| www.OSHA.gov | |
|
Federal Registers
Semiannual Agenda of Regulations. - 64:21485-21556 |
Federal Registers - Table of Contents |
| • Publication Date: | 04/26/1999 |
| • Publication Type: | Unified Agenda |
| • Fed Register #: | 64:21485-21556 |
| • Standard Number: | 1910; 1915; 1917; 1918; 1926 |
| • Title: | Semiannual Agenda of Regulations. |
|
NOTE: This section for the Department of Labor (OSHA) is on pages 21491-21556 Occupational Safety and Health Administration -- Prerule Stage
2005. STANDARDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON METALWORKING FLUIDS Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)(1); 29 USC 656(b) CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: In December 1993, the International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America petitioned OSHA to take emergency regulatory action to protect workers from the risks of occupational cancers and respiratory illnesses due to exposure to metalworking fluids. OSHA sent an interim response to the UAW stating that the decision to proceed with rulemaking would depend on the results of the OSHA Priority Planning Process. Following the Priority Planning Process report, which identified metalworking fluids as an issue worthy of Agency action, the Assistant Secretary asked the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) for a recommendation about how to proceed with metalworking fluids. NACOSH unanimously recommended that OSHA form a Standards Advisory Committee (SAC) to address the health risks caused by occupational exposure to metalworking fluids. The Assistant Secretary accepted the recommendation of NACOSH; OSHA has established a 15-member SAC to make recommendations regarding a standard, a guideline, or other appropriate response to the dangers of occupational exposures to metalworking fluids. The Committee has a balanced membership, including individuals appointed to represent the following affected interests: industry; labor; Federal and State safety and health organizations; professional organizations; and national standards-setting groups. Statement of Need: Under table Z-1 of the 1971 air contaminants rule, OSHA enforces a permissible exposure limit of 5 mg/m3 for mineral oil mists but evidence suggests this level is outdated and that exposure to metalworking fluids can lead to cancer, nonmalignant lung disease, and dermatitis. Giving a SAC the opportunity to examine and comment upon current studies and data concerning the risks associated with all metalworking fluid mixtures (straight oils, synthetic, and semisynthetic) will provide valuable information the Agency can use to develop a proposed rule for metalworking fluids or other appropriate response to hazards posed by occupational exposure to metalworking fluids. The SAC will also report on related issues such as fluid management, engineering controls, medical surveillance, and economic and technological feasibility. Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for convening this standards advisory committee is found at section 7(b) of the OSH Act. Alternatives: The Agency recognizes the complex and difficult nature of the issues surrounding the regulation of metalworking fluids and believes a SAC can best alleviate some areas of confusion. The Committee has a unique opportunity to provide needed data and academic and professional expertise, as well as large and small industry and labor perspectives. Through OSHA's exhaustive Priority Planning Process and NACOSH recommendations, metalworking fluids were identified as a regulatory candidate that could be handled most successfully through a SAC. The option of going directly to 6(b) rulemaking has been bypassed in favor of a SAC, which will give beneficial input to the agency as to how best to deal with the problems and the opportunity to build some consensus before a proposal is issued. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Because the SAC is still considering the issues, the form of the Committee's recommendations is unknown at the present time. However, once the SAC report is written, OSHA will review it and determine whether to proceed with a proposed rule and other actions to protect employees. Quantitative estimates of costs and benefits will be made only after the proposed rule has been drafted. Risks: OSHA has not yet assessed the risks confronting workers exposed to metalworking fluids, although the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has published risk estimates for some of the adverse health effects of interest to the SAC.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Additional Information: The Agency is particularly concerned with the potential impact a metalworking fluids rule would have on small businesses. OSHA has been working closely with the Small Business Administration to reach small employers in order to involve them in the process at the earliest possible time. At least 30 small business interests have been identified to date. The Agency is required to have balanced committee representation and small business is represented on the SAC. Agency Contact: Adam Finkel, Director, Health Standards Programs,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB58 2006. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY SOURCES (LOCKOUT/TAGOUT)(SECTION 610 REVIEW) Priority: Other Significant Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 553; 5 USC 610 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.147 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: As required by section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of Executive Order 12866, OSHA has reviewed the Agency's standard for the protection of employees from exposure to lockout/ tagout hazards, 29 CFR 1910.147, to determine whether the rule should be continued without change or should be amended or rescinded, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, to minimize any significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. After a thorough review of the Agency's experience in enforcing this standard, the available literature, and comments received in connection with this review, OSHA has determined that there is a continued need for the rule, that the rule does not appear to overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other Federal rules or with other State and local rules, and that no technological, economic or other factors have arisen since the rule was published that would necessitate amendment or rescission of the rule at this time. OSHA has also concluded that no change that is consistent with the objectives of the OSH Act can be made to the rule that will further minimize any significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. OSHA will be responding to comments received during this review of the standard by preparing materials to assist employers in complying with the rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3641, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB59 2007. 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 1999.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Ross Eisenbery, Director, Directorate of Policy,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3641, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB60 2008. 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 intends to issue an ANPRM to gather information on the feasibility of fall protection in certain construction processes, such as residential home building, precast concrete operations, and post frame construction. OSHA is preparing to raise a number of issues about 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. These issues will be raised in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, which will be published this year.
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, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S1506, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB62 2009. PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT OF HIGHLY HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 653; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.119 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA is considering two regulatory actions concerning the Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM) standard. One action is to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to address the issue of covering additional reactive chemicals that are not currently covered by PSM. Another action is a proposal to add chemicals that were not included in the OSHA standard but were included in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Risk Management Program (RMP) rule (one part of the RMP rule addresses compliance with the OSHA Process Safety Management rule). OSHA has been asked by representatives of the regulated community to bring its chemical list into closer alignment with the RMP rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3641, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB63 2010. SAFETY STANDARDS FOR SCAFFOLDS USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY-- PART II Priority: Info./Admin./Other Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.450; 29 CFR 1926.451; 29 CFR 1926.452; 29 CFR 1926.453; 29 CFR 1926.454 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: Since the promulgation of a final rule for scaffolds used in construction in August 1996, OSHA has learned of several issues that have arisen under the new standard. The agency is gathering information on scaffolds to address these issues. These issues include: (1) providing access to platforms where decking extends past the ends of the scaffold; (2) changing the minimum width for roof brackets to less than 12 inches; (3) changing the requirements for grounding of the scaffold during welding operations; and (4) requiring the use of scaffold grade planks. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking will raise these issues for informational purposes.
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, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S1506, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB68 2011. 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Ross Eisenbrey, Director, Directorate of Policy,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3641, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB73 2012. COTTON DUST (SECTION 610 REVIEW) Priority: Other Significant Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 (b); 5 USC 553; 5 USC 610 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1043 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA is undertaking a review of its cotton dust standard (29 CFR 1910.1043) in accordance with the requirements of section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of EO 12866. The review will cover the continued need for the rule; the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the rule; the complexity of the rule; the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal rules and to the extent feasible, with State and local rules; and the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the industries affected by the rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Ross Eisenbrey, Director, Directorate of Policy,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3641, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB74
2013. ACCESS AND EGRESS IN SHIPYARDS (PART 1915, SUBPART E) (PHASE I) (SHIPYARDS: EMERGENCY EXITS AND AISLES) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.72; 29 CFR 1915.74; 29 CFR 1915.75; 29 CFR 1915.76 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: In the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate OSHA standards that applied to the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. Shipyard employers have been subject to both the "shipyard" standards and OSHA's general industry standards. This has resulted in inconsistent and contradictory requirements for essentially the same operations. Phase 1 of this project aimed at establishing a vertical standard for shipyard employment and addressed six subparts (Confined Spaces, Welding, Access/Egress, Personal Protective Equipment, Fall Protection and Scaffolding). Proposals on these subparts were issued in November 1988 (53 FR 48092). The remaining subparts were categorized as Phase II of the consolidation project (including general working conditions and fire protection). This action was endorsed by the Shipyard Advisory Committee which was chartered in 1989 to update and consolidate existing shipyard standards. This particular standard will revise the existing shipyard employment standards covering access and egress and will consolidate all related and applicable 29 CFR part 1910 provisions into 29 CFR part 1915. The revision will develop, in part, performance-oriented standards, address current gaps in coverage, address new technology, and eliminate outmoded and redundant provisions. 75,000 workers are potentially exposed to these hazards annually.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AA70 2014. PREVENTION OF WORK-RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 651; 29 USC 652; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657; 33 USC 941; 40 USC 333 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a leading cause of pain, suffering, and disability in American workplaces. Since the 1980's, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has had a number of initiatives related to addressing these problems, including enforcement under the general duty clause, issuance of guidelines for the meatpacking industry, and development of other compliance-assistance materials. Ultimately, the Agency decided that, given the magnitude of the problem, a regulatory approach should be explored to ensure that the largest possible number of employers and employees become aware of the problems and ways of preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. OSHA has examined and analyzed the extensive scientific literature documenting the problem of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, the causes of the problem, and effective solutions; conducted a telephone survey of over 3,000 establishments regarding their current practices to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders; and completed a number of site visits to facilities with existing programs. The Agency has also held numerous stakeholder meetings to solicit input from individuals regarding the possible contents of a standard to prevent work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Agency representatives have delivered numerous outreach presentations to people who are interested in this subject and consulted professionals in the field to obtain expert opinions on the options considered by the Agency. Information obtained from these activities is undergoing Agency review. Options for regulatory action are being developed. The Agency believes that the scientific evidence supports the need for a standard and that the availability of effective and reasonable means to control these hazards has been demonstrated. The criteria that have been developed for setting OSHA priorities support the need to reduce the incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. The Agency is currently developing a proposed rule for ergonomics. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has issued a report evaluating the scientific basis for the relationship of workplace stressors to MSDs. The report concludes that such a relationship exists for many stressors. Statement of Need: OSHA estimates that work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the United States account for over 600,000 injuries and illnesses (34 percent of all lost workdays reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)). These disorders now account for one out of every three dollars spent on workers' compensation. It is estimated that employers spend as much as $20 billion a year on direct costs for MSD-related workers' compensation, and up to five times that much for indirect costs, such as those associated with hiring and training replacement workers. In addition to these monetary effects, MSDs often impose a substantial personal toll on affected workers who can no longer work or perform simple personal tasks like buttoning their clothes or brushing their hair. Scientific evidence associates MSDs with stresses to various body parts caused by the way certain tasks are performed. The positioning of the body and the type of physical work that must be done to complete a job may cause persistent pain and lead to deterioration of the affected joints, tissues, and muscles. The longer the worker must maintain a fixed or awkward posture, exert force, repeat the same movements, experience vibration, or handle heavy items, the greater the chance that such a disorder will occur. These job-related stresses are referred to as "workplace risk factors," and the scientific literature demonstrates that exposure to these risk factors, particularly in combination, significantly increases an employee's risk of developing a work-related musculoskeletal disorder. Jobs involving exposure to workplace risk factors appear in all types of industries and in all sizes of facilities. Musculoskeletal disorders occur in all parts of the body -- the upper extremity, the lower extremity, and the back. An example of the increasing magnitude of the problem involves repeated trauma to the upper extremity, or that portion of the body above the waist, in forms such as carpal tunnel syndrome and shoulder tendinitis. In 1996, employers reported 281,000 repeated trauma cases to the BLS. As a point of comparison, the number of reported cases in this category was only 22,700 in 1981. When the data are adjusted to reflect changes in the size of the employee population, they indicate that such cases have increased more than 7-fold in the last ten years. In industries such as meatpacking and automotive assembly, approximately 10 out of 100 workers report work-related MSDs from repeated trauma each year. The number of work-related back injuries occurring each year is even larger than the number of upper extremity disorders. Industries reporting a large number of cases of back injuries include hospitals and personal care facilities. The evidence OSHA has assembled and analyzed indicates that technologically and economically feasible measures are available to significantly reduce exposures to workplace risk factors and the risk of developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Many companies that have voluntarily implemented ergonomics programs have demonstrated that effective ergonomic interventions are available to reduce MSDs. Many of these interventions are simple and inexpensive, but nevertheless have a significant effect on the occurrence of work- related musculoskeletal disorders. Benefits include substantial savings in workers' compensation costs, increased productivity, and decreased turnover. Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for this proposed rule is a preliminary finding by the Secretary of Labor that workers in workplaces within OSHA's jurisdiction are at significant risk of incurring work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Alternatives: OSHA is considering many different regulatory alternatives. These include variations in the scope of coverage, particularly with regard to industrial sectors, work processes, and degree of hazard. The Agency has also considered various phase-in options related to the size of the facility. The agency is still developing and refining its regulatory alternatives. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Implementation costs of a regulation would include those related to identifying and correcting problem jobs using engineering and administrative controls. Benefits expected include reduced pain and suffering, both from prevented disorders as well as reduced severity in those disorders that do occur, decreased numbers of workers' compensation claims, and reduced lost work time. Secondary benefits may accrue from improved quality and productivity due to better designed work systems. Risks: The data OSHA has obtained and analyzed indicate that employees are at a significant risk of developing or aggravating musculoskeletal disorders due to exposure to risk factors in the workplace. In addition, information from site visits, the scientific literature, the Agency's compliance experience, and other sources indicates that there are economically and technologically feasible means of addressing and reducing these risks to prevent the development or aggravation of such disorders, or to reduce their severity. These data and analyses will be presented in the preamble to any proposed standard published in the Federal Register.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Adam Finkel, Director, Health Standards Programs,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB36 2015. SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS (FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRIES) Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 651; 29 USC 657 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), many of the States, members of the safety and health community, insurance companies, professional organizations, companies participating in the Agency's Voluntary Protection Program, and many proactive employers in all industries have recognized the value of worksite-specific safety and health programs in preventing job-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. The effectiveness of these programs is seen most dramatically in the reductions in job-related injuries and illnesses, workers' compensation costs, and absenteeism that occur after employers implement such programs. To assist employers in establishing safety and health programs, OSHA in 1989 (54 FR 3904) published nonmandatory guidelines that were based on a distillation of the best safety and health management practices observed by OSHA in the years since the Agency was established. OSHA's decision to expand on these guidelines by developing a safety and health programs rule is based on the Agency's recognition that occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities are continuing to occur at an unacceptably high rate; for example, an average of about 17 workers were killed each day in 1997 in occupational fatalities, and this number does not reflect the estimated 50,000 job-related chronic illness deaths believed to occur annually. The safety and health programs required by the proposed rule will include at least the following elements: management leadership of the program; active employee participation in the program; analysis of the worksite to identify serious safety and health hazards of all types; and requirements that employers eliminate or control those hazards in an effective and timely way. In addition, in response to extensive stakeholder involvement, OSHA has, among other things, focused the rule on significant hazards and reduced burdens on small business to the extent consistent with the goals of the OSH Act. Statement of Need: Worksite-specific safety and health programs are increasingly being recognized as the most effective way of reducing job-related accidents, injuries, and illnesses. Many States have to date passed legislation and/or regulations mandating such programs for some or all employers, and insurance companies have also been encouraging their client companies to implement these programs, because the results they have achieved have been dramatic. In addition, all of the companies in OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program have established such programs and are reporting injury and illness rates that are sometimes only 20 percent of the average for other establishments in their industry. Safety and health programs apparently achieve these results by actively engaging front-line employees, who are closest to operations in the workplace and have the highest stake in preventing job-related accidents, in the process of identifying and correcting occupational hazards. Finding and fixing workplace hazards is a cost- effective process, both in terms of the avoidance of pain and suffering and the prevention of the expenditure of large sums of money to pay for the direct and indirect costs of these injuries and illnesses. For example, many employers report that these programs return between $5 and $9 for every dollar invested in the program, and almost all employers with such programs experience substantial reductions in their workers' compensation premiums. OSHA believes that having employers evaluate the job-related safety and health hazards in their workplace and address any hazards identified before they cause occupational injuries, illnesses, or deaths is an excellent example of "regulating smarter," because all parties will benefit: workers will avoid the injuries and illnesses they are currently experiencing; employers will save substantial sums of money and increase their productivity and competitiveness; and OSHA's scarce resources will be leveraged as employers and employees join together to identify, correct, and prevent job-related safety and health hazards. Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary finding by the Secretary of Labor that unacceptably high injury, illness, and fatality rates can be substantially reduced by getting employers to systematically comply with the existing duty to control hazards under sections 5(a)(1) and 5(a)(2) of the OSH Act. Alternatives: In the last few years, OSHA has considered both nonregulatory and regulatory alternatives in the area of safety and health program management. First, OSHA published, in 1989, a set of voluntary management guidelines designed to assist employers to establish and maintain programs such as the one envisioned by the proposed safety and health programs rule. Although these guidelines have received widespread praise from many employers and professional safety and health associations, they have not been adequately effective in reducing job-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses, which have continued to occur at unacceptably high levels. Many of the States have also recognized the value of these programs and have mandated that some or all covered employers establish them; this has led to inconsistent coverage from State to State, with many States having no coverage and others imposing stringent program requirements. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Costs and benefits have not been determined at this time. Risks: Workers in all major industry sectors in the United States continue to experience an unacceptably high rate of occupational fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. In 1996 the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 6.2 million injuries and illnesses occurred within private industry, and in 1997, 6,218 workers lost their lives on the job. There is increasing evidence that addressing hazards in a piecemeal fashion, as employers tend to do in the absence of a comprehensive safety and health program, is considerably less effective in reducing accidents than a systematic approach. Dramatic evidence of the seriousness of this problem can be found in the staggering workers' compensation bill paid by America's employers and employees: approximately $54 billion annually. These risks can be reduced by the implementation of safety and health programs, as evidenced by the experience of OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program participants, who regularly achieve injury and illness rates averaging one-fifth to one- third those of competing firms in their industries. Other benefits of reducing accidents include enhanced productivity, improved employee morale, and reduced absenteeism. Because these programs address all significant job-related hazards -- including those that are covered by OSHA standards as well as those currently addressed by the General Duty Clause -- the proposed rule will be effective in ensuring a systematic approach to the control of long-recognized hazards, such as lead, and emerging hazards, such as lasers and violence in the workplace.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: State Additional Information: A separate rule is being developed for the construction industry (29 CFR 1926). OSHA will coordinate the development of the two rules. Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building, RIN: 1218-AB41 2016. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (PREVENTING OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS: CHROMIUM) Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: In July 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was petitioned for an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium. The Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW) and Public Citizen's Health Research Group (HRG) petitioned OSHA to promulgate an ETS to lower the PEL for chromium (CrVI) compounds to 0.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3) as an eight-hour, time-weighted average (TWA). This represents 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 for "Chromic acid and chromates (as CrO3)." These are measured as chromium (VI) and reported as chromic anhydride (CrO3). The amount of chromium in the compound equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3 of chromium (VI) measured and reported as chromium (VI). This ceiling limit applies to all forms of hexavalent chromium (VI) including chromic acid and chromates, lead chromate, and zinc chromate. The current PEL for chromium (VI) in the construction industry is 100 ug/m3 as a TWA PEL, which also equates to a PEL of 52 ug/m3. HRG and OCAW were unable to persuade the courts to impose legal deadlines on the rulemaking. The major illnesses associated with occupational exposures 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. After reviewing the petition, OSHA denied the request for an ETS and initiated a section 6(b) rulemaking. Work on a proposed rule continues.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Adam Finkel, Director, Health Standards Programs,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB45 2017. 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 discussions with the United Steel Workers of America on a settlement agreement for the general industry standard, OSHA agreed to issue a proposed rule to extend confined-space protection to construction workers appropriate to their work environment. One million construction workers are exposed to the hazards of confined space entry each year. OSHA intends to issue a proposed rule addressing this construction industry hazard in this year.
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, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S1506, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB47 2018. GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS FOR SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915, subpart F Legal Deadline: None Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate the various OSHA shipyard standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. Shipyard employers have been subject to both the "shipyard" standards and OSHA's general industry standards for landside operations. Phase 1 of this project aimed at establishing a vertical standard for shipyard employment and addressed six shipyard employment safety standards (Confined Spaces, Welding, Access/Egress, Personal Protective Equipment, Fall Protection and Scaffolding). Proposals on these subparts were issued in November 1988 (53 FR 48092). The remaining subparts were categorized as Phase II of the consolidation project (including general working conditions and fire protection). This action was endorsed by the Shipyard Advisory Committee, which was chartered in 1989 to update and consolidate existing shipyard standards. The operations that are addressed in this particular rulemaking relate to housekeeping, illumination, sanitation, first aid, and lockout/ tagout. About 75,000 workers are exposed annually to these hazards.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB50 2019. FIRE PROTECTION IN SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT (PART 1915, SUBPART P) (PHASE II) (SHIPYARDS: FIRE SAFETY) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915, supbart P Legal Deadline: None Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate the various OSHA shipyard standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. A shipyard employer is subject to both the "shipyard" standards and OSHA's general industry standards. Phase 1 of this project aimed at establishing a vertical standard for shipyard employment and addressed six shipyard employment safety standards (Confined Spaces, Welding, Access/Egress, Personal Protective Equipment, Fall Protection and Scaffolding). Proposals on these hazards were issued in November 1988 (53 FR 48092). The remaining hazards were categorized as Phase II of the consolidation project (including general working conditions and fire protection in shipyard employment). This action was endorsed by the Shipyard Advisory Committee which was chartered in 1989 to update and consolidate existing shipyard standards. The operations that are addressed in this particular rulemaking relate to fire brigades, fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, detection systems, alarm systems, fire watches, and emergency plans. One hundred thousand workers are potentially exposed to these hazards annually. This proposed standard is being developed using the negotiated rulemaking process.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3641, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB51 2020. PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS (PELS) FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 (b) CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000; 29 CFR 1915.1000; 29 CFR 1917.1(a)(2)(ii); 29 CFR 1918.1(b)(a); 29 CFR 1929.55 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA enforces hundreds of permissible exposure limits (PELs) for toxic air contaminants found in U.S. workplaces. The air contaminant limits were adopted by OSHA in 1971 from recommendations issued by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and the American National Standards Institute. These PELs, which have not been updated since 1971, thus reflect the results of research conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. Since then, much new information has become available that indicates that, in many cases, these early limits are outdated and insufficiently protective of worker health. To correct this situation, OSHA issued a final rule in 1989 (54 FR 2332); it lowered the existing PELs for 212 toxic air contaminants and established PELs for 164 previously unregulated air contaminants. On June 12, 1992 (57 FR 26001), OSHA proposed a rule that would have extended these limits to workplaces in the construction, maritime, and agriculture industries. However, on July 10, 1992, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the 1989 final rule on the grounds that "(1) OSHA failed to establish that existing exposure limits in the workplace presented significant risk of material health impairment or that new standards eliminated or substantially lessened the risk; (2) OSHA did not meet its burden of establishing that its 428 new permissible exposure limits (PELs) were either economically or technologically feasible." The Court's decision forced the Agency to return to the earlier, insufficiently protective limits. OSHA continues to believe that establishing a rulemaking approach that will permit the Agency to update existing air contaminant limits and establish new ones as toxicological evidence of the need to do so becomes available is a high priority. The rulemaking described in this Regulatory Plan entry reflects OSHA's intention to move forward with this process. In determining how to proceed, OSHA is being guided by the OSH Act and the Eleventh District Court decision regarding quantifying the risk and feasibility analyses required to support revised and new air contaminant limits. State-of-the-art risk assessment methodologies will be utilized for both carcinogens and noncarcinogens, and the determinations of feasibility contained in the economic analysis accompanying the proposal will be extensive. OSHA published (61 FR 1947) the candidate substances from which the proposed new PELs for the first update will be chosen: carbon disulfide, carbon monoxide, chloroform, dimethyl sulfate, epichlorohydrin, ethylene dichloride, glutaraldehyde, n-hexane, 2-hexanone, hydrazine, hydrogen sulfide, manganese and compounds, mercury and compounds, nitrogen dioxide, perchloroethylene, sulfur dioxide, toluene, toluene diisocyanate, trimellitic anhydride, and vinyl bromide. The specific hazards associated with the air contaminants preliminarily selected for regulation include cancer, neurotoxicity, respiratory sensitivity, etc. Using the same criteria as those used in the Priority Planning Process, OSHA evaluated each substance: severity of the health effect, the number of exposed workers, toxicity of the substance, uses and prevailing exposure levels of the substance, the potential risk reduction, availability and quality of information useful in quantitative risk assessment to ensure that significant risks are addressed and that workers will experience substantial benefits in the form of enhanced health and safety. Publication of the proposal will allow OSHA to institutionalize a mechanism for updating and extending its air contaminant limits, which will, at the same time, provide added protection to many workers who are currently being overexposed to toxic substances in the workplace. OSHA is also considering supplemental mechanisms proposed by stakeholders to increase the effectiveness of the process. Statement of Need: OSHA has permissible exposure limits for approximately 470 toxic substances, many of which are widely used in industrial settings. These PELs, which were adopted wholesale by OSHA in 1971 and have not been revised since then, often lead to adverse effects when workers are exposed to the contaminants at these levels. In addition, new chemicals are constantly being introduced into the working environment, and exposure to these substances can result in both acute and chronic health effects. Acute effects include respiratory and sensory irritation, chemical burns, and ocular damage; chronic effects include cardiovascular disease, respiratory, liver and kidney disease, reproductive effects, neurological damage, and cancer. For these reasons, it is a high OSHA priority to establish an ongoing regular process that will allow OSHA routinely to update existing PELs and establish limits for previously unregulated substances. The first step in achieving this goal is to publish an air contaminants proposal for a number of substances that will establish streamlined but scientifically sound and defensible procedures for conducting risk assessments and performing feasibility analyses that will permit regular updating and review of permissible exposure limits for air contaminants. The ability to lower existing limits and establish limits for new contaminants is an essential component of OSHA's mandate to protect the health and functional well-being of America's workers. Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed PELs for selected air contaminants is a preliminary determination by the Secretary of Labor that the substances for which PELs are being proposed pose a significant risk to workers and that the new limits will substantially reduce that risk. Alternatives: OSHA has considered a variety of nonregulatory approaches to address the problem of the Agency's outdated exposure limits for air contaminants. These include the issuance of nonmandatory guidelines, enforcing lower limits through the "general duty" clause of the OSH Act in cases where substantial evidence exists that exposure presents a recognized hazard of serious physical harm, and the issuance of hazard alerts. OSHA believes, however, that the problem of overexposure to hazardous air contaminants is so widespread, and the Agency's current limits are so out of date, that only a regulatory approach will achieve the necessary level of protection. The regulatory approach also has advantages for employers, because it gives them the information they need to establish appropriate control strategies to protect their workers and reduce the costs of job-related illnesses. This first phase of an ongoing air contaminants updating and revision process will begin to resolve a problem of long standing and major occupational health import. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The scope of the proposed rule is currently under development and thus quantitative estimates of costs and benefits have not been determined at this time. Implementation costs associated with the proposed standard include primarily those related to identifying and correcting overexposures using engineering controls and work practices. Additional costs may be incurred for the implementation of administrative controls and the purchase and use of personal protective equipment. Estimates of the magnitude of the problem of occupational illnesses, both acute and chronic, vary considerably. In 1989, OSHA concluded that its Air Contaminants rule in general industry, which lowered 212 exposure limits and added 164 where none had previously existed, would result in a reduction of approximately 700 deaths, 55,000 illnesses, and over 23,300 lost- workday illnesses annually. Chronic effects include cardiovascular disease, respiratory, liver and kidney disease, reproductive effects, neurological damage, and cancer. Acute effects include respiratory and sensory irritation, chemical burns, and ocular effects. Risks: Risk assessments for the substances under consideration for this first phase of the air contaminants updating and revision process have not yet been completed.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Additional Information: During the rulemaking, OSHA will meet with small business stakeholders to discuss their concerns, and will conduct an initial Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis to identify any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. Agency Contact: Adam Finkel, Director, Health Standards Programs,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB54 2021. NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TESTING LABORATORIES PROGRAMS: FEES Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 31 USC 9701; 29 USC 653; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.7 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: A number of OSHA standards require that certain products and equipment used in the workplace be tested and certified by a laboratory that has been recognized and accredited by OSHA. Through the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Program OSHA has, to date, recognized 17 laboratories operating 40 sites in the U.S., Canada, and the Far East as NRTLs. OSHA is proposing to revise 29 CFR 1910.7 to allow OSHA to charge fees to NRTLs for services that are provided to the NRTLs. The fees will be computed on the basis of the cost of the services to the Government. In determining the amount of such fees, OSHA will follow the guidelines established by the Office of Management and Budget in Circular Number A-25.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Steven Witt, Director, Directorate of Technical
Support, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3653, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB57 2022. FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 553 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.106 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: This project responds to the President's Executive Memo of June 1998 regarding the use of plain language in Federal regulations. With this project, OSHA is initiating rulemaking that will revise the regulations contained in 29 CFR 1910.106 addressing flammable and combustible liquid storage. The purpose of this rulemaking will be to revise this standard into plain language.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Additional Information: The Flammable and Combustible Liquids Plain Language Revision Project 29 CFR 1910.106 was originally one of four projects listed under RIN 1218-AB55. Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB61 2023. REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATION RECORDS FOR TESTS, INSPECTIONS, AND TRAINING Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will eliminate existing text in the CFR. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333; 33 USC 941 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA is proposing to revoke certain requirements for employers to prepare and maintain records (certification records) which certify that employers have performed certain tests or inspections of equipment or machinery or that the employer has conducted certain training specified in the standards. The purpose of proposing to revoke these certification records is to minimize the paperwork burdens imposed on employers. OSHA preliminarily finds that there will be no reduction in employee safety and health as a result of reducing requirements to fill out and maintain these certification records.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB65 2024. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISION OF THE MECHANICAL POWER-TRANSMISSION APPARATUS STANDARD Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will eliminate existing text in the CFR. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 553 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.219 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA has identified one standard in part 1910 that needs to be revised as part of the President's initiative on Federal regulations discussed in the U.S. Department of Labor Report of June 15, 1995 and to respond to the President's June 1998 Executive Memo on Plain Language. This standard is 29 CFR 1910.219, Mechanical Power- Transmission Apparatus. OSHA intends to issue a plain language rule that will address the following: Mechanical power-transmission apparatus guarding and maintenance.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB66 2025. ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION; ELECTRICAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.136; 29 CFR 1910.137; 29 CFR 1910.269; 29 CFR 1926.97; 29 CFR 1926.950 to 968 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The annual fatality rate for power line workers is over 50 deaths per 100,000 employees. The construction industry standard addressing the safety of these workers during the construction of electric power transmission and distribution lines is over 20 years old. OSHA is developing a revision of this standard that will prevent many of these fatalities, that will add flexibility to the standard, and that will update and streamline the standard. In addition, OSHA intends to amend the corresponding standard for general industry so that requirements for work performed during maintenance of electric power transmission and distribution installations are the same as those for similar work in construction.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB67 2026. SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS FOR CONSTRUCTION Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657; 40 USC 333 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: In response to industry requests and OSHA's Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) recommendation, OSHA has determined that the current safety and health program standards contained in subpart C of the construction standards, 29 CFR 1926, need to be revised to provide construction employers with a more comprehensive set of requirements to assist them in establishing safety and health programs. Safety and health programs have proven to be an effective, systematic method of identifying and correcting existing workplace safety and health hazards, as well as preventing those that might arise in the future. The ACCSH has been working to develop recommendations for OSHA on safety and health programs and training in construction for many years. After its April 1996 meeting, ACCSH began to develop language and concepts to submit to OSHA for consideration as a proposed rule. Over 130 stakeholders representing small, medium and large contractors and host employers and stakeholders (such as petroleum producers; contractor associations; labor unions; other governmental agencies; and non-profit institutions) have participated in these ACCSH discussions. Although OSHA is still developing the details of a new proposed safety and health program standard, the proposal will require employers to set up a program for managing workplace safety and health in order to reduce the incidence of occupational deaths, injuries, and illnesses. The standard will not impose duties on employers to control hazards that they are not already required to control. Instead, the standard will provide a basic framework for systematically identifying and controlling workplace hazards already covered by the OSH Act under section 5(a)(1) and current OSHA standards.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Additional Information: A separate standard is being developed for general industry (29 CFR 1910) and the maritime (29 CFR 1915, 1917 and 1918) industries. Agency Contact: Russell B. Swanson, Director, Directorate Of
Construction,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room S1506, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB69 2027. REQUIREMENT TO PAY FOR PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined 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 which 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 is proposing to revise its PPE standards to clarify who is required to pay for required PPE and under what circumstances. According to the proposal, employers would be required to provide all OSHA-required PPE at no cost to employees, with the following exceptions: the employer would not need to pay for safety-toe protective footwear or prescription safety eyewear if all three of the following conditions are met: (1) the employer permits such footwear or eyewear to be worn off the job-site; (2) the footwear or eyewear is not used in a manner that renders it unsafe for use off the job-site (for example, contaminated safety-toe footwear would not be permitted to be worn off a job-site); and (3) such footwear or eyewear is not designed for special use on the job. Employers are also not required to pay for the logging boots required by 29 CFR 1910.266(d)(1)(v). Statement of Need: OSHA has been issuing health, safety, and construction standards requiring appropriate PPE over a 28-year period. The regulatory language used in OSHA standards has generally clearly stated that the employer must provide PPE and ensure that employees wear it. However, the regulatory language used regarding the employer's obligation to pay for the PPE has varied. OSHA attempted to clarify its position on the issue of payment for required PPE in a compliance memorandum to its field staff dated October 18, 1994. The memorandum stated that it was the employer's obligation to provide and pay for PPE except in limited situations. Very recently, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission declined to accept this interpretation (Secretary of Labor v. Union Tank Car, OSHRC No. 96-0563). The Commission vacated a citation against an employer who failed to pay for OSHA-required PPE, finding that the Secretary had failed to adequately explain the policy outlined in the 1994 memorandum in light of several inconsistent earlier letters of interpretation from OSHA. Therefore, the Agency needs to clarify who is to pay for PPE under what conditions, to eliminate any confusion and unnecessary litigation. Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for this proposed rule is the need to clarify OSHA's intent with regard to the payment for protective equipment required by OSHA standards promulgated under section 6 of the OSH Act. Alternatives: OSHA has considered several alternative approaches to resolving this issue, including leaving this as a labor-management issue, issuing compliance directives to identify what PPE the employer must pay for, or requiring the employer to pay for all PPE. OSHA believes that, in this case, revising the standard to clarify who is to pay for the PPE is the most appropriate way to proceed. It is the only approach that will assure significant public participation in the resolution of this issue, and the codification of that resolution. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: At this stage of rulemaking, the Agency has only preliminary costs and benefits. A survey has been conducted to obtain additional data. Risks: Substantive requirements for protective equipment are impacted by other standards. This proposed rule is designed solely to clarify OSHA's intent as to what protective equipment must be paid for by the employer. Accordingly, no assessment of risk is required for this proposal.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Federal Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB77 2028. CONSULTATION AGREEMENTS Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 670 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1908 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: This proposed amendment to 29 CFR 1908 is intended to provide for full employee involvement in the consultative process in line with the President's directive to enhance worker participation in the 7(c)(1) consultation program (The New OSHA: Reinventing Worker Safety and Health, May 1995).
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Paula O. White, Director, Directorate of Federal State
Operations, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3700, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB79
2029. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION (PROPER USE OF MODERN RESPIRATORS) Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4. Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941; 40 USC 333 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.134; 29 CFR 1915.152; 29 CFR 1918.102; 29 CFR 1926.103 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: In January 1998, OSHA published the final respiratory protection standard, except for the reserved provision on assigned protection factors (APFs). APFs are numbers that estimate the degree of performance of the various classes of respirators. OSHA has developed a statistical model for analyzing available data that will be used to derive APFs. Accordingly, OSHA will request further public comment on the analyses conducted using that model, the ANSI Z88.2-1992 APFs, the NIOSH Respirator Decision Logic APFs and other relevant methods for deriving APFs. This will assure that OSHA receives and fully considers public input before issuing final APFs. OSHA expects to complete the rulemaking on APFs in 1999.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Agency Contact: Adam Finkel, Director, Health Standards Programs,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AA05 2030. STEEL ERECTION (PART 1926) (SAFETY PROTECTION FOR IRONWORKERS) Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 40 USC 333 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.750 (Revision); 29 CFR 1926.751 (Revision); 29 CFR 1926.752 (Revision) Legal Deadline: None Abstract: On December 29, 1992, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced its intention to form a negotiated rulemaking advisory committee to negotiate issues associated with a revision of the existing steel erection standard. The Steel Erection Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (SENRAC), a 20-member committee, was established, and the SENRAC charter was signed by Secretary Reich on May 26, 1994. The primary issues the committee negotiated included the need to expand the scope and application of the existing standard to include construction specifications and work practices, written construction safety erection plans, and fall protection. The Committee met 11 times over an 18-month period and completed work on the draft regulatory text for the proposed steel erection standard on December 1, 1995. The negotiated rulemaking process brought together the interested parties that will be affected by a revision to the steel erection rule. They found common ground on the major issues and developed language for a proposed rule. The use of this process allowed the stakeholders to develop an ownership stake in the proposal that they would not otherwise have had. The process has led to a proposed revision to subpart R of 29 CFR 1926 that contains innovative provisions to help reduce the major causes of steel erection injuries and fatalities. OSHA issued the proposal on August 13, 1998. A public hearing was held from December 1-11, 1998. Statement of Need: In 1989, OSHA was petitioned by the Ironworkers Union and National Erectors Association to revise its construction safety standard for steel erection through the negotiated rulemaking process. OSHA asked an independent consultant to review the issues involved in a steel erection revision, render an independent opinion, and recommend a course of action to revise the standard. The consultant recommended that OSHA address the issues through negotiated rulemaking. Based on the consultant's findings and the continued requests for negotiated rulemaking, OSHA decided to use the negotiated rulemaking process to develop a proposed revision of subpart R. The use of negotiated rulemaking was thought to be the best approach to resolving steel erection safety issues, some of which had proven intractable in the past. Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed steel erection rule is a preliminary finding that workers engaged in steel erection work are at significant risk of serious injury or death as a result of that work. Alternatives: An alternative to using the negotiated rulemaking process was to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking developed by Agency staff. OSHA anticipated that this alternative would result in an extremely long and contentious rulemaking proceeding, with subsequent challenge in the Court of Appeals. Another alternative would be not to revise the Agency's current steel erection rules for construction. This alternative was rejected because it would permit steel erection-related injuries and fatalities to continue. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The estimated annualized compliance costs of the proposal are approximately $50 million per year, and the Agency believes that the benefits of the standard would include the prevention of an estimated 14 fatalities and 824 lost workday injuries per year. Risks: The risk associated with steel erection activities is great. OSHA estimates that 28 workers are killed every year during steel erection activities. Falls are currently the number one killer of construction workers, and since the erection of buildings necessarily involves high exposure to fall hazards, the central focus of this rule will be to eliminate or reduce the risks associated with falls.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Russell B. Swanson, Director, Directorate of
Construction, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S1506, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AA65 2031. SCAFFOLDS IN SHIPYARDS (PART 1915 -- SUBPART N) (PHASE I) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 33 USC 941 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.71 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate the various OSHA standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. Shipyard employers have been subject to both shipyard and general industry standards. Phase 1 of this project aimed at establishing a vertical standard for shipyard employment and addressed six shipyard employment safety standards (Confined Spaces, Welding, Access/Egress, Personal Protective Equipment, Fall Protection and Scaffolding). Proposals on these subparts were issued in November 1988 (53 FR 48092). The remaining subparts were categorized as Phase II of the consolidation project (including general working conditions and fire protection). This action was endorsed by the Shipyard Advisory Committee which was chartered in 1989 to update and consolidate existing shipyard standards. This particular regulatory action will revise the existing shipyard employment standards covering scaffolds and will consolidate all related and applicable 29 CFR part 1910 provisions. It will develop, in part, performance-oriented standards, address current gaps in coverage, and address new technologies.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AA68 2032. RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES (SIMPLIFIED INJURY/ILLNESS RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS) Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 29 USC 657; 29 USC 673 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1904; 29 CFR 1952.4 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA requires employers to keep records of illnesses and injuries. These records are used by OSHA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), among others, to develop data on workplace safety and health by industry and across industries. Over the years concerns about the reliability and utility of these data have been raised by Congress, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the National Academy of Sciences, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Accounting Office, business and labor, as well as BLS and OSHA. In the late 1980's, OSHA contracted with the Keystone Center to bring together representatives of industry, labor, government, and academia in a year-long effort to discuss problems with OSHA's injury and illness recordkeeping system. Keystone issued a report with specific recommendations on how to improve the system. In 1995, OSHA held several meetings with stakeholders from business, labor and government in order to obtain feedback on a draft OSHA recordkeeping proposal and to gather related information. OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the February 2, 1996 Federal Register that contained revised recordkeeping requirements and recordkeeping forms. The original 90-day public comment period was extended another 60 days and ended July 2, 1996. In addition, two public meetings were held in Washington, DC (March 26-29 and April 30-May 1). Over 450 written comments were entered into the Docket R-02, along with 1,200 pages of input derived from nearly 60 presentations given at the public meetings. OSHA is now planning to issue a final rule that incorporates changes based on an analysis of the public comments and testimony. Statement of Need: The occupational injury and illness records maintained by employers are an important component of OSHA's program. The records are used by employers and employees to identify and evaluate workplace safety and health hazards, and they provide OSHA personnel with necessary information during workplace inspections. The records also provide the source data for the Annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses conducted by the BLS. All of these uses of the data are affected by the quality of the records employers maintain. Higher quality data lead to higher quality analyses, which in turn lead to better decisions about occupational safety and health matters. To improve the quality of the records and enhance the utility of the information for all the entities using the data, OSHA needs to provide clearer guidance to employers, simplify the recordkeeping forms and provide employees with access to the information. Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for issuance of this final rule is Section 8(c)(1) of the Act, which requires employers to record and report such records as are necessary for the enforcement of the Act and for developing information on the causes and prevention of occupational accidents and illnesses, as required by regulation and section 24(a) of the Act, which requires OSHA to develop an effective program of occupational safety and health statistics to further the purposes of the Act. Alternatives: One alternative to publication of a final rule is to take no action and continue to administer the injury and illness recordkeeping system using the current regulation, forms and guidelines. Another alternative is to revise the current rule to expand its coverage and scope (i.e., eliminate the current rule's small employer and Standard Industrial Classification exemptions). The first alternative is unacceptable because it does not address the problems with the current system identified by participants in the Keystone dialogue and other OSHA stakeholders. The second alternative is also unacceptable because it would require many employers, especially small-business employers, in low hazard industries to keep OSHA injury and illness data. This could impose a substantial paperwork burden on those employers without commensurate benefit. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The costs and benefits of the final rule have not yet been determined. Risks: Not applicable.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations Government Levels Affected: None Sectors Affected: All Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB24 2033. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISION OF EXISTING STANDARDS (PHASE I) Priority: Other Significant Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 553 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.107; 29 CFR 1910.94(c); 29 CFR 1910.94(d); 29 CFR 1910.35; 29 CFR 1910.36; 29 CFR 1910.37; 29 CFR 1910.38 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted its initial package of workplace safety and health standards in the 1970's. Many of these standards have been identified by the regulated community as being overly complex, difficult to read and follow, and out of date with current technology. OSHA is initiating separate rulemakings to revise two of OSHA's most complex and out-of-date section 6(a) standards. The purpose of these rulemakings is to simplify and clarify these standards and to write them in "plain language," as directed by the President's report and the June 1998 Executive Memorandum on Plain Language. The two standards address means of egress, section 1910.37 and spray finishing using flammable and combustible liquids, section 1910.107. Section 1910.107 also contains substantive ventilation requirements that duplicate ventilation requirements contained in section 1910.94, paragraphs (c) and (d). Statement of Need: These two OSHA standards are being revised as part of the President's initiative on Federal regulations discussed in the U.S. Department of Labor report of June 15, 1995 and in response to the June 1998 Executive Memorandum on Plain Language. Exposure to flammable and combustible liquids during spray applications creates a variety of safety and health problems including thermal burns, chemical burns, smoke inhalation, respiratory inflammations and infections, nausea, dizziness, respiratory allergies, heart disease, lung cancer, decreases in pulmonary function, and other serious injuries and illnesses. In case of an emergency, proper exit routes are needed both to protect employees from being trapped in hazardous work areas and to guide employees to safety. Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for issuing these plain language rules derives from the OSH Act and responds to the Executive Memo issued by the President in June 1998. Alternatives: OSHA has considered two alternatives to rewriting these rules in plain language: (1) leaving the rules unchanged; and (2) initiating a comprehensive revision and updating of these rules. The first alternative has been rejected because it would leave these complex and specification-driven rules in place, a situation that has led to confusion and misinterpretations of the rules. The second alternative -- conducting comprehensive rulemaking -- would take many years, during which the current, poorly-written standards would remain in place. The approach OSHA has taken -- conducting rulemaking for the limited but important purpose of rewriting these rules in plain language -- is the fastest and least resource-intensive approach to address the serious problems presented by these rules. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Because these plain language revisions do not substantively change these rules, no cost impacts are associated with these revisions. Risks: Because these revisions are designed solely to simplify and clarify these standards, no assessment of risks is required.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Additional Information: Means of Egress, 29 CFR 1910 subpart E, and Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials, 29 CFR 1910.107, are two standards selected for revision under a Presidential Initiative to revise outdated, duplicative, or obsolete Federal regulations. These standards will be rewritten in plain language to make them easier to read. 29 CFR 1910.94(c) will be combined with 29 CFR 1910.107 to eliminate duplicative standards. Another plain language initiative, the rewrite of Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 29 CFR 1910.106, has been moved to RIN 1218-AB61. Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB55
2034. LONGSHORING AND MARINE TERMINALS (PARTS 1917 AND 1918) -- REOPENING OF THE RECORD (VERTICAL TANDEM LIFTS (VTLS)) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 33 USC 941; 29 USC 655 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1918.11; 29 CFR 1918.85 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA issued a final rule on Longshoring on July 25, 1997 (62 FR 40142). However, OSHA is considering the issue of vertical tandem lifts. Vertical tandem lifts (VTLs) involve the lifting of two intermodal containers, secured together with twist locks, at the same time. Because some commenters to the record questioned the safety of allowing such tandem lifts and the record does not contain adequate information to allow the Agency to address this issue, OSHA is gathering additional information on this issue.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AA56 2035. GLYCOL ETHERS: 2-METHOXYETHANOL, 2-ETHOXYETHANOL, AND THEIR ACETATES: PROTECTING REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657; 29 USC 651 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000; 29 CFR 1910.1031 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: On May 20, 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report to OSHA, under section 9(a) of the Toxic Substance Control Act, stating that EPA had reasonable basis to conclude that the risk of injury to worker health from exposure to four glycol ethers during their manufacture, processing and use was unreasonable, and that this risk may be prevented or reduced to a significant extent by OSHA regulatory action. EPA gave OSHA 180 days in which to respond to its report. OSHA published its response on December 11, 1986, stating that OSHA had preliminarily concluded that occupational exposures to the subject glycol ethers at the current OSHA permissible exposure limits may present significant risks to the health of workers. OSHA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on April 2, 1987 (52 FR 10586). OSHA used the information received in response to the ANPRM, as well as other information and analysis, and published a proposal, March 23, 1993 (58 FR 15526), that would reduce the permissible exposure limits for four glycol ethers and provide protection for approximately 46,000 workers exposed to these substances. OSHA is working toward promulgation of a final rule in 2000.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Adam Finkel, Director, Health Standards Programs,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3641, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AA84 2036. ACCREDITATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATIONS (PART 1910) Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); PL 101-549 (November 15, 1990); 5 USC 552(a); 5 USC 553 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.121 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499) established the criteria under which OSHA should develop and promulgate the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response standard. OSHA issued an interim final standard on December 19, 1986 (51 FR 45654) to comply with the law's requirements. OSHA issued a permanent final rule for provisions on training to replace this interim rule on March 9, 1989 (29 CFR 1910.120). On December 22, 1987, as part of an omnibus budget reconciliation bill (PL 100-202), Congress amended section 126(d)(3) of SARA to include accreditation of training programs for hazardous waste operations. OSHA issued a proposal on January 26, 1990 (55 FR 2776) addressing this issue. OSHA received public comments following the issuance of the proposal. OSHA also reopened the record in June 1992 to allow additional public comment on an effectiveness of training study that the Agency had conducted. OSHA has also developed nonmandatory guidelines to further address minimum training criteria.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB27 2037. INDOOR AIR QUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1928 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA was petitioned in May 1987 by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), Public Citizen, and the American Public Health Association to issue an emergency temporary standard on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the workplace. In March 1992, OSHA was petitioned by the AFL-CIO to establish workplace IAQ standards. In December 1992, ASH again petitioned for rulemaking on ETS. Every day, more than 20 million American workers face an unnecessary health threat because of indoor air pollution in the workplace. Thousands of heart disease deaths, hundreds of lung cancer deaths, respiratory disease, Legionnaire's disease, asthma, and other ailments are estimated to be linked to this occupational hazard. Further, America's workers are at risk of developing thousands of upper respiratory tract symptoms from indoor air pollutants. EPA estimates that 20 to 35 percent of all workers in modern mechanically ventilated buildings may experience air-quality problems. After reviewing and analyzing available information, OSHA published a proposed rule on April 5, 1994. The proposal would require employers to write and implement indoor air quality compliance plans that would include inspection and maintenance of current building ventilation systems to ensure they are functioning as designed. In buildings where smoking is allowed, the proposal would require designated smoking areas that would be separate, enclosed rooms where the air would be exhausted directly to the outside. Other proposed provisions would require employers to maintain healthy air quality during renovation, remodeling, and similar activities. The provisions for indoor air quality would apply to 70 million workers and more than 4.5 million nonindustrial indoor work environments, including schools and training centers, offices, commercial establishments, health care facilities, cafeterias and factory break rooms. ETS provisions would apply to all 6 million industrial and nonindustrial work environments under OSHA's jurisdiction. OSHA preliminarily estimates that the proposed standard will prevent a substantial number of air-quality related illnesses per year.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Adam Finkel, Director, Health Standards Programs,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB37 2038. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO TUBERCULOSIS Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b) CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1035 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: On August 25, 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was petitioned by the Labor Coalition to Fight TB in the Workplace to initiate rulemaking for a permanent standard to protect workers against occupational transmission of tuberculosis (TB). Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have developed recommendations for controlling the spread of TB in several work settings (e.g., correctional institutions, health-care facilities, and homeless shelters), the petitioners stated that in every recent TB outbreak investigated by the CDC, noncompliance with CDC's TB control guidelines was evident. After reviewing the available information, OSHA preliminarily concluded that a significant risk of occupational transmission of TB exists for some workers and has accordingly issued a proposed rule. OSHA already regulates the exposure to the biological hazard of bloodborne pathogens (e.g., HIV, hepatitis B) under 29 CFR 1910.1030 and believes that development of a TB standard is consistent with the Agency's mission and previous activity. On October 17, 1997, OSHA published its proposed standard for occupational exposure to tuberculosis (62 FR 54160). The proposed rule covers workers in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, correctional facilities, homeless shelters, and certain other work settings where workers are at significant risk of incurring TB infection while caring for their patients and clients or performing certain procedures. The proposed standard would require employers to protect TB-exposed employees by means of infection prevention and control measures that have been demonstrated to be highly effective in reducing or eliminating job- related TB infections. Such measures include procedures for early identification of individuals with infectious TB, isolation of individuals with infectious TB using appropriate ventilation, use of respiratory protection in certain situations, skin testing and training of employees with occupational exposure, and medical management and follow-up after exposure incidents or skin test conversions. The written comment period ended on February 17, 1998. Subsequently, informal public hearings were held in Washington, DC (April 7-17), Los Angeles, CA (May 5-7), New York City, NY (May 19-21) and Chicago, IL (June 2-4). At the end of the hearings a post-hearing comment period was established. The deadline for final summation, briefs and written comments was October 5, 1998. In addition to the public hearings, OSHA consulted with parties outside of the Agency with regard to the proposal. The preliminary Risk Assessment was peer-reviewed by four individuals with specific knowledge in the areas of tuberculosis and risk assessment. In addition, OSHA conducted stakeholder meetings with representatives of relevant professional organizations, trade associations, labor unions, and other groups. The proposal was also reviewed and commented on by affected small business entities under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). In addition, the draft proposed standard and preamble were reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. OSHA is working on a final rule, which is expected in 2000. OSHA will be reopening the rulemaking record for the limited purpose of placing a newly completed survey on homeless shelters, some new studies on respirator fit factors and another document in the record. The Agency will publish a notice in the Federal Register informing the public of the limited reopening and requesting public comment on the Agency submission. Statement of Need: For centuries, TB has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people throughout the world. TB is a contagious disease caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Infection is generally acquired by the inhalation of airborne particles carrying the bacterium. These airborne particles, called droplet nuclei, can be generated when persons with pulmonary or laryngeal tuberculosis in the infectious state of the disease cough, sneeze, speak, or sing. In some individuals exposed to droplet nuclei, TB bacilli enter the alveoli and establish an infection. In most cases, the bacilli are contained by the individual's immune response. However, in some cases, the bacilli are not contained by the immune system and continue to grow and invade the tissue, leading to the progressive destruction of the organ involved. Although in most cases this organ is the lung (i.e., pulmonary tuberculosis), other organs outside of the lung may also be infected and become diseased (i.e., extrapulmonary tuberculosis). From 1953, when active cases began to be reported in the United States, until 1984, the number of annual reported cases declined 74 percent, from 84,304 to 22,255. However, this steady decline in TB cases did not continue. Instead, from 1985 through 1992 the number of reported TB cases increased 20.1 percent. In 1992 more than 26,000 new cases of active TB were reported in the United States. In New York City alone, 3,700 cases of active TB were reported in 1991. While a decrease in active cases has been observed recently, there were still 19,851 reported cases in 1996. A large portion of the decrease occurred in high incidence areas where intervention efforts have been focused. However, over thirteen states showed an increase or no change in the number of reported cases in 1997. In addition, the factors that led to the recent resurgence of TB (e.g., increases in homelessness, HIV infection, immigration from countries with high rates of infection) still exist and the job duties of certain workers require them to be exposed to patients and clients with suspected or confirmed infectious TB. In addition, outbreaks of multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) continue to occur. These strains of TB are resistant to several of the first- line anti-TB drugs. This multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) is often fatal due to the difficulty of halting the progression of the disease. Individuals with MDR-TB often remain infectious for longer periods of time due to delays in diagnosing resistance patterns and initiating proper treatment. This lengthened period of infectiousness increases the risk that the organism will be transmitted to other persons coming in contact with such individuals. Providing health care for individuals with TB increases the risk of occupational exposure among health care workers. In fact, several outbreaks of tuberculosis, including MDR-TB, have occurred in health care facilities, resulting in transmission to both patients and health care workers. CDC found that factors contributing to these outbreaks included delayed diagnosis of TB, delayed recognition of drug resistance, delayed initiation of effective therapy, delayed initiation and inadequate duration of TB isolation, inadequate ventilation in TB isolation rooms, lapses in TB isolation practices, inadequate precautions for cough-inducing procedures, and lack of adequate respiratory protection. CDC analyzed data from three of the health care facilities involved in the outbreaks, and determined that transmission of TB decreased significantly or ceased entirely in areas where recommended TB control measures were implemented. In addition, workers outside of health care may provide services to patient or client populations that have an increased rate of TB. For example, occupational transmission of TB has been documented in correctional facilities. Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed TB standard is a preliminary finding by the Secretary of Labor that workers in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, correctional facilities, homeless shelters, and certain other work settings are at significant risk of incurring TB infection while caring for their patients and clients or performing certain procedures. Alternatives: Prior to a decision to publish a proposal, OSHA considered a number of options, including whether or not to develop an emergency temporary standard, publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, or to enforce existing regulations. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Costs will be incurred by employers for engineering controls, respiratory protection, medical surveillance, training, exposure control, recordkeeping, and work practice controls. Benefits will include the prevention of occupationally-related TB transmissions and infections, and a corresponding reduced risk of exposure among the general population. OSHA estimates that more than 5 million workers are exposed to TB in the course of their work. The Agency estimates that the proposed provisions will result in an annual cost of 245 million dollars. Implementation of the standard is estimated to reduce the number of job-related cases of TB by 70-90 percent in the work settings covered, thus preventing approximately 21,400 to 25,800 work-related infections per year, 1,500 to 1,700 active cases of TB resulting from these infections, and 115 to 136 deaths resulting from these active cases. Risks: From 1985 to 1992, the number of reported cases of TB in the U.S. increased, reversing a previous 30-year downward trend. While there has been a recent decrease in the reported number of cases of TB in the general population, a large part of this decrease can be attributed to focused intervention efforts in areas of high incidence of TB. Thirteen states showed an increase or no change in the number of reported TB cases in 1997, and the factors that contributed to the resurgence continue to exist along with exposure of certain workers to patient and client populations with an increased rate of TB. In addition, outbreaks of multidrug-resistant TB, a more fatal form of the disease, continue to occur. Therefore, employees in work settings such as health care or correctional facilities, who have contact with infectious individuals, are at high risk of occupational transmission. TB is a contagious disease spread by airborne particles known as droplet nuclei. Active disease can cause signs and symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss, fever, night sweats, loss of appetite, persistent cough, and shortness of breath, and may possibly result in serious respiratory illness or death.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal, Federal Additional Information: During the rulemaking, OSHA met with small business stakeholders to discuss their concerns, and conducted an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to identify any significant impacts on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, OSHA conducted a special study of homeless shelters and set aside certain hearing dates for persons who wished to testify on homeless shelter issues. Agency Contact: Adam Finkel, Director, Health Standards Programs,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB46 2039. FIRE BRIGADES Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 653; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.156 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: Firefighting exposes members of fire brigades to a significant risk of harm. To mitigate these risks, OSHA promulgated a standard for fire brigades in 1980. However, the standard is now more than 18 years old, and does not reflect current advances in technology and safety. This action would revise the existing fire brigade standard to reflect the latest technology in safety, particularly with respect to personal protective equipment and emergency procedures. It would also address gaps in coverage since the existing fire brigade standard does not cover wildland fire fighting or crash-rescue type fire fighting. OSHA will be working closely with State Plan States to assess the potential impact of the proposed rule on municipal fire departments.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB64 2040. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO CRYSTALLINE SILICA Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1916; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: Silica exposure remains a serious threat to nearly 2 million U.S. workers, including more that 100,000 workers in high risk jobs such as abrasive blasting, foundry work, stonecutting, rock drilling, quarry work and tunneling. The seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica exposure is demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling illnesses that continue to occur in sandblasters and rock drillers and by recent studies that demonstrate a statistically significant increase in lung cancer among silica-exposed workers. In October 1996, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified crystalline silica as "carcinogenic to humans." Exposure studies indicate that some workers are still exposed to very high levels of silica. Although OSHA currently has a permissible exposure limit for crystalline silica (10mg/m3 divided by the percent of silica in the dust + 2 respirable), more than 30 percent of OSHA-collected silica samples from 1982 through 1991 exceeded this limit. Additionally recent studies suggest that the current OSHA standard is insufficient to protect against silicosis. For example, a recent study concluded that a 45-year exposure under the current OSHA standard would lead to a lifetime risk of silicosis of 35 percent to 47 percent. OSHA plans to publish a proposed rule on crystalline silica because the agency has preliminarily concluded that there will be no significant progress in the prevention of silica-related diseases without the adoption of a full and comprehensive silica standard, including provisions for exposure monitoring, engineering and work practice controls, training and education, respiratory protection, and medical surveillance. A comprehensive standard will improve worker protection, ensure adequate prevention programs, and further reduce the incidence of silica-related diseases. Statement of Need: The current OSHA permissible exposure limit for silica is 10mg/m3 divided by the percent of silica in the dust + 2 (respirable) and 30 mg/m3 divided by the percent of silica in the dust + 2 (total dust). In the interval since this limit was promulgated there have been a number of studies of workers that have estimated that close to 50 percent of workers exposed to silica at the current limit for a 45-year working lifetime would develop silicosis, a disabling, progressive and sometimes fatal disease involving scarring of the lung, coughing, and shortness of breath. There are currently about 300 deaths reported per year from silicosis. However, the actual number of cases and the true risk is unknown due to inadequate case ascertainment, which means that the number of deaths is probably underreported. Also, since the promulgation of OSHA's permissible exposure limit, studies have demonstrated a statistically significant, dose-related increase in lung cancer in several occupational groups. Because of these recent findings, OSHA believes that it will be necessary to conduct a risk assessment to determine whether the current permissible exposure limit is protective of worker health. OSHA also believes that, in addition to the permissible exposure limit, the ancillary provisions, such as engineering controls, provided by a comprehensive standard will be necessary to reduce worker exposure to crystalline silica. Summary of the Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary determination by the Secretary of Labor that exposure to silica at the Agency's current permissible exposure limits poses a significant risk of material impairment of health and that a standard will substantially reduce that risk. Alternatives: OSHA has considered or conducted several programs designed to reduce worker exposure to crystalline silica. The OSHA Special Emphasis Program for Silicosis provides inspection targeting to reduce or eliminate workplace exposures to crystalline silica. The National Campaign to Eliminate Silicosis being conducted by OSHA (in conjunction with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, and the American Lung Association) is an ongoing program involving outreach and education and the dissemination of materials on methods to reduce worker exposure to crystalline silica. Other nonregulatory approaches might include the issuance of nonmandatory guidelines, enforcing lower limits through the "general duty" clause of the OSH Act in cases where substantial evidence exists that exposure presents a recognized hazard of death or serious physical harm, and the issuance of hazard alerts. Although these approaches may be partially effective in reducing worker exposure to crystalline silica and reducing disease risk, OSHA believes that progress in the prevention of silica-related diseases demands the issuance of a comprehensive silica standard. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The scope of the proposed rule is currently under development and thus quantitative estimates of costs and benefits have not been determined at this time. Risks: OSHA has not yet completed an assessment of the risks of exposure to crystalline silica. Other studies have shown risks ranging from 35 to 47 percent among workers exposed over a working lifetime and have additionally identified silica as a potential occupational carcinogen.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Adam Finkel, Director, Health Standards Programs,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB70 2041. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY (LOCKOUT) IN CONSTRUCTION (PART 1926) (PREVENTING CONSTRUCTION INJURIES/FATALITIES; LOCKOUT) Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 40 USC 333 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA issued a general industry rule on September 1, 1989 (54 FR 36644) to address the hazards posed to workers by the failure to control hazardous energy (i.e., the failure to properly lock out or tag out machines and equipment) during repair and servicing activities. OSHA has not yet issued a standard to prevent these accidents during equipment repair and maintenance activities in the construction industry. Four million workers annually may be exposed to this hazard in construction workplaces. As a result OSHA intends to issue a proposal to address this hazard in this industry. Construction sites often do not have effective lockout/tagout procedures to control hazardous energy because of several factors, all associated with the nature of the construction industry. These factors basically relate to the types of machines and equipment found in construction; the makeup of the industry (i.e., employment is relatively "short term," lasting only as long as the length of the current project); multiple employers having different employer/employee relationships are present at the same site; and "in-the-field" maintenance activity is usually temporary.
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, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S1506, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB71 2042. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO BERYLLIUM Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: Beryllium is a lightweight metal that is used for nuclear weapons, for atomic energy, and for metal alloys such as beryllium- copper and beryllium-aluminum. The metal alloys are used in dental appliances, golf clubs, non-sparking tools, wheel chairs, etc. Beryllium is also used in the ceramics industry. The current permissible exposure limits for beryllium are: an 8-hour TWA of 2 ug/ m3; a 5 ug/m3 ceiling concentration not to be exceeded over a 30-minute period; and a 25 ug/m3 maximum peak exposure never to be exceeded. In 1977, OSHA proposed to reduce the 8-hour TWA exposure to beryllium from 2 ug/m3 to 1 ug/m3 based on evidence that beryllium caused lung cancer in exposed workers. A hearing followed the proposal, but a final standard was never published. Since the previous OSHA hearing, NIOSH has updated its studies on beryllium exposed workers. The study results again demonstrate a significant excess of lung cancer among exposed workers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that beryllium is a carcinogen in humans. (Category I) In addition to lung cancer, a new OSHA beryllium standard would address chronic beryllium disease (CBD), a fatal disease involving lung fibrosis and other organ toxicity. Based on several recent studies involving workers employed in the beryllium ceramics industry, in beryllium production, and in Department of Energy facilities, there is now evidence that very low level beryllium exposure (less than 0.5 ug/ m3) may cause CBD. A recent (1997) study from Japan concludes that the level necessary to protect workers from developing CBD cannot exceed 0.01 ug/m3. A new medical surveillance tool is now available that allows for the early detection of workers with CBD prior to any signs of clinical disease or symptoms. Beryllium-sensitized workers convert to CBD at an estimated rate of about 10 percent per year. This "beryllium sensitization test is being used in clinical studies of current and past exposed workers. Recent study results indicate that between 5 percent and 15 percent of beryllium-exposed workers are sensitized and will eventually develop CBD. In 1997, DOE issued interim guidelines to protect beryllium-exposed workers at all DOE facilities. The guidelines include provisions for exposure monitoring, medical surveillance and relocation of beryllium-sensitized workers. The DOE guidelines, however, do not affect workers outside DOE facilities. Thus, OSHA needs to initiate rulemaking to protect beryllium-exposed workers from contracting CBD and lung cancer.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Adam Finkel, Director, Health Standards Programs,
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB76 2043. CONSOLIDATION OF RECORDS MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS IN OSHA STANDARDS Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will eliminate existing text in the CFR. Legal Authority: 40 USC 333; 29 USC 655; 33 USC 941; 5 USC 553 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915 to 1918; 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1928 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA is initiating a rulemaking to simplify and consolidate many of its requirements for employers to maintain records of training, testing, medical surveillance, and other activities conducted to comply with OSHA health and safety standards. These records maintenance requirements appear in many OSHA standards and are codified at 29 CFR 1910 (General Industry), 29 CFR 1915-1918 (Maritime), 29 CFR 1926 (Construction), and 29 CFR 1928 (Agriculture). The final rule, when published, will facilitate compliance with these requirements and reduce the amount of paperwork associated with these records, but will leave employee protections unchanged.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB78 2044. WALKING WORKING SURFACES AND PERSONAL FALL PROTECTION SYSTEMS (1910) (SLIPS, TRIPS AND FALL PREVENTION) Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined. Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined Reinventing Government: This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline requirements. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 (b) CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910, subpart D Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA has had under consideration standards for walking working surfaces and personal fall protection systems. OSHA is analyzing the record to determine if it is appropriate to repropose the standard or issue a final rule based on the existing record.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB80
2045. POWERED INDUSTRIAL TRUCK OPERATOR TRAINING (INDUSTRIAL TRUCK SAFETY TRAINING) Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801. Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 33 USC 941; 40 USC 333 CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.178; 29 CFR 1915.120; 29 CFR 1917.1; 29 CFR 1918.1; 29 CFR 1926.602 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: Operation of powered industrial trucks, such as forklifts, is one of the leading causes of fatalities in the private sector. On average, there are 110 fatalities and 95,000 injuries annually in the workplace from this cause. The former standard has proven to be ineffective in reducing the number of accidents involving powered industrial trucks. As a result, there has been strong interest that OSHA issue a new standard to more effectively address this hazard. OSHA has revised the former standard to increase its effectiveness by requiring, in performance language, initial and refresher training and evaluation as necessary. The frequency of the refresher training is based upon the vehicle operator's knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the job safely. OSHA also states in the revised rule what information the training should include. This rule applies to general industry, the maritime industries and construction.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Additional Information: The final rule will prevent an estimated 11 deaths and 9500 injuries per year. Compliance with the new rule is required by November 11, 1999. Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB33 2046. PERMIT REQUIRED CONFINED SPACES (GENERAL INDUSTRY: PREVENTING SUFFOCATION/EXPLOSIONS IN CONFINED SPACES) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b) CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.146 Legal Deadline: None Abstract: OSHA issued a final standard governing employee entry into confined spaces in general industry on January 14, 1993 (58 FR 4462). The standard was challenged by a number of parties including the United Steelworkers of America. OSHA reached a settlement agreement with the Steelworkers in June 1994. As part of this settlement agreement, OSHA issued a proposal on November 28, 1994 (59 FR 60735), to clarify paragraph (k) of the rule, Rescue and Emergency Services. OSHA also proposed to allow more flexibility in the point of retrieval line attachment and asked whether the standard should provide affected employees or their representatives with the opportunity to observe the evaluation of confined spaces, including atmospheric testing, and to have access to evaluation results. Hearings were held September 27-28 1995. The post-hearing comment period ended on December 20, 1995. In February 1996, the record was closed. The final rule was issued on December 1, 1998 (63 FR 66018).
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: None Agency Contact: Marthe B. Kent, Director, Directorate of Safety
Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building,
Washington, DC 20210 RIN: 1218-AB52 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Federal Registers - Table of Contents |
 Back to Top |
www.osha.gov | www.dol.gov |
Contact Us | Freedom of Information Act | Customer Survey Privacy and Security Statement | Disclaimers |
||
| Occupational Safety & Health Administration 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210 |
||
