Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1892. STANDARDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON METALWORKING FLUIDS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Legal Authority: Section 6(b)(1) and 7(b) of the OSH Act; 29 USC 655(b)(1); 29 USC 656(b)

CFR Citation: Not yet determined

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In December 1993, the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) petitioned OSHA to take emergency regulatory action to protect workers from the risks of occupational cancers and respiratory illnesses due to exposure to metalworking fluids. In July 1994, 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 December 1995 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 a rulemaking for metalworking fluids. In May 1996, 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 intends to establish a 15-member SAC to make recommendations regarding a proposed rule for occupational exposure to metalworking fluids under Sections 6(b)(1) and 7(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Committee is required to have 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.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations

Government Levels Affected: None

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 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 will be represented on the SAC.

Agency Contact: Adam M. Finkel, Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210

Phone: 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB58

1893. CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY SOURCES (LOCKOUT/TAGOUT) (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority: Info./Admin./Other

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1047

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The standard will be reviewed to determine impacts on small entities in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 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.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Marthe Kent, Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3627, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-4690 Fax: 202 219-4383

RIN: 1218-AB59

1894. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ETHYLENE OXIDE (SECTION 610 REVIEW)

Priority: Info./Admin./Other

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1047

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA will be undertaking a review of the ETO standard in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and EO 12866. The review will consider the continued need for 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.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Marthe Kent, Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-4690 Fax: 202 219-4383

RIN: 1218-AB60

1895. * FIRE BRIGADES

Priority: Other Significant

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.156

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Fighting fires as members of fire brigades presents a significant risk of harm to employees. To mitigate these risks, OSHA promulgated a standard for fire brigades in 1980. However, the standard is now over 16 years old and does not reflect current advances in technology and safety. Consequently, the existing fire brigade standard would be revised to reflect the latest technology in safety, particularly with respect to personal protective equipment and emergency procedures. Gaps in coverage would also be addressed since the existing fire brigade standard does not cover wildland fire fighting or crash-rescue type fire fighting. Additionally, the fire brigade standard would be revised to better interface with the OSHA Hazardous Waste operations and Emergency Response Standard. The revision to the fire brigade standard would be initiated using the Negotiated Rulemaking process.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John F. Martonik, Acting 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 Phone: 202 219-8061 Fax: 202 219-7477 Email: jmartonik@dol.gov

RIN: 1218-AB64

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1896. STEEL ERECTION (PART 1926) (SAFETY PROTECTION FOR IRONWORKING)

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, and was recently re-chartered for a 2-year period. Four of the primary issues the committee has negotiated include the need to expand the scope and application of the existing standard, 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 has been successful in bringing together the interested parties that will be affected by the proposed revision to the steel erection rule to work out contrasting positions, find common ground on the major issues, and develop language for a proposed rule. The use of this process and a neutral facilitator allowed the stakeholders to develop an ownership stake in the proposal that they would not have had without the use of this process. The process has led to a draft revision to subpart R of 29 CFR 1926 that contains innovative provisions that will help to minimize the major causes of steel erection injuries and fatalities. Many of these provisions could not have been developed without this process, which has brought together industry experts, via face-to-face negotiations, to discuss different approaches to resolving the issues. This process has proved mutually beneficial to all the parties involved (including OSHA), with each Committee member participating in resolving the issues and developing practical and effective rules to make the steel erection industry safer. The Agency benefitted from this process by having industry members participate and add to the Agency's knowledge about steel erection. Also, the Agency has been able to work together constructively with the various parties and has avoided the adversarial environment that sometimes develops during OSHA rulemaking. The negotiated rulemaking process will enable the Agency to publish a proposal and go from proposal to final rule more quickly and with less controversy than would otherwise have been possible.

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., Rm N3306, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8644

RIN: 1218-AA65

1897. SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS (FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY)

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1928

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 17 workers were killed each day in 1995 in occupational fatalities. Although the precise scope of the standard (e.g., what industries will be covered, what sizes of firms will be covered) has not yet been determined, the safety and health programs contained in 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. OSHA is also developing a program evaluation directive and a program evaluation profile to be used by compliance officers to evaluate the completeness and effectiveness of an employer's safety and health program. Employers who have effective programs will receive penalty reductions for any cited violations found by the compliance officer. OSHA believes that the effect of these enforcement initiatives, coupled with the regulatory requirements of the safety and health programs rule, will act as incentives to employers to establish safety and health programs that protect workers, enhance productivity, and decrease employer costs. In addition, in response to extensive stakeholder involvement, OSHA has, among other things, focused the rule on serious hazards, deleted required medical surveillance, and reduced burdens on small business.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Additional Information: Separate standards are being developed for the construction (29 CFR 1926) and the maritime (29 CFR 1915, 1917 and 1918) industries, which are being coordinated with this standard.

Agency Contact: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB41

1898. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO TUBERCULOSIS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

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 has preliminarily concluded that significant risk of occupational transmission of TB does exist for some workers and has decided to initiate a standard 6(b) rulemaking. The Agency is currently developing a proposed rule which would require certain employers to take steps to eliminate or minimize employee exposure to TB. OSHA already regulates 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. OSHA is currently pursuing a dialog with parties outside of the Agency with regard to the developing proposal. The draft preliminary Risk Assessment has been peer-reviewed by four individuals with specific knowledge in the areas of tuberculosis and risk assessment. One reviewer is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and three are from academia. In addition, OSHA has conducted stakeholder meetings with representatives of relevant professional organizations, trade associations, labor unions, and other groups. These meetings provided the opportunity for both general and frontline stakeholder representatives to present OSHA with their individual comments, observations, and concerns about the contents of the draft proposal. The draft proposal has also been reviewed and commented on by affected small business entities under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: During the rulemaking, OSHA will meet with small business stakeholders to discuss their concerns, and will conduct an initial Regulatory Flexibility 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 Phone: 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB46

1899. CONFINED SPACES FOR CONSTRUCTION (PART 1926) (CONSTRUCTION: PREVENTING SUFFOCATION/EXPLOSIONS IN CONFINED SPACES)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is 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 1926.36

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In January 1993, OSHA issued a general industry rule on preventing suffocation/explosions in confined spaces (58 FR 4462). 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 the protection to construction workers, appropriate to their work environment. 1,000,000 construction workers are exposed to this hazard annually.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Russell B. Swanson, Director, Construction Standards, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3306, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8644

RIN: 1218-AB47

1900. GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS IN SHIPYARDS (PART 1915, SUBPART F) (PHASE II) (SHIPYARDS: GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS)

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); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.1 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.31 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.91 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.111 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.131 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.161 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.171 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.181; 29 CFR 1910.13 et seq; 29 CFR 1910.14; 29 CFR 1910.15; 29 CFR 1910.95; 29 CFR 1910.96; 29 CFR 1910.97; 29 CFR 1910.141; ...

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate the varying OSHA shipyard standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. A shipyard employer has been subject to both the "shipyard" standards and OSHA's general industry standards for landside operations. This has sometimes resulted in inconsistent. and contradictory requirements for essentially the same operation. Phase 1 of this project aimed at establishing a truly vertical standard for shipyard employment and addressed six subparts of 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 work practices and fire safety). 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 rulemaking relate to housekeeping, illumination, sanitation, first aid, and lockout/tagout. About 75,000 workers are exposed annually to these hazards.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB50

1901. FIRE PROTECTION IN SHIPYARD EMPLOYMENT (PART 1915, SUBPART P) (PHASE II) (SHIPYARDS: FIRE SAFETY)

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); 33 USC 941

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1915.1 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.31 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.91 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.111 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.131 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.161 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.171 et seq; 29 CFR 1915.181; 29 CFR 1910.13 et seq; 29 CFR 1910.14; 29 CFR 1910.15; 29 CFR 1910.95; 29 CFR 1910.96; 29 CFR 1910.97; 29 CFR 1910.141; ...

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate the varying OSHA shipyard standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, ship repair, and shipbreaking industry. A shipyard employer was subject to both the "shipyard" standards that and OSHA's general industry standards. This sometimes resulted in inconsistent, and contradictory requirements for essentially the same operation. Phase 1 of this project aimed at establishing a truly vertical standard for shipyard employment and addressed six subparts of 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 work practices and fire safety). 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 rulemaking relate to fire brigades, fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems, detection systems, alarm systems, fire watches, and emergency plans. 100,000 workers are potentially exposed to these hazards annually. This will be addressed using the negotiated rulemaking process.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB51

1902. PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS (PELS) FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655 (b)

CFR Citation: Not yet determined

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA enforces hundreds of permissible exposure limits (PELs) for toxic air contaminants found in U.S. workplaces. These PELs set OSHA-enforceable limits on the magnitude and duration of employee exposure to each contaminant. The amount of exposure permitted by a given PEL depends on the toxicity and other characteristics of the particular substance. OSHA's PELs for air contaminants are codified in 29 CFR 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3. The air contaminant limits were adopted by OSHA in 1971 from existing national consensus standards 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 most cases, these early limits are outdated and insufficiently protective of worker health. To correct this situation, OSHA published a proposal in 1988 updating the air contaminant limits in general industry. That proposal became a final rule in 1989 (54 FR 2332); it lowered the existing PEL 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 to vacate the rule 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 the extent of the risk and feasibility analyses required to support revised and new air contaminant limits. The Agency will rely on a risk-based prioritization system to identify those air contaminants that present significant risks to exposed employees and for which technologically and economically feasible controls exist. 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 substances selected for proposed new PELs for the first update of the air contaminants rule: 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. As in the Priority Planning Process, OSHA evaluated each substance using the following criteria: 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.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: State, Federal

Additional Information: During the rulemaking,OSHA will meet with small business stakeholders to discuss their concerns, and will conduct an initial Regulatory Flexibility 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 Phone: 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB54

1903. REVISION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS PROMULGATED UNDER SECTION 6(A) OF THE WILLIAMS-STEIGER OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970

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 1910.106; 29 CFR 1910.107; 29 CFR 1910.108; 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 from various nationally recognized consensus standards and from standards that had already been promulgated by other Federal agencies. These standards reflected technologies that were current at the time the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) became law. Section 6(a) of the Act permitted OSHA to adopt nationally recognized consensus standards, developed by groups such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and existing Federal standards for use as OSHA standards without public participation or public comment. OSHA refers to the standards it adopted under section 6(a) of the Act as "6(a) standards." Since their adoption, many of these 6(a) standards have been identified by the regulated community as being overly complex, difficult to read and follow, and out of date with current technology.

This project is part of a Presidential initiative to respond to the general criticism concerning the complexity and obsolescence of certain Federal regulations. OSHA believes that some of the Agency's section 6(a) standards in subpart E and subpart H of part 1910 meet the criteria for critical review set forth in the Presidential initiative. OSHA has identified the means of egress standard from subpart E and two standards from subpart H that need to be revised and updated to eliminate their complexity and obsolescence. These standards include 29 CFR 1910, subpart E - Means of Egress, 29 CFR 1910.107, Spray Finishing using flammable and combustible materials; and 29 CFR 1910.108, Dip Tanks Containing flammable or combustible materials.

With this project, OSHA is initiating three separate rulemakings that will revise and update three of OSHA's most complex and out-of-date section 6(a) standards. These specific sections address means of egress (exit routes), spray finishing using flammable and combustible liquids; and dip tanks containing flammable and combustible liquids. The regulations contained in 29 CFR 1910.35 through 1910.38, 1910.107, and 1910.108 have long been noted by labor, management, and government for their complexity, duplicative nature, and obsolescence. 29 CFR 1910.107 and 1910.108 also contain substantive ventilation requirements that are duplicative with ventilation requirements contained in 29 CFR 1910.94, paragraphs (c) and (d). OSHA intends to issue two separate proposals individually addressing 29 CFR 1910.107 and 1910.94(c); 29 CFR 1910.108 and 1910.94(d); and continue work on a final rule for means of egress 29 CFR 1910.35 through 1910.38 The purpose of these rulemakings will be to solicit public participation in the revision and updating of these standards to current levels of technology. It is also the purpose of the rulemakings to eliminate the complexity, duplicative nature, and obsolescence of the current existing standards and to write them in "plain language," as directed by the President's report.

Small Entities Affected: None

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Additional Information: Means of Egress, 29 CFR 1910 subpart E, Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials, 29 CFR 1910.107, Dip Tanks Containing Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 29 CFR 1910.108 are three standards selected for revision and updating under a Presidential Initiative to revise and update outdated, duplicative, or obsolete federal regulations. They will also be formatted to make them easier to read. 29 CFR 1910.94(c) will be combined with 29 CFR 1910.107 to eliminate duplicative standards, as will 29 CFR 1910.94(d) and 29 CFR 1910.108. Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 1910.106, has been moved to RIN 1218-AB61.

Agency Contact: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061 Fax: 202 219-7477

RIN: 1218-AB55

1904. 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 is part of a presidential initiative to respond to the general criticism concerning the complexity and obsolescence of certain Federal regulations. With this project, OSHA is initiating rulemaking that will revise and update the regulations containing in 29 CFR 1910.106 addressing flammable and combustible liquid storage. The purpose of this rulemaking will be to solicit public participation in the revision and updating of this standard to current levels of technology. It is also the purpose of the rulemaking to eliminate the complexity, duplicative nature, and obsolescence of the current existing standard and to write it in "plain language" as directed by the President's report.

Small Entities Affected: None

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: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3605, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061 Fax: 202 219-7477

RIN: 1218-AB61

1905. * PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT OF HIGHLY HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

Priority: Other Significant

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.119

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: The notice proposes to make corrections and technical amendments to the final rule on Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, published in the Federal Register on February 24,1992, at 57 FR 6356. In addition, it proposes to modify the final rule by adding certain chemicals included in the Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Management Program but not in the OSHA final rule. OSHA has been requested to bring its chemical list into closer alignment with the Environmental Protection Agency's program. The notice also will request information from the public regarding certain issues that have arisen since the standard became effective in 1992.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: Chappell D. Pierce, Director, Office of Fire Protection Engineering, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3609, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-7216

RIN: 1218-AB63

1906. * REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATION RECORDS FOR TESTS, INSPECTION, AND TRAINING

Priority: Other Significant

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

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

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 does not believe there will be any reduction in employee safety and health as a result of reducing requirements to fill out paperwork.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John F. Martonik, Acting Director, Directorate of Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building, Washington, DC 202l0 Phone: 202 219-8061 Fax: 202 219-7477 Email: jmartonik@dol.gov

RIN: 1218-AB65

1907. * REVISION OF CERTAIN STANDARDS PROMULGATED UNDER SECTION 6(A) OF THE WILLIAMS-STEIGER ACT (PHASE II)

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 two standards from part 1910 that need to be revised and updated to eliminate their complexity and obsolescence as part of the President's initiative on Federal regulations discussed in the U.S. Department Labor Report of June 15, 1995. These standards include 29 CFR 1910.219. Mechanical Power-Transmission Apparatus and 29 CFR 1910. Subpart P, Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment. OSHA intends to issue two separate rules that will address the following specific sections: Mechanical power-transmission apparatus guarding and maintenance and hand and portable powered tools guarding, use and maintanence. These rules, which are codified at 29 CRF 1910.219 and Part 1910, Subpart P have long been criticized by labor, management, and Government for their complexity, duplicative nature, and obsolescence.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John F. Martonik, Acting 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 Phone: 202 219-8061 Fax: 202 219-7477 Email: jmartonik@dol.gov

RIN: 1218-AB66

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1908. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION (PROPER USE OF MODERN RESPIRATORS)

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(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.134; 29 CFR 1915.152; 29 CFR 1918.102; 29 CFR 1926.103

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: During the 1980s, OSHA issued an ANPRM on respirators to address 6,850-11,000 cancer fatalities and 66,500 illnesses occurring annually. Existing standards had been in place for more than 20 years and did not take into consideration the current state-of-the-art for respiratory protection. In addition, the general industry standard for respirators contains redundancies and includes several advisory provisions which should be eliminated or changed. OSHA reviewed the current standards and issued a proposal to modernize the requirements on November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58884). In developing the proposal, OSHA worked closely with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). On April 17, 1995 (60 FR 19162), OSHA extended the comment period until May 15, 1995. On May 25, 1995 (60 FR 27707), OSHA published a notice to schedule a technical panel discussion on assigned protection factors as part of the pending rulemaking hearing. Hearings began on June 6, 1995 and ended on June 20, 1995. The post-hearing comment period ended on September 20, 1995. On November 7, 1995 OSHA reopened the record of the rulemaking (60 FR 56127) for the purpose of receiving comments on OSHA's scientific methodology for the development of Assigned Protection Factors (APF), referred to as the "Nicas Report". OSHA extended the comment period on the Nicas Report (61 FR 1725) to January 29, 1996.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Federal

Agency Contact: Adam Finkel, Director, Health Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Rm N3718, FP Bldg., Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AA05

1909. SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR LONGSHORING (PART 1918) AND MARINE TERMINALS (PART 1917) (SHIPYARDS: PROTECTING LONGSHORING WORKERS)

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 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; 33 USC 941 Longshore and Harborworkers Compensation Act

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.16; 29 CFR 1918 (Revision); 29 CFR 1917 (Revision and Corrections)

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Current longshoring standards have been in place since 1960. The language in many instances addresses the hazards of cargo handling involving methods long since abandoned and fails to address the serious hazards of newer methods. Since much of the current standard is out-of-date, there are problems with compliance. Settlement agreements following the 1983 Marine Terminal standard (49 FR 30886) identified problems with OSHA's existing longshoring standard. Also, the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and the National Maritime Safety Association requested revisions to the current standard. On June 6, 1994, (59 FR 28594) OSHA issued a proposal to address the 18 fatalities and 7,593 injuries occurring annually. The proposed revised requirements will provide both employers and employees with a blueprint for modern, effective, and safe work practices in the cargo handling industry. OSHA held public hearings on this proposal and the record closed 4/30/95.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: None

Sectors Affected: 44 Water Transportation

Agency Contact: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605 FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA56

1910. ACCESS AND EGRESS IN SHIPYARDS (PART 1915, SUBPART E) (PHASE I) (SHIPYARDS: EMERGENCY EXITS AND AISLES)

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); 33 USC 941

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

Legal Deadlin: None

Abstract: In the 1980s, OSHA embarked on a project to update and consolidate the varying OSHA standards standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. A shipyard employer has been subject to both the "shipyard" standards nd OSHA's general industry standards. This has sometimes resulted in consistent, and sometimes contradictory, requirements for essentially the same operation.

Phase 1 of this project aimed at establishing a truly vertical standard for shipyard employment and addressed six subparts (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 work practices and fire safety). This action is 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.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA70

1911. GLYCOL ETHERS: 2-METHOXYETHANOL, 2-ETHOXYETHANOL, AND THEIR ACETATES: PROTECTING REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1000

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 has reasonable basis to conclude that the risk of injury to worker health from exposure to four glycol ethers during their manufacture, processing and use is 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 the substances.

Small Entities Affected: 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., Rm N3718, FP Bldg., Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AA84

1912. WALKING WORKING SURFACES AND PERSONAL FALL PROTECTION SYSTEMS (PART 1910) (SLIPS, TRIPS, AND FALL PREVENTION)

Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is 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 1910.21; 29 CFR 1910.22; 29 CFR 1910.23; 29 CFR 1910.24; 29 CFR 1910.25; 29 CFR 1910.26; 29 CFR 1910.27; 29 CFR 1910.28; 29 CFR 1910.29; 29 CFR 1910.30; 29 CFR 1910.31; 29 CFR 1910.32; 29 CFR 1910.128; 29 CFR 1910.129; 29 CFR 1910.130; ...

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Standards for walking and working surfaces and personal fall protection systems will be issued concurrently as a final rule. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) existing standards for walking and working surfaces need to be revised because they are out of date and limit technological innovation in the means employers can use to comply. The final rule is performance-oriented, written in plain language, and flexible in the means of compliance permitted. In addition, OSHA's existing standards do not contain criteria for personal fall protection systems. Consequently, requirements containing criteria for such systems will be added to 29 CFR part 1910, subpart I, Personal Protection Equipment, to enhance employee protection from injury and death due to falls to different elevations.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Additional Information: Because RINs 1218-AB05 and 1218-AA48 will be issued concurrently, they have been combined under this RIN 1218-AB04.

Agency Contact: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FP Bldg., Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB04

1913. 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: Over the years, concerns about the reliability and utility of injury and illness data derived from the employer-maintained OSHA records have been raised by Congress, NIOSH, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the National Academy of Sciences, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Accounting Office, business, and labor, as well as OSHA. In the late 1980s, to facilitate national policy dialogues, OSHA brought 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. Despite this effort, a regulatory revision was not formally begun. Early last year OSHA initiated an intensified effort to revive the revision process. Several meetings were again held with stakeholders from business, labor, and government in order to obtain feedback on a draft OSHA recordkeeping proposal and to gather related information. As a result of these efforts, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the February 2, 1996 Federal Register that contained revised recordkeeping requirements, new recordkeeping forms, and new interpretive material. The stated goals of the NPRM are to improve the Nation's injury and illness statistics, simplify the injury and illness recordkeeping system, and reduce the burden of the new rule on employers. Benefits will include: (1) a system that is more compatible with modern computer technology and is easier for employers, employees and government to use; (2) more reliable and useful records; (3) for the first time, comprehensive injury and illness records for construction sites; and (4) greater employee involvement in and awareness of safety and health matters. The original 90-day public comment period was extended another 60 days and ended July 1, 1996. In addition, two public meetings were held in Washington, DC (March 26-29 and April 30-May 1). Over 450 sets of comments were entered into Docket R-02, along with 1200 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 upon an analysis of the comments and testimony received during the public comment period discussed above.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations

Government Levels Affected: None

Sectors Affected: All

Agency Contact: Stephen A. Newell, Director, Office of Statistics, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3507, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-6463

RIN: 1218-AB24

1914. POWERED INDUSTRIAL TRUCK OPERATOR TRAINING (INDUSTRIAL TRUCK SAFETY TRAINING)

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)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.178; 29 CFR 1915.120; 29 CFR 1917.43; 29 CFR 1918.77; 29 CFR 1926.602

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Operation of powered industrial trucks, such as forklifts, is the second leading cause of fatalities in the private sector, behind only highway vehicle fatalities. On average, there are 107 fatalities and 38,330 injuries annually in the workplace. The present standard has proven to be ineffective in reducing the number of accidents involving powered industrial trucks. As a result, there has been strong Congressional interest that OSHA issue a new standard to more effectively address this hazard. OSHA intends to revise the present standard to increase its effectiveness by requiring, in performance language, initial and refresher training as necessary. The frequency of the refresher training will be based upon the ability of the vehicle operator to retain the knowledge, skills and abilities to perform the job safely. OSHA will also give guidance as to what information the instruction should include. There will also be other amendments to the standard to increase its effectiveness. This proposal, if adopted, would apply to general industry, the maritime industries and construction.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: Undetermined

Agency Contact: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB33

1915. ABATEMENT VERIFICATION (HAZARD CORRECTION)

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 657; 29 USC 658; 5 USC 553

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1903

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: A critical element of OSHA's comprehensive enforcement strategy under the Occupational Safety and Health Act is assurance that employers have abated cited hazards. A May 1991, General Accounting Office report entitled, "Options to Improve Hazard-Abatement Procedures in the Workplace," pointed out deficiencies in OSHA's abatement verification procedures and how they could be improved. The Department of Labor Inspector General, as well as OSHA's internal audits, also identified similar problems. Currently, unless an employer voluntarily complies with OSHA's request to submit documentation, OSHA has no regulation to require employers to submit proof of hazard abatement. From 1972 to the present, OSHA has implemented several administrative measures to induce employers to provide abatement documentation, but at least 30 percent of cited employers still do not voluntarily do so. OSHA's April 19, 1994, proposal (29 FR 18508) would require cited employers to provide hazard abatement documentations. The NPRM addressed the kinds of evidence to be required, what notice to employees is needed, certification forms for compliance, and other questions. Work on the final regulation is continuing.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: State, Federal

Agency Contact: Raymond E. Donnelly, Director, General Industry Compliance Assistance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3119, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8041

RIN: 1218-AB40

1916. PERMIT REQUIRED CONFINED SPACES (GENERAL INDUSTRY: PREVENTING SUFFOCATION/ EXPLOSIONS IN CONFINED SPACES)

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)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.146

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA issued a final standard on preventing suffocations/ explosions in confined spaces in general industry on January 14, 1993 (58 FR 4462). OSHA reached a settlement agreement with the United Steelworkers of America in June 1994. As part of this settlement agreement, OSHA issued a proposal on November 28, 1994 (59 FR 60735) proposing revisions to paragraph (k) of the existing rule, Rescue and Emergency Services, to clarify the standard. OSHA also proposed to allow more flexibility in the point of a retrieval line attachment. OSHA also asked whether the standard should have provisions to 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.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB52

1917. ELIMINATING AND IMPROVING REGULATIONS

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 653; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657; 40 USC 333

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA has made a continuing effort to eliminate confusing, outdated, and duplicative regulations. In 1978 and again in 1984, the Agency conducted comprehensive revocation and revision projects that resulted in the elimination of hundreds of unnecessary rules. OSHA developed a list of standards it proposes to revoke or revise. These standards were deemed to be out of date, duplicative, inconsistent with other OSHA standards, or preempted by the regulations of other Federal agencies. The agency began this process with an administrative notice (62 FR 9228, March 7, 1996). This document contained non-substantive changes to standards which the Agency believed were unnecessary or ineffective in protecting worker health or safety. The Agency followed up this effort by issuing two proposals addressing substantive changes.

Small Entities Affected: None

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB53

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

1918. SCAFFOLDS IN SHIPYARDS (PART 1915--SUBPART N) (PHASE I) (SHIPYARDS: SAFER SCAFFOLDS)

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); 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 varying OSHA standards that were applied in the shipbuilding, shiprepair, and shipbreaking industry. A shipyard employer has been subject to both shipyard the "shipyard" standards and OSHA's general industry standards. This has sometimes resulted in inconsistent, and contradictory requirements for essentially the same operation.

Phase 1 of this project aimed at establishing a truly vertical standard for shipyard employment and addressed six subparts of 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 work practices and fire safety). 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, address new technology, and eliminate outmoded and redundant provisions.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Rm N3605, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AA68

1919. ACCREDITATION OF TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATIONS (PART 1910)

Priority: Other Significant

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, subpart H

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 standards. 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), section 126(d)(3) of SARA was amended 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 held a public comment period following the issuance of the proposal and held a limited reopening of the public record in June 1992 to allow additional public comment on an effectiveness of training study conducted by OSHA. OSHA has also developed nonmandatory guidelines to further address minimum training criteria.

Small Entities Affected: Undetermined

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: John Martonik, Acting Director, Safety Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3605, FP Bldg, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8061

RIN: 1218-AB27

1920. PREVENTION OF WORK-RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

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

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918; 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1928

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders 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 increasing 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. An open process to develop and consider regulatory alternatives was initiated by the Bush Administration with the publication of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on August 3, 1992 (57 FR 34192). About 300 comments were received in response to that request. In addition to the public comments, 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, and on a draft proposed regulatory text and supporting documents. Agency representatives have delivered numerous outreach presentations to people who are interested in this subject; consulted professionals in the field to obtain expert opinions on various aspects of the options considered by the Agency; and had some employers field-test certain requirements under consideration for the standard. A quantitative risk assessment has been drafted, as well as a preliminary summary of potential costs and benefits.

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 amply demonstrated. The criteria that have been developed for setting OSHA priorities support the Agency's determination that action is needed now to stop the escalating occurrence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. The Agency was precluded from issuing a standard or guidelines in this area by a rider on its FY 96 appropriations bill. Congressional restrictions have been lifted, and the Agency is currently considering options to develop a proposed rule for ergonomics.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

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 Phone: 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB36

1921. INDOOR AIR QUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1033

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA was petitioned in March 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. In January OSHA began rulemaking to address the hazards of exposure to ETS. Everyday, 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 thousand upper respiratory symptoms and headaches from poor indoor air quality (IAQ). EPA estimates that 20 to 35 percent of all workers in modern mechanically ventilated buildings may experience air-quality problems that could result in illnesses, absenteeism, lost productivity, and discomfort. Surveys of companies have estimated that as many as 85 percent of them had some sort of smoking restriction in place, due to either concerns about production safety or employee health and safety. The fact that this is a national problem suggests that it should be solved at the Federal level.

OSHA published a Request for Information on September 20, 1991, to collect information to determine if a standard regulating indoor air quality is justified and feasible. Information was requested on the ventilation system performance necessary to optimize indoor air quality, techniques for improving ventilation, building maintenance programs, existing workplace indoor air policies, and local and State laws addressing indoor air quality.

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 jurisdiction. OSHA preliminarily estimates that 5,583 to 32,502 cancer deaths and 97,700 to 577,818 coronary heart diseases related to occupational exposure to ETS will be prevented over the next 45 years. This represents 140 to 722 cancer deaths and 2,094 to 13,001 heart diseases each year. OSHA preliminarily estimates that the proposed standard will prevent 4.5 million upper respiratory problems over the next 45 years. This is approximately 105,000 upper respiratory symptoms per year. These estimates understate the prevalence of building-related symptoms since they only reflect excess risk in air conditioned buildings.

Small Entities Affected: 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 Phone: 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB37

1922. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (PREVENTING OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS: CHROMIUM)

Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

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

CFR Citation: Not yet determined

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) (VI) a significant reduction in the current PEL. The current PEL in general industries 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). This 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.

The major illnesses associated with occupational exposures to hexavalent chromium are lung cancer and dermatoses. OSHA estimates that between 200,000 - 700,000 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. OSHA is currently pursuing a dialog with interested parties outside the Agency with regard to the development of the proposal.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

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 Phone: 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AB45

1923. NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TESTING LABS 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 to date, OSHA has recognized 14 laboratories operating approximately 25 sites in the U.S. and Canada 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 as stated in Circular Number A-25.

Small Entities Affected: None

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Office of Information and Consumer Affairs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constituion Avenue NW., Room N-3647, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8148

RIN: 1218-AB57

1924. * FALL PROTECTION IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Priority: Other Significant

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA is considering a revision of its existing standards for fall protection in construction to expand coverage to telecommunication towers and tanks; to eliminate certain paperwork requirements and to make editorial revisions. OSHA is also considering raising a number of issues that may lead to further changes to the fall protection rules as they now apply to roofing work, residential construction operations, climbing reinforcement steel and to vendors delivering materials (for example, roofing materials). Such a revision would bring to the attention of the public issues that have arisen since promulgation of the most recent fall protection standard for construction workers that was issued in August 1994.

Small Entities Affected: None

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 N3306, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8644 Fax: 202 219-6599

RIN: 1218-AB62

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

1925. METHYLENE CHLORIDE (PREVENTING OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESSES: METHYLENE CHLORIDE)

Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

Legal Authority: 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.1052; 29 CFR 1926.1162; 29 CFR 1915.1052

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: In 1985, OSHA was petitioned by the UAW to issue an emergency temporary standard; and to begin work on a permanent standard for methylene chloride. This request was based on information obtained from the EPA and the National Toxicology Program indicating that MC is an animal carcinogen and may have the potential to cause cancer in humans. An estimated 237,496 workers are exposed to the hazards of MC annually. In November 1986, OSHA notified the UAW that its petition had been granted, in part, and denied, in part. Specifically, OSHA issued a set of guidelines for controlling occupational exposure to MC and OSHA denied that portion of the petition requesting the issuance of an emergency temporary standard. OSHA published an ANPRM on November 24, 1986 (51 FR 42257). After reviewing and analyzing the comments received in response to the ANPRM, OSHA published a proposal in the Federal Register on November 7, 1991 (56 FR 57036). The comment period closed on April 6, 1992. On June 9, 1992, OSHA published a notice of informal public hearings that were held in Washington, DC September 16-24 and in San Francisco, CA on October 14-16, 1992. The post-hearing comment period for new evidence closed on January 14, 1993, and the final date for submitting post-hearing summations and briefs was March 15, 1993. The record was reopened on March 11, 1994, for 45 days to address MC exposure in the furniture stripping industry, an NCI study relating brain cancer to occupational exposure to MC, and information regarding the use of MC as a solvent in adhesive formulation and flexible foam manufacturing. The record was also reopened in late 1995 to receive new data and information on MC-related risks. After reviewing and analyzing all of the information in the rulemaking record, OSHA published the final methylene chloride rule in the Federal Register on January 10, 1997 (62 FR 1493). The effective date of the standard is April 10, 1997.

Small Entities Affected: Businesses

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Adam Finkel, Director, Health Standards Programs, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Rm N3718, FPBldg., Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-7075

RIN: 1218-AA98

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

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)

CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926

Legal Deadline: None

Abstract: OSHA was petitioned by UAW in May 1979 to issue an emergency temporary standard for locking out machinery and equipment. OSHA did not issue an emergency temporary standard, but did issue a general industry rule on September 1, 1989 (54 FR 36644). OSHA has not yet issued a rule for preventing accidents during equipment repair and maintenance for the construction industry. 4,000,000 workers annually are exposed to this hazard in the workplace. As a result, OSHA intends to issue a proposal to address this hazard. The effective control of hazardous energy at construction sites is made more difficult by several factors. These factors include such considerations as the types of machines and equipment found in construction; the makeup of the industry in which employment is relatively "short term," lasting only as long as the length of the current project; the presence of multiple employers having different employer/employee relationships and the temporary nature of the "in-the-field" maintenance activity.

Small Entities Affected: None

Government Levels Affected: None

Agency Contact: Russell B. Swanson, Director, Construction Standards, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N3306, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210 Phone: 202 219-8644

RIN: 1218-AB30