instance 
OSHA believes that retaining these extremely outdated references as 
compliance options will only confuse employers and employees. As the 
NLBMDA said, ``Updating or removing references to outdated national 
consensus standards is the correct course of action to make the 
regulations more understandable and consistent. The referencing of old 
or discontinued consensus standards creates confusion, 
misinterpretation, and ultimately leads to poor compliance.'' (Ex. 4-
4).
    The need to remove references to out of date consensus standards is 
particularly acute with regard to extremely outdated standards, such as 
API 12A, ANSI Z4.2-1942, and ANSI D8.1-1967. These standards are so 
outdated that they were withdrawn by their issuing SDOs 20 to 30 years 
ago and never replaced. Some of the consensus standards revoked in this 
rule are not even available through the issuing SDO. OSHA does not want 
to encourage the design or construction of equipment to comply with 
standards that do not reflect current technology and thus may not set 
an appropriate level of safety. In future phases of the update project, 
it may be appropriate to continue to reference older standards for 
certain maintenance and use specifications. However, OSHA maintains 
that it will rarely be appropriate to retain as compliance options 
standards issued 40 or 50 years ago to guide the design and 
construction of today's equipment.
    Furthermore, OSHA does not agree with the Chamber that this action 
is not appropriate for direct final rulemaking. Several of the 
standards at issue in this rulemaking are unenforceable because they 
use advisory ``should'' language. Some of the standards have been 
withdrawn by the issuing SDO and not replaced, or are no longer 
available to the public through the issuing SDO. None of the standards 
reflect current technology. Deletion of these references neither 
restricts meaningful compliance options for employers nor reduces 
employee protections. In such situations, direct final rulemaking is an 
appropriate course of action for the Agency to pursue to update its 
standards.
    The IBT made a suggestion regarding OSHA's removal of ANSI Z4.2-
1942, the standard for drinking fountains, from OSHA's standard for 
temporary labor camps, 29 CFR 1910.142. (Ex. 4-2). IBT stated that in 
the absence of an OSHA, industry, or consensus standard that governs 
the construction of drinking fountains, and to avoid the use of hoses 
or alternative devices for drinking, it ``might be helpful if OSHA 
would include'' in the standard a definition of what constitutes a 
``drinking fountain.''
    OSHA appreciates the IBT's suggestion, but believes including a 
definition of what constitutes a drinking fountain is beyond the scope 
of this rulemaking. The Agency, however, may re-examine the need to 
provide definitions of this and other terms in future rulemakings. OSHA 
reiterates that revoking the reference to ANSI Z4.2-1942 will not 
adversely affect the safety and health of employees at temporary labor 
camps. As explained above, ANSI Z4.2-1942 uses advisory ``should'' 
language and thus contains no compliance obligations. See 49 FR 5318, 
February 10, 1984; cf. Marshall, 584 F.2d at 643-644. Further, 
referencing a 60-year-old ANSI standard for drinking fountains that 
reflects outdated engineering practices and technology does not enhance 
employee safety. Finally, OSHA notes that other provisions in its 
temporary labor camp standard, including 29 CFR 1910.142(c)(1), (c)(2), 
and (c)(3), as well as other OSHA standards, offer additional 
protection for workers in temporary labor camps.
    IBT also stated that it supported OSHA's revocation of ANSI B71.1-
1968, safety specifications for power lawnmowers, so long as OSHA 
thoroughly reviewed ANSI B71.1-1998 and determined that it does not 
contain provisions that would serve to improve the existing OSHA 
standard, 29 CFR 1910.243. OSHA assures IBT that it has conducted a 
thorough review of ANSI B71.1-1998, and, for reasons discussed above, 
determined that referencing it would not improve the existing OSHA 
standard. 69 FR 68706, 68712.

Legal Considerations

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 
U.S.C. 651 et seq., 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. 29 U.S.C. 655(b), 654(b). A 
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 or places of employment.'' 29 
U.S.C. 652(8). A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate within 
the meaning of Section 652(8) if, among other things, a significant 
risk of material harm exists in the workplace and the proposed standard 
would substantially reduce or eliminate that workplace risk.
    This final rule will not reduce the employee protections put into 
place by the standards being revised. The intent of this final rule is 
to revoke references to consensus standards that are outdated, no 
longer represent the state of the art in workplace safety, and are 
confusing to employers and employees. It is therefore unnecessary to 
determine significant risk, or the extent to which the final rule would 
reduce that risk, as would typically be required by Industrial Union 
Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 
(1980).

Final Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    This rule is not economically significant within the context of 
Executive Order 12866, or a ``major rule'' under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act or Section 801 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act. The rule would impose no additional costs on any private 
or public sector entity, and does not meet any of the criteria for an 
economically significant or major rule specified by the Executive Order 
or relevant statutes.
    The rule simply deletes or revises a number of provisions in OSHA 
standards that are outdated. The Agency concludes that the final rule 
would not impose any additional costs on these employers. Consequently, 
the rule requires no final economic analysis. Furthermore, because the 
rule imposes no costs on employers, OSHA certifies that it would not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Accordingly, the Agency need not prepare a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose or remove any information collection 
requirements for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 
U.S.C. 3501-30.

Federalism

    OSHA has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the Executive 
Order on Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which 
requires that 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 there is clear constitutional authority and the presence of a 
problem of national scope. E.O. 13132 provides for preemption of State 
law only if there is a clear congressional intent for the Agency to do 
so. Any such preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
    Section 18 of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., expresses 
Congress' intent to preempt State laws where OSHA has promulgated 
occupational safety and health standards. Under the OSH Act, a State 
can avoid preemption on issues covered by Federal standards only if it 
submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the development of 
such standards and their enforcement. 29 U.S.C. 667. Occupational 
safety and health standards developed by such States with State Plans 
must, among other things, be at least as effective in providing safe 
and healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal 
standards. Subject to these requirements, States with State Plans are 
free to develop and enforce their own requirements for safety and 
health standards under State law.
    This final rule complies with E.O. 13132. As Congress has expressed 
a clear intent for OSHA standards to preempt State job safety and 
health rules in areas addressed by OSHA standards in States without 
OSHA-approved State Plans, this rule limits State policy options in the 
same manner as all OSHA standards. In States with OSHA-approved State 
Plans, this action does not significantly limit State policy options.

State Plans

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent 
amendment to an existing standard, the 26 States or U.S. Territories 
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must 
revise their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or 
show OSHA why there is no need for action, 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 must be completed within six months 
of the publication date of the final Federal rule. When OSHA 
promulgates a new standard or standards amendment which does not impose 
additional or more stringent requirements than an existing standard, 
States are not required to revise their standards, although OSHA may 
encourage them to do so. The 26 States and territories with OSHA-
approved State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut 
(plan covers only State and local government employees), Hawaii, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New 
Mexico, New Jersey (plan covers only State and local government 
employees), New York (plan covers only State and local government 
employees), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands (plan covers only 
State and local government employees), Washington, and Wyoming.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. For the 
purposes of the UMRA, the Agency certifies that this final rule does 
not impose any Federal mandate that may result in increased 
expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or increased 
expenditures by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any 
year.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Consensus standards, Incorporation by reference, Occupational 
safety and health.

Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Mr. Jonathan L. 
Snare, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and 
Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210. It is issued pursuant to 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 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), and 29 CFR part 
1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 31st day of August, 2005.
Jonathan L. Snare,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor.

Amendments to Standards

0
Part 1910 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby 
amended as set forth below:

PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS

Subpart A--General

0
1. The authority citation for subpart A of part 1910 is revised 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 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), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), 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; Pub. L. 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-222); and OMB Circular 
A-25 (dated July 8, 1993) (58 FR 38142, July 15, 1993).


Sec.  1910.6  [Amended]

0
2. Section 1910.6 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(e)(31); (e)(35); (e)(48); (f)(1); and (i)(2).

Subpart H--Hazardous Materials

0
3. The authority citation for subpart H of part 1910 is revised 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); Secretary of Labor's 
Orders Nos. 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), 
or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
    Sections 1910.103, 1910.106 through 1910.111, and 1910.119, 
1910.120, and 1910.122 through 126 also issued under 29 CFR part 
1911.
    Section 1910.119 also issued under section 304, Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549), reprinted at 29 U.S.C. 655 
Note.
    Section 1910.120 also issued under section 126, Superfund 
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 as amended (29 U.S.C. 655 
Note), and 5 U.S.C. 553.

0
4. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(a)(2) of Sec.  1910.106 is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1910.106  Flammable and combustible liquids.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) American Petroleum Institute Standards No. 650, Welded Steel 
Tanks for Oil Storage, Third Edition, 1966.
* * * * *

Subpart J--General Environmental Controls

0
5. The authority citation for subpart J of part 1910 is revised to read 
as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 4, 6, and 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), or 5-2002 (67 FR 
65008), as applicable.

    Sections 1910.141, 1910.142, 1910.145, 1910.146, and 1910.147 
also issued under 29 CFR part 1911.


0
6. Paragraph (c)(4) of Sec.  1910.142 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.142  Temporary labor camps.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Where water under pressure is available, one or more drinking 
fountains shall be provided for each 100 occupants or fraction thereof. 
Common drinking cups are prohibited.
* * * * *

Subpart P--Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held 
Equipment

0
7. The authority citation for subpart P of part 1910 is revised 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); Secretary of Labor's 
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 
35736),-90 (55 FR 9033), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable; 29 
CFR part 1911.
    Section 1910.243 also issued under 29 CFR part 1910.


0
8. Paragraph (e)(1)(i) of Sec.  1910.243 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.243  Guarding of portable powered tools.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Power lawnmowers of the walk-behind, riding-rotary, and reel 
power lawnmowers shall be guarded in accordance with the machine 
guarding requirements in 29 CFR 1910.212, General requirements for all 
machines.
* * * * *

Subpart Q--Welding, Cutting and Brazing

0
9. The authority citation for subpart Q of part 1910 is revised to read 
as follows:

    Authority: 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 
Orders 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), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as 
applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.


0
10. Paragraph (d)(1) of Sec.  1910.254 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1910.254  Arc welding and cutting.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) General. Workers assigned to operate or maintain arc welding 
equipment shall be acquainted with the requirements of this section and 
with 1910.252 (a), (b), and (c) of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart R--Special Industries

0
11. The authority citation for subpart R of part 1910 is revised 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); 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), 
or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.


0
12. Paragraph (c)(31)(i) of Sec.  1910.265 is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1910.265  Sawmills.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (31) * * *
    (i) Hazardous crossings. Railroad tracks and other hazardous 
crossings shall be plainly posted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-17688 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P