[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33450-33469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15936]
[[Page 33449]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
Standards Improvement (Miscellaneous Changes) For General Industry and
Construction Standards; Paperwork Collection for Coke Oven Emissions
and Inorganic Arsenic; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 / Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 33450]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926
[Docket No. S-778]
RIN 1218-AB 53
Standards Improvement (Miscellaneous Changes) for General
Industry and Construction Standards; Paperwork Collection for Coke Oven
Emissions and Inorganic Arsenic
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
removing from the Code of Federal Regulations or revising provisions in
its standards that are out of date, duplicative, unnecessary, or
inconsistent. The Agency is making these regulatory changes to reduce
the burden imposed on the regulated community by these provisions and
to respond to a March 4, 1995 memorandum from the President. In this
document, substantive changes are made to both health and safety
standards that will revise or eliminate duplicative, inconsistent, or
unnecessary regulatory requirements without diminishing employee
protections. Changes being made to health standards include reducing
the frequency of required chest x-rays and eliminating sputum-cytology
examinations for workers covered by the coke oven and inorganic arsenic
standards, and changing the emergency-response provisions of the vinyl
chloride standard. Changes being made to OSHA safety standards include
eliminating the public safety provisions of the temporary labor camp
standard, eliminating unnecessary cross-references in the textile
industry standards, and others. OSHA estimates that these changes will
result in annualized savings for employers of over $9,600,000 and in
reducing paperwork burden of 6600 hours annually.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective August 17, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Send petitions for review of this final rule to the
Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the
Solicitor, Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210.
For additional copies of this rule contact U.S. Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of
Publications, Room N-3101, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,
DC 20210, (202) 219-9667.
For an electronic copy of this Federal Register notice, contact the
Labor News Bulletin Board at (202) 219-4748; or OSHA's Web Site on the
Internet at http://www.osha.gov. For news releases, fact sheets, and
other short documents, contact OSHA FAX at (900) 555-3400 at $1.50 per
minute.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Friedman, Director, Office of
Information and Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-3637, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20210, (202) 219-8151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Distribution Table
III. Summary and Explanation
Amendments to Part 1910 that received no comments or positive
comments only
A. Explosives and blasting agents (Sec. 1910.109)
B. Storing and handling of liquefied petroleum gases
(Sec. 1910.110)
C. Storing and handling of anhydrous ammonia (Sec. 1910.111)
D. Sanitation (Sec. 1910.141)
E. Temporary labor camps (Sec. 1910.142)
F. Safety color code for marking physical hazards
(Sec. 1910.144)
G. Fire brigades (Sec. 1910.156)
H. Helicopters (Sec. 1910.183)
I. Pulp, paper, paperboard mills (Sec. 1910.261)
J. Textiles (Sec. 1910.262)
K. Sawmills (Sec. 1910.265)
L. Agricultural operations (Sec. 1910.267)
M. Vinyl chloride (Sec. 1910.1017)
N. Inorganic arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018) and Coke oven emissions
(Sec. 1910.1029)
Amendments to Part 1910 that received varied comments
O. Explosives and blasting agents (Sec. 1910.109)
P. Medical services and first aid (Sec. 1910.151)
Q. Telecommunications (Sec. 1910.268)
Amendments to Part 1926 that received no comments or positive
comments only
A. Incorporation by reference (Sec. 1926.31)
B. Flammable and combustible liquids (Sec. 1926.152)
C. Initiation of explosive charges--Electric blasting
(Sec. 1926.906)
Amendments to Part 1926 that received varied comments
D. Medical services and first aid (Sec. 1926.50)
IV. Summary of the Final Economic Analysis
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VI. Environmental Assessment
VII. International Trade
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
IX. Federalism
X. State Plan Standards
XI. Authority and Signature
References to the rulemaking record are provided in the text of the
preamble. References are identified as ``Ex.'' followed by a number to
designate the reference in this rulemaking docket, S-778. For example,
``Ex. 3'' means exhibit three in Docket S-778. Exhibit 3 is a copy of
the ``Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Miscellaneous Changes to
General Industry and Construction Standards; Proposed Paperwork
Collection, Comment Request for Coke Oven Emissions and Inorganic
Arsenic'', the first step in the rule-making action being completed
today, which was published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1996 (61
FR 37849).
A list of exhibits and copies of the exhibits are available in the
OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210, (202) 219-7894.
I. Background
OSHA has made a continuing effort to eliminate confusing, outdated,
and duplicative requirements from its standards and regulations. In
1978 and again in 1984, the Agency conducted revocation and revision
projects that resulted in the elimination of hundreds of unnecessary
provisions. In response to the President's Memorandum of March 4, 1995,
which requested Agencies to review and stream-line their regulations,
the Agency continued this effort by conducting a line-by-line review of
its regulations to determine where they could be eliminated, simplified
or clarified. As a result of this review, OSHA completed a document on
May 31, 1995, entitled ``OSHA's Regulatory Reform Initiatives'' (Ex. L-
5). That document detailed the Agency's findings as to which
regulations could be deleted or revised without reducing employee
health and safety. OSHA stated in that document that clarifying,
deleting, or revising these regulations would improve employer
compliance and, consequently, enhance safety and health protection for
employees.
The Agency began the rulemaking process that would implement the
changes identified in the review with an administrative notice that
made minor clarifications and technical amendments to OSHA standards
(61 FR 9228, March 7, 1996). In a second notice, duplicate health
provisions from the shipyard and construction standards were eliminated
and replaced with cross-references to the identical text in the general
industry standards (61 FR 31427, June 20, 1996). Eliminating these
duplicate provisions
[[Page 33451]]
has reduced the number of pages devoted to OSHA rules in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) without changing the substantive requirements
of the standards.
On July 22, 1996 (61 FR 37849), OSHA proposed substantive changes
to certain standards that the Agency believed are unnecessary to,
duplicative of, or inconsistent with the protection of worker safety
and health. OSHA requested comments and set 60 days for their receipt.
The final changes supported by the public record, and reflected in the
Federal Register notice being published today, complete the regulatory
action initiated with the July, 1996 Federal Register notice. OSHA is
also reducing paperwork burden by deleting the requirements for sputum-
cytology examinations and reducing the frequency of chest x-rays for
workers covered by the arsenic and coke oven emissions standards.
II. Distribution Table
For the convenience of the public, OSHA is providing a distribution
table, below, which shows the section designations of those existing
OSHA General Industry rules that are being removed, removed and
reserved, and redesignated in this rulemaking action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Section (29 CFR 1910) New Section (29 CFR 1910)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
110(b)(15)(vi)......................... Removed.
110(b)(15)(vii)........................ Removed.
110(b)(15)(viii)....................... Removed.
110(b)(15)(ix)......................... 110(b)(15)(vi).
110(c)(2)(i)........................... 110(c)(2).
110(c)(2)(ii).......................... Removed.
110(c)(2)(iii)......................... Removed.
110(c)(2)(iv).......................... Removed.
110(e)(10)............................. Removed and Reserved.
110(g)................................. Removed and Reserved.
111(f)(7).............................. Removed and Reserved.
111(f)(8).............................. Removed and Reserved.
141(a)(2)(i)........................... Removed.
141(a)(2)(ii).......................... Removed Paragraph Designation.
141(a)(2)(iii)......................... Removed Paragraph Designation.
141(a)(2)(iv).......................... Removed Paragraph Designation.
141(a)(2)(v)........................... Removed Paragraph Designation.
141(a)(2)(vi).......................... Removed Paragraph Designation.
141(a)(2)(vii)......................... Removed Paragraph Designation.
141(a)(2)(viii)........................ Removed Paragraph Designation.
141(a)(2)(ix).......................... Removed Paragraph Designation.
141(a)(2)(x)........................... Removed Paragraph Designation.
141(a)(2)(xi).......................... Removed Paragraph Designation.
142(a)(4).............................. Removed.
151.................................... Added Appendix A.
156(f)(2)(iii)......................... Removed.
183(a)................................. Removed and Reserved.
261(a)(3)(ii).......................... Removed.
261(a)(3)(iii)......................... 261(a)(3)(ii) .
261(a)(3)(iv).......................... Removed.
261(a)(3)(v)........................... Removed.
261(a)(3)(vi).......................... Removed.
261(a)(3)(vii)......................... 261(a)(3)(iii).
261(a)(3)(viii)........................ 261(a)(3)(iv).
261(a)(3)(ix).......................... Removed.
261(a)(3)(x)........................... 261(a)(3)(v).
261(a)(3)(xi).......................... Removed.
261(a)(3)(xii)......................... Removed.
261(a)(3)(xiii)........................ Removed.
261(a)(3)(xiv)......................... 261(a)(3)(vi).
261(a)(3)(xv).......................... Removed.
261(a)(3)(xvi)......................... 261(a)(3)(vii).
261(a)(3)(xvii)........................ Removed.
261(a)(3)(xviii)....................... Removed.
261(a)(3)(xix)......................... Removed.
261(a)(3)(xx).......................... Removed.
261(a)(3)(xxi)......................... 261(a)(3)(viii).
261(a)(3)(xxii)........................ Removed.
261(a)(3)(xxiii)....................... 261(a)(3)(ix).
261(a)(3)(xxiv)........................ Removed.
261(a)(3)(xxv)......................... Removed.
261(a)(3)(xxvi)........................ Removed.
261(a)(3)(xxvii)....................... Removed.
261(b)(1).............................. Removed.
261(b)(2).............................. Removed.
261(b)(3).............................. Removed.
261(b)(4).............................. 261(b)(1).
261(b)(5).............................. Removed.
261(b)(6).............................. Removed.
261(b)(7).............................. 261(b)(2).
261(c)(2)(vi).......................... Removed.
[[Page 33452]]
261(c)(2)(vii)......................... Removed.
261(c)(2)(viii)........................ 261(c)(2)(vi).
261(c)(6)(i)........................... 261(c)(6).
261(c)(6)(ii).......................... Removed.
261(c)(7)(i)........................... 261(c)(7).
261(c)(7)(ii).......................... Removed.
261(d)(1)(i)........................... 261(d)(1).
261(d)(1)(ii).......................... Removed.
261(e)(3).............................. Removed and Reserved.
261(e)(7).............................. Removed and Reserved.
261(e)(9).............................. Removed and Reserved.
261(g)(1)(iv).......................... Removed.
261(g)(1)(v)........................... 261(g)(1)(iv).
261(g)(2)(i)........................... Removed.
261(g)(2)(ii).......................... 261(g)(2)(i).
261(g)(2)(iii)......................... 261(g)(2)(ii).
261(g)(15)(iv)......................... Removed.
261(g)(15)(v).......................... 261(g)(15)(iv).
261(g)(15)(vi)......................... Removed.
261(h)(2)(iii)......................... Removed.
261(h)(2)(iv).......................... 261(h)(2)(iii).
261(j)(1)(iv).......................... Removed and Reserved.
261(j)(3).............................. Removed and Reserved.
261(j)(4)(ii).......................... Removed.
261(j)(4)(iii)......................... 261(j)(4)(ii).
261(j)(4)(iv).......................... 261(j)(4)(iii).
261(j)(4)(v)........................... 261(j)(4)(iv).
261(j)(4)(vi).......................... 261(j)(4)(v).
261(j)(5)(iv).......................... Removed.
261(j)(6)(ii).......................... Removed.
261(j)(6)(iii)......................... 261(j)(6)(ii).
261(k)(2)(i)........................... Removed.
261(k)(2)(ii).......................... 261(k)(2)(i).
261(k)(2)(iii)......................... 261(k)(2)(ii).
261(k)(2)(iv).......................... 261(k)(2)(iii).
261(k)(2)(v)........................... 261(k)(2)(iv).
261(k)(2)(vi).......................... 261(k)(2)(v).
261(k)(4).............................. Removed and Reserved.
261(k)(16)............................. Removed and Reserved.
261(m)(2).............................. Removed and Reserved.
261(m)(4).............................. Removed and Reserved.
261(m)(5)(i)........................... Removed.
261(m)(5)(ii).......................... Removed.
261(m)(5)(iii)......................... 261(m)(5).
262(c)(3).............................. Removed and Reserved.
262(c)(4).............................. Removed and Reserved.
262(gg)................................ Removed and Reserved.
262(ll)(1)............................. Removed.
262(ll)(2)............................. 262(ll).
262(qq)(1)............................. Removed.
262(qq)(2)............................. Removed.
262(rr)................................ Removed.
265(a)(1).............................. 265(a).
265(a)(2).............................. Removed.
265(c)(3)(i)........................... Removed and Reserved.
265(c)(10)............................. Removed and Reserved.
265(c)(14)............................. Removed and Reserved.
265(c)(16)............................. Removed and Reserved.
265(c)(17)............................. Removed and Reserved.
265(c)(22)............................. Removed and Reserved.
265(c)(24)(iv)(a)...................... Removed.
265(c)(24)(iv)(b)...................... 265(c)(24)(iv).
265(c)(24)(iv)(c)...................... Removed.
265(c)(26)(i).......................... Removed and Reserved.
265(c)(30)(vi)......................... Removed and Reserved.
265(c)(30)(x).......................... Removed and Reserved.
265(e)(3)(ii)(d)....................... Removed and Reserved.
265(f)(9).............................. Removed.
265(g)................................. Removed.
265(h)................................. Removed.
265(i)................................. Removed.
267.................................... Removed and Reserved.
268(f)................................. Removed and Reserved.
1017(g)(5)(i).......................... Removed.
[[Page 33453]]
1017(g)(5)(ii)......................... Removed.
1017(g)(6)............................. 1017(g)(5) .
1017(g)(7)............................. 1017(g)(6).
1018(n)(2)(ii)(C)...................... Removed.
1018(n)(2)(ii)(D)...................... 1018(n)(2)(ii)(C).
1018(q)(2)(iii)(F)..................... Removed.
1018(q)(2)(iii)(G)..................... Removed.
1018(q)(2)(iii)(H)..................... Removed.
1018 App C, Section I, General......... Removed ``(4) A sputum cytology
examination;''.
1018 App C, Section I, General......... Redesignated paragraph 5 as
paragraph 4
1018 App C, Section I, General......... Removed entire section entitled
``III. Sputum cytology''.
1029(j)(2)(vii)........................ Removed.
1029(j)(2)(viii)....................... 1029(j)(2)(vii). Added new
1029(j)(3)(iv).
1029(j)(3)(iv)......................... 1029(j)(3)(v).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary and Explanation
In this section, OSHA explains the changes made to each regulatory
provision being removed, revised, or redesignated. First, the changes
that were proposed in the July 1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) and the reasons for proposing those changes are discussed. Next,
any comments that OSHA received about the proposed changes are
identified and addressed. Finally, the action that OSHA is taking with
regard to the proposed changes is explained.
The proposed changes to Part 1910 standards are listed first,
followed by those for Part 1926. Within this framework, provisions that
received either no comments or positive comments only are listed first,
in numerical order, followed by the few provisions for which minor
varied comments were received.
Amendments to Part 1910 That Received No Comments or Positive Comments
Only
A. Explosives and Blasting Agents (Sec. 1910.109)
Paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of Sec. 1910.109 prohibits the transporting of
blasting caps on a vehicle that is carrying other explosives. However,
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued regulations that
provide an approved method for safely transporting blasting caps on the
same vehicle with other explosives. Therefore, OSHA proposed to amend
paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of 29 CFR 1910.109 to permit transporting blasting
caps on the same vehicle with other explosives if they are transported
in accordance with the method specified in the DOT regulations at 49
CFR 177.835(g)(3)(i).
OSHA received supporting comments (e.g. Ex. 4: 1,10) on the
proposed provision, and no commenter opposed the proposed action. As a
result, OSHA is amending paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of Sec. 1910.109 as
proposed.
Paragraph (e)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.109 requires that boxes and
packaging materials that have previously contained explosives not be
used again and be destroyed by burning at an approved outdoor location.
However, environmental agencies often will not permit the burning of
these materials. Additionally, DOT permits the re-use of such packaging
materials if such re-use is accomplished in accordance with certain
criteria contained in 49 CFR 173.28.
OSHA proposed to amend paragraph (e)(2)(i) to permit reusing
uncontaminated containers and packaging materials if such re-use is
accomplished in accordance with DOT regulations.
All of the comments OSHA received on this provision supported the
proposed action. For example, the Institute of Manufacturers of
Explosives (IME) (Ex. 4: 10 pp. 1-2) stated:
In addition, IME supports OSHA's amendment to Sec. 1910.109
(e)(2)(i). The amended regulation will allow companies to reuse, rather
than burn, uncontaminated packaging materials. As a result, companies
will not be forced to violate state or local prohibitions against
burning in order to comply with OSHA, or vice versa.
Accordingly, OSHA is amending paragraph (e)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.109 as
proposed.
B. Storing and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases (Sec. 1910.110)
Paragraphs (b)(15)(v)-(vii) of Sec. 1910.110 contain requirements
for the location of backflow check valves, excess-flow valves, and
shutoff valves on tank cars and transport trucks. Paragraph
(b)(15)(viii) of Sec. 1910.110 contains requirements for locating tank
cars and transport trucks during loading and unloading operations.
OSHA had proposed to delete paragraphs (b)(15)(v)-(viii) of
Sec. 1910.110, because the design of transportation vehicles and the
safe location of such vehicles during loading and unloading operations
are under the jurisdiction of DOT and not OSHA. Upon further review of
these paragraphs, OSHA has concluded that paragraph (b)(15)(v) is not
under the jurisdiction of DOT, since it addresses valves associated
with storage tank piping located at a worksite. Accordingly, OSHA is
retaining paragraph (b)(15)(v) and deleting paragraphs (b)(15)(vi)-
(viii). OSHA is also redesignating paragraph (b)(15)(ix) as new
paragraph (b)(15)(vi) of Sec. 1910.110.
Paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(iv) of Sec. 1910.110 contain specifications
for marking LPG cylinders. OSHA proposed deleting these marking
specifications because they duplicate DOT requirements. No comments
were received on the proposed changes, and OSHA is deleting the text of
paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)-(iv). OSHA is also redesignating paragraph
(c)(2)(i) as new paragraph (c)(2).
Paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110 contains limitation requirements
on the capacity of LPG containers that are used to fuel passenger
carrying vehicles. OSHA proposed deleting these requirements pertaining
to passenger carrying vehicles because they are under the jurisdiction
of DOT. No comments were received on the proposed changes, and OSHA is
deleting the text of paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110 and reserving
the paragraph designation.
Paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.110 contains requirements for installing
LP-gas systems on commercial vehicles. OSHA proposed deleting these
requirements because the installation of LP-gas systems on commercial
vehicles is under the jurisdiction of DOT. No comments were received on
the proposed changes. OSHA, therefore, is deleting the text from
paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.110 and reserving the paragraph designation.
[[Page 33454]]
C. Storing and Handling of Anhydrous Ammonia (Sec. 1910.111)
Paragraph (f)(7) of Sec. 1910.111 contains safety requirements for
full trailers and semitrailers that transport ammonia. Paragraph (f)(8)
of Sec. 1910.111 contains requirements to protect such vehicles from
collision. Because full trailers and semitrailers that transport
ammonia are under the jurisdiction of DOT, OSHA proposed deleting the
text of paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of Sec. 1910.111 and reserving the
paragraph designations.
OSHA received no comments on the proposed changes, and the text of
paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of Sec. 1910.111 is therefore being
deleted and the paragraph designations are being reserved.
D. Sanitation (Sec. 1910.141)
OSHA proposed deleting the definition of ``lavatory'' given in
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.141. This definition stated that
``lavatory means a basin or similar vessel used exclusively for washing
of hands, arms, faces, and head.'' OSHA believes that the meaning of
the term Lavatory is self-explanatory in the context of the section and
that deleting this definition will not diminish the health of employees
in affected workplaces. No comments were received in opposition to the
proposed deletion of the definition of ``lavatory'' in Sec. 1910.141.
The definition of ``lavatory'' is, therefore, being deleted from
Sec. 1910.141. Further, to conform to the format typically found in
other OSHA standards, all paragraph designations for the definitions
within paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1910.141 are also being removed.
E. Temporary Labor Camps (Sec. 1910.142)
Paragraph 1910.142(a)(4) provides regulations for closing temporary
labor camps. Upon closing a camp site, the regulations require the
employer to collect all refuse, garbage, and manure, to fill all privy
pits, to lock and secure any remaining privy buildings, and to leave
all grounds and buildings in a clean and sanitary condition.
Because this paragraph deals with closing the site, which occurs
after the employees have left, this paragraph does not relate to worker
safety but to public safety, which is outside the Agency's mission. For
these reasons, OSHA proposed removing paragraph 1910.142(a)(4). No
comments were received on this issue, and paragraph 1910.142(a)(4) is
accordingly being removed. OSHA notes, however, that employers may be
responsible for adhering to other standards related to public health
and safety in the locality or State in which the camp site is located.
F. Safety Color Code for Marking Physical Hazards (Sec. 1910.144)
Section 1910.144 provides guidance on the colors to use to mark
physical hazards. These colors were required so that emergency devices
and physical hazards could be identified quickly by employees. OSHA
proposed removing these requirements from 29 CFR part 1910 because they
have relatively narrow scope and for employers desiring guidance in
this area, the American National Standards Institute standard ANSI
Z535.1-91, Safety Color Code is available. No comments were received on
this issue. However on reconsideration, OSHA has decided to retain this
section to indicate that proper color coding is necessary for worker
protection in emergencies.
G. Fire Brigades (Sec. 1910.156)
Section 1910.156 contains requirements for organizing, training,
and providing personal protective equipment for members of fire
brigades. Requirements for negative-pressure self-contained breathing
apparatus are listed in Sec. 1910.156(f)(2)(iii). These requirements
were intended to remain mandatory for 18 months after the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) certified a
positive-pressure breathing apparatus with the same or longer service
life as the then required negative-pressure breathing apparatus. The
18-month period was to allow employers to phase in the new apparatus.
NIOSH has since certified a positive-pressure breathing apparatus,
and the 18 month phase-in period has ended. This paragraph is therefore
unnecessary and OSHA proposed removing it. There were no comments on
the proposed change, and OSHA is therefore removing
Sec. 1910.156(f)(2)(iii) as proposed.
H. Helicopters (Sec. 1910.183)
Paragraph 1910.183(a) states that helicopter cranes are expected to
comply with any applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). OSHA does not have the statutory authority to
enforce FAA regulations for helicopters (found at 14 CFR part 133) and
therefore proposed removing this paragraph. There were no comments on
the proposed change and OSHA is therefore removing paragraph
1910.183(a) and reserving the paragraph designation as proposed.
I. Pulp, Paper, Paperboard Mills (Sec. 1910.261)
Section 1910.261 contains requirements that apply to establishments
where pulp, paper, and paperboard are manufactured and converted.
Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (j), (k), and (m) of
Sec. 1910.261 require these establishments to comply with a number of
standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
Including these ANSI standards in Sec. 1910.261 duplicates other
standards in part 1910 that apply to general industry as a whole, cover
the same hazards, and in many cases, share the same source materials as
the provisions in Sec. 1910.261.
All but one of the ANSI standards referenced in Sec. 1910.261 were
source documents for OSHA standards that have general application
without regard to any specific industry. For example, ANSI Standard
A12.1-1967, Safety Requirements for Floor and Wall Openings, Railings,
and Toeboards is referenced in paragraph 1910.261(a)(3)(ii) and is also
the source standard for Section 1910.23, Guarding Floor and Wall
Openings and Holes.
OSHA believes that the OSHA standard, codified in Section 1910.23,
provides equivalent or better protection for workers in this industry
than the ANSI standard, A12.1-967, which is referenced in
Sec. 1910.261. Accordingly, OSHA proposed deleting paragraph
1910.261(a)(3)(ii).
Similarly, there are a number of other OSHA standards that OSHA
believes can provide equivalent or better protection for pulp and paper
workers than the ANSI standards referenced in paragraphs (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (g), (h), (j), (k), and (m) in Section 1910.261. For this
reason, OSHA proposed deleting many provisions of Sec. 1910.261 and
applying the corresponding provisions found elsewhere in part 1910. The
following table lists the OSHA standards that were proposed for
deletion, the referenced ANSI standards, and the OSHA standards that
will provide equivalent or better protection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referenced ANSI Equivalent OSHA
Deleted standard standard standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.261(a)(3)(ii).......... A12.1-1967 Sec. 1910.23
1910.261(a)(3)(iv).......... A14.1-1968 Sec. 1910.25
[[Page 33455]]
1910.261(a)(3)(v)........... A14.2-1956 Sec. 1910.26
1910.261(a)(3)(vi).......... A14.3-1956 Sec. 1910.27
1910.261(a)(3)(ix).......... B15.1-1953 Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(a)(3)(xi).......... B30.2-1967 Sec. 1910.179
B30.5-1968 Sec. 1910.180
1910.261(a)(3)(xii)......... B30.2-1967 Sec. 1910.179
1910.261(a)(3)(xiii)........ B30.2-1943 Sec. 1910.179
B30.5-1968 Sec. 1910.180
1910.261(a)(3)(xv).......... B56.1-1969 Sec. 1910.178
1910.261(a)(3)(xvii)........ 0.1-1954 Sec. 1910.213
.................... Sec. 1910.214
1910.261(a)(3)(xviii)....... Z4.1-1968 Sec. 1910.141
1910.261(a)(3)(xix)......... Z9.1-1951 Sec. 1910.94
1910.261(a)(3)(xx).......... Z9.2-1960 Sec. 1910.94
1910.261(a)(3)(xxiv)........ Z35.1-1968 Sec. 1910.145
1910.261(a)(3)(xxv)......... Z87.1-1968 Sec. 1910.133
1910.261(a)(3)(xxvi)........ Z88.2-1969 Sec. 1910.134
1910.261(a)(3)(xxvii)....... Z89.1-1969 Sec. 1910.135
1910.261(b)(1).............. B15.1-1953 Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(b)(2).............. Z24.22-1957 Sec. 1910.132
Z87.1-1968 Sec. 1910.133
Z88.2-1968 Sec. 1910.134
Z89.1-1969 Sec. 1910.135
1910.261(b)(3).............. A12.1-1967 Sec. 1910.23
1910.261(b)(6).............. B56.1-1969 Sec. 1910.178
1910.261(c)(2)(vi).......... B30.2-1967 Sec. 1910.179
1910.261(c)(3)(i)........... A12.1-1967 Sec. 1910.23
A14.1-1968 Sec. 1910.25
A14.2-1956 Sec. 1910.26
A14.3-1956 Sec. 1910.27
1910.261(c)(8)(i)........... B30.2-1967 Sec. 1910.179
1910.261(c)(11)............. B56.1-1969 Sec. 1910.30
1910.261(d)(1)(ii).......... Z87.1-1968 Sec. 1910.133
1910.261(e)(3).............. B15.1-1955 Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(e)(7).............. O1.1-1961 Sec. 1910.213
1910.261(e)(9).............. B15.1-1953 Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(g)(15)(vi)......... Z4.1-1968 Sec. 1910.141
1910.261(h)(2)(iii)......... K13.1-1967 Sec. 1910.134
Z88.2-1967 ....................
1910.261(j)(1)(iv).......... B15.1-1958 Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(j)(3).............. A12.1-1967 Sec. 1910.23
1910.261(j)(4)(ii).......... A12.1-1967 Sec. 1910.23
1910.261(j)(5)(iv).......... B15.1-1953 Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(j)(6)(ii).......... B15.1-1953 Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(k)(2)(i)........... B15.1-1953 Sec. 1910.219
1910.261(k)(4).............. A12.1-1967 Sec. 1910.23
1910.261(m)(2).............. B56.1-1969 Sec. 1910.178
1910.261(m)(4).............. Z87.1-1968 Sec. 1910.133
1910.261(m)(5)(i)........... Z87.1-1968 Sec. 1910.132
1910.261(m)(5)(ii).......... B56.1-1969 Sec. 1910.178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, OSHA believes that the OSHA standard, Sec. 1910.95,
Occupational Noise Exposure, provides worker protection that is at
least equivalent to that provided by the ANSI standard, Z24.22-1957,
Method of Measurement of Real-Ear Attenuation of Ear Protectors, that
is referenced in Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(xxii). OSHA, therefore, proposed
removing Sec. 1910.261(a)(3)(xxii) to eliminate this duplicate
coverage.
Paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261 requires workers in the pulp,
paper and paperboard industry who enter closed vessels, tanks, chip
bins, and similar equipment to follow specific procedures and wear
personal protective equipment. This standard, however, does not provide
the necessary requirements for monitoring, testing, and communication
that are critical when working in a confined space.
OSHA proposed deleting paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261 for two
reasons. First, Sec. 1910.146, Permit-Required Confined Spaces,
provides better protection for workers required to work in a confined
space. Section 1910.146 provides a comprehensive regulatory program
within which employers can effectively protect employees working in
confined spaces. This program addresses the ongoing need for
monitoring, testing, and communication at these workplaces. Second,
employers are required to comply with Sec. 1910.146 when a specific
industry standard does not completely address the known hazards of
working in a confined space, a principle noted in paragraph (c)(2) of
Sec. 1910.5. This means that employers must already comply with
Sec. 1910.146 rather than paragraph (b)(5) of Sec. 1910.261.
Paragraph (c)(2)(vii) of Sec. 1910.261 requires employers to
provide personal protective equipment to workers on a job basis. Since
employers are required to comply with the general requirements for
personal protective equipment in Sec. 1910.132, OSHA proposed removing
paragraph (c)(2)(vii) to eliminate this
[[Page 33456]]
duplication of requirements in a way that will not decrease worker
protection.
Paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) and (c)(7)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261 require
employers to provide workers with personal protective equipment and ear
protection when the noise level may be harmful. Since employers are
required to comply with the general requirements for personal
protective equipment in Sec. 1910.132 and the general requirements for
occupational noise exposure in Sec. 1910.95, OSHA proposed removing
paragraphs (c)(6)(ii) and (c)(7)(ii) to eliminate this duplication of
requirements.
Paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (k)(16) of Sec. 1910.261 are specific
electrical standards prescribed for the pulp, paper, and paperboard
industry that require compliance with subpart S, Electrical, in OSHA's
standards. Since all of general industry is required to comply with all
of subpart S for electrical standards, OSHA proposed removing
paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (k)(16) of Sec. 1910.261 to eliminate this
duplication.
Paragraph (g)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.261 requires employers to provide
gas masks to employees working in the acid department. Since employers
are required to comply with the general requirements for respiratory
protection in Sec. 1910.134, OSHA proposed removing paragraph (g)(2)(i)
to eliminate this regulatory duplication.
Paragraph (g)(15)(iv) of Sec. 1910.261 is a standard prescribed for
the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry that addresses lead dust
exposure and requires compliance with Sec. 1910.1000, Air Contaminants.
Since employers are required to comply with all of Sec. 1910.1000,
including paragraph 1910.1025 which addresses lead exposure, OSHA
proposed removing paragraph (g)(15)(iv) to eliminate this duplication.
All of the proposed changes to Sec. 1910.261 adopted by this notice
were supported by two commenters, American Forest & Paper Association
(AFPA) and the Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper
Manufacturers (PCAP&PM) (Exs.4-15, 4-24). The AFPA stated that ``AFPA
wishes to commend OSHA for the substantial efforts which the Agency has
made to remove or revise standards that are obsolete, duplicative,
unnecessary, or inconsistent for maintaining employee protection''.
There were no comments opposing these changes and OSHA is therefore
removing the paragraphs listed above and shown on the table from
Sec. 1910.261, for the reasons stated above and given in the proposal.
AFPA also recommended that OSHA delete a number of other
provisions. OSHA believes these suggestions require additional study
and there needs to be more extensive opportunity for comment on them.
Rather than holding up the deregulatory changes in this document, OSHA
will consider including those suggestions in its next proposal to
eliminate unneeded provisions.
J. Textiles (Sec. 1910.262)
For the purpose of eliminating duplicate standards coverage, OSHA
proposed to delete a number of standards in Sec. 1910.262 that
reference general occupational safety and health standards. The
following table lists the standards OSHA proposed to delete. The
referenced general OSHA standards will continue to apply to employers
in the Textile industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deleted standard Referenced OSHA standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.262(c)(3)........................ 1910.219
1910.262(c)(4)........................ 1910.141
1910.262(gg).......................... 1910.219
1910.262(ll)(1)....................... 1910.23
1910.262(qq)(1)....................... 1910.132; 1910.133; 1910.134
1910.262(qq)(2)....................... 1910.134
1910.262(rr).......................... 1910.1000; 1910.94(d)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments were received on this issue, and OSHA is therefore
deleting the standards listed in the table above.
Paragraph (c)(8) of Sec. 1910.262 requires employers to identify
physical hazards in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 1910.144.
Section 1910.144 provides guidance on the colors to use to mark
physical hazards. As noted earlier in Section F of this preamble, OSHA
has decided to retain this provision to indicate that proper color
coding is necessary for worker protection in emergencies. Because OSHA
is retaining Sec. 1910.144, which is referenced in Sec. 1910.262(c)(8),
OSHA will also retain Sec. 1910.262(c)(8).
No comments were received on this issue, and OSHA is therefore
retaining Sec. 1910.262(c)(8).
K. Sawmills (Sec. 1910.265)
Section 1910.265 contains safety requirements for sawmill
operations including, but not limited to, log and lumber handling,
sawing, trimming, and planing; waste disposal; dry kiln operation;
finishing; shipping; storage; yard and yard equipment; and for power
tools and related equipment used in connection with such operations.
Certain paragraphs of Sec. 1910.265 incorporate and apply general
occupational safety and health standards that apply to all employment
covered by 29 CFR part 1910. As required in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, such standards apply to sawmill operations in accordance with
the rules of construction set forth in Sec. 1910.5. For example, the
general standard regarding mechanical power-transmission apparatus in
Sec. 1910.219 is applicable to employment in sawmill operations covered
in Sec. 1910.265, but it is also incorporated by reference in paragraph
(c)(22) of Sec. 1910.265. OSHA believes that this repetition does not
enhance worker safety, and therefore proposed removing paragraph
(c)(22) of Sec. 1910.265. Also, since Sec. 1910.5 applies to all
industries, including the sawmill industry, OSHA proposed removing
paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1910.265, which merely references Sec. 1910.5.
Similarly, to eliminate duplicate standards coverage, OSHA proposed
deleting various provisions currently found in Sec. 1910.265 that
reference general occupational safety and health standards. The
following table lists the standards OSHA proposed deleting and the
referenced general OSHA standards that will continue to apply to
sawmills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deleted standard Referenced OSHA standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.265(c)(3)(i)..................... 1910.23
1910.265(c)(10)....................... 1910.25-27
1910.265(c)(14)....................... 1910.110
1910.265(c)(16)....................... 1910.106
1910.265(c)(17)(i).................... 1910.1000
1910.265(c)(17)(ii)................... Subpart I
1910.265(c)(17)(iii).................. 1910.94(d)
1910.265(c)(22)....................... 1910.219
1910.265(c)(26)(i).................... 1910.219
1910.265(c)(30)(vi)................... 1910.219
1910.265(c)(30)(x).................... 1910.178
1910.265(e)(3)(ii)(d)................. 1910.219
1910.265(f)(9)........................ 1910.219
1910.265(g)........................... Subpart I
1910.265(h)........................... 1910.141
1910.265(i)........................... Subpart L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (c)(11) of Sec. 1910.265 requires employers to mark
physical hazards as specified in Sec. 1910.144. Section 1910.144
provides guidance on the colors to use to mark physical hazards. As
noted earlier in Section F of this preamble, OSHA is retaining
Sec. 1910.144 since the Agency believes that proper color coding is
necessary for worker protection in emergencies. Since OSHA is retaining
Sec. 1910.144, which is referenced in Sec. 1910.265(c)(11), OSHA will
also retain Sec. 1910.265(c)(11).
Paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a) of Sec. 1910.265 requires employers to
inspect slings daily when in use, and to remove a sling from service if
it is found to be defective. In addition, paragraph
[[Page 33457]]
(c)(24)(iv)(c) of Sec. 1910.265 requires employers to provide suitable
protection between the sling and the sharp unyielding surfaces of the
load to be lifted. These provisions duplicate some of the general
requirements for the use of slings in Sec. 1910.184, which also
includes provisions for sling inspection, removal, and protection. OSHA
proposed deleting paragraphs (c)(24)(iv)(a) and (c)(24)(iv)(c) to
eliminate the duplication of requirements for slings in Sec. 1910.265.
The American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA) (Ex. 4-15) supported
the changes to the provisions in Section 1910.265 that had been
proposed by OSHA and that are now made final by this notice. There were
no comments opposing these changes, and OSHA is therefore deleting the
standards as proposed. The AFPA (Ex. 4-15) also suggested several other
changes. OSHA concluded that they need further study, and rather than
delaying this final rule, OSHA will consider including them in the next
proposal to eliminate unnecessary provisions.
L. Agricultural Operations (Sec. 1910.267)
Section 1910.267 previously contained part 1910 requirements
applicable to agricultural operations. These requirements were moved to
Sec. 1928.21 in 1975 (40 FR 18268). Since that time, Sec. 1910.267 has
been used simply to refer employers to Sec. 1928.21 to locate these
requirements. OSHA believes that Sec. 1910.267 is now unnecessary and
proposed removing and reserving this section.
No comments were received on this issue, and OSHA is therefore
removing Sec. 1910.267 and reserving this section.
M. Vinyl Chloride (Sec. 1910.1017)
OSHA proposed deleting paragraphs (g)(5) (i) and (ii) of
Sec. 1910.1017, vinyl chloride, which was promulgated in 1974. These
paragraphs addressed entry into unknown and hazardous vinyl-chloride
atmospheres. Paragraph (g)(5)(i) allows entry into unknown
concentrations of vinyl chloride or concentrations greater than 36,000
ppm (lower explosive limit) only for purposes of life rescue. Paragraph
(g)(5)(ii) allows entry into concentrations of vinyl chloride of less
than 36,000 ppm, but greater than 3,600 ppm, only for purposes of life
rescue, firefighting, or securing equipment that will prevent a greater
release of vinyl chloride.
In 1989, OSHA promulgated industry-wide provisions addressing
emergency response with respect to entry into unknown or hazardous
atmospheres under Sec. 1910.120, the Hazardous Waste Operations and
Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard (54 FR 9317, Mar. 6, 1989).
Included in the scope of the HAZWOPER standard are requirements for
``Emergency response operations for release of, or substantial threats
of release of, hazardous substances without regard to the location of
the hazard.'' Thus, vinyl chloride, which is a ``hazardous substance''
as defined under the HAZWOPER standard, is covered by the emergency
response provisions in both the vinyl chloride and HAZWOPER rules. With
regard to overlapping provisions, the HAZWOPER standard specifically
states in paragraph (a)(2)(i) that ``If there is a conflict or overlap
[between emergency-response provisions in Sec. 1910.120 and provisions
in substance-specific standards], the provisions more protective of
employee safety and health shall apply. * * *''
At the time it proposed to revoke the vinyl chloride provisions,
OSHA believed that the emergency-response provisions in Sec. 1910.120
were more protective overall than the relevant provisions in the vinyl
chloride standard. Further, the provisions of Sec. 1910.120, which
require employers to develop a broad program to respond appropriately
to any potential emergency situation, were viewed by the Agency as
giving employers more flexibility to tailor and implement effective,
comprehensive emergency-response programs to suit their needs. Key
provisions in Sec. 1910.120(q) that would apply where there is a
potential emergency associated with the release of vinyl chloride
address the following: development and implementation of an emergency
response plan, paragraph (q)(1); required elements of the emergency
response plan, paragraph (q)(2); procedures for handling emergency
response, paragraph (q)(3); using skilled support personnel, paragraph
(q)(4); using specialist employees, paragraph (q)(5); training
emergency personnel, paragraphs (q) (6), (7), and (8); medical
surveillance and consultation for emergency-response personnel,
paragraph (q)(9); using chemical protective clothing, paragraph
(q)(10); and procedures for post-emergency operations, paragraph
(q)(11).
OSHA continues to believe that deleting Sec. 1910.1017(g)(5) (i)
and (ii) in favor of Sec. 1910.120 will not result in an increased risk
to the safety or health of employees engaged in vinyl chloride
emergency response operations. The Agency solicited comment on the
question of the sufficiency of Sec. 1910.120 to address the protection
of vinyl chloride emergency response employees, if the emergency
response provisions currently in the vinyl chloride standard were
deleted.
Comments were received which fully supported the proposed action.
The Vinyl Institute (Ex. 4-11) commented as follows:
In the event of a vinyl chloride incident during transportation,
storage, or manufacture, it is necessary to respond quickly to stop
or minimize any release and prevent the situation from escalating.
Because of the quantity of material that potentially could be
involved, such an incident or leak, if not quickly corrected, could
create a cloud of explosive gas within a relatively short time. The
emergency response provisions contained in the Hazardous Waste
Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard would enable
the emergency responders to appropriately respond to the incident.
In contrast, the vinyl chloride standard can be interpreted to
prevent action if the exposure concentration is unknown or if it is
expected to exceed 36,000 ppm and life rescue is not necessary.
Following good emergency response practices and acting
consistently with the HAZWOPER standard should produce the optimum
results while protecting the life and safety of employees and other
potentially exposed individuals. In addition, eliminating the
emergency response provisions of the vinyl chloride standard
clarifies which standard should govern in the event of such an
emergency incident.
OSHA's proposal to delete two specific emergency response
provisions in the vinyl chloride standard and rely on the emergency
response provisions in HAZWOPER will result in optimal responsive
action. The HAZWOPER standard is flexible enough to allow responders
and companies to develop comprehensive emergency response programs
that can be adapted to the particular factual circumstances of a
vinyl chloride incident.
The Vinyl Chloride Panel Transportation Committee of the Chemical
Manufacturers Association (Ex. 4-12A) commented that:
The Committee agrees with OSHA's proposal, and believes that the
emergency response criteria in the HAZWOPER standard are more
appropriate than the relevant provisions of the current vinyl
chloride standard. HAZWOPER recognizes that entry into an unknown
concentration or a confined space may be necessary for reasons other
than life rescue, in order to avoid catastrophic human or
environmental threats. Unlike the current vinyl chloride standard,
the HAZWOPER provisions are flexible enough to allow responders and
companies to develop comprehensive emergency response programs that
suit their individual needs.
OSHA received no comments objecting to this proposed action.
Based on the reasoning set forth in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM)
[[Page 33458]]
(61 FR 37849, July 22, 1996), the discussion of the issues in this
notice, and on supporting comments submitted to the record, OSHA has
determined that deleting paragraphs (g)(5) (i) and (ii) from the vinyl
chloride standard (29 CFR 1910.1017) is appropriate, and this final
rule accomplishes that action.
N. Inorganic Arsenic (Sec. 1910.1018) and Coke Oven Emissions
(Sec. 1910.1029)
OSHA proposed to revise the existing medical surveillance
requirements in paragraph (n) of 29 CFR 1910.1018 that address
inorganic arsenic and paragraph (j) of 29 CFR 1910.1029 that address
coke oven emissions exposure with respect to sputum-cytology
examinations and chest x-rays.
Those changes are being made in accordance with Section 6(b)(7) of
the OSH Act which provides that ``The Secretary, in consultation with
the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, may by rule promulgated
pursuant to Section 553 of Title 5, United States Code, make
appropriate modifications in the foregoing requirements relating to the
use of labels or other forms of warning, monitoring or measuring, and
medical examinations, as may be warranted by experience, information,
or medical or technological developments acquired subsequent to the
promulgation of the relevant standard''.
Specifically, OSHA proposed to delete the requirement in paragraph
(n)(2)(ii)(C) of Sec. 1910.1018 (the inorganic arsenic standard) that
provides for sputum-cytology examination, as well as the requirement in
paragraph (j)(2)(vii) of Sec. 1910.1029 (The coke oven emission
standard) that provides for sputum-cytology examination. Sputum-
cytology examinations were originally included in the medical
surveillance programs for inorganic arsenic and coke oven workers based
on OSHA's belief that such examinations were useful in lung cancer
screening. Subsequent studies indicate that sputum-cytology does not
improve survival.
OSHA also proposed to revise the requirement in paragraph
(n)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1910.1018 of the inorganic arsenic standard that
provided for a semi-annual chest x-ray for employees who are 45 years
of age or older or who have 10 or more years of arsenic exposure over
the action level. OSHA also proposed to change the required frequency
of chest x-rays for these employees from semi-annual to annual.
Likewise, OSHA proposed to amend the requirement in Sec. 1910.1029,
paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of the coke oven emissions standard, which
provides for a semi-annual chest x-ray for employees 45 years of age or
older or with 5 or more years of employment in a regulated area. OSHA
proposed to amend the coke oven standard provision to require an annual
chest x-ray in the medical surveillance program for the group of
employees noted above. OSHA originally promulgated the provision for
semi-annual x-rays in the belief that semi-annual examinations were
appropriate for certain coke oven workers for lung cancer screening.
Subsequent studies indicate that annual screening is equally effective.
The basis for OSHA's final determinations with respect to its
proposed treatment of the relevant sputum-cytology provisions is given
below, followed by a discussion addressing the relevant x-ray
provisions.
Sputum-cytology. When OSHA issued its coke oven emission standard
in 1976 and inorganic arsenic standard in 1978, it included sputum-
cytology as a medical screening technique for lung cancer. Medical
opinion at the time believed that this would improve lung cancer
survival rates for those at higher risk, such as arsenic and coke oven
emission exposed workers.
Two subsequent studies of persons at high risk of lung cancer did
not indicate any improved survival from sputum-cytology screening.
Therefore, OSHA proposed to delete the requirements.
Two randomized controlled studies evaluated the benefits of sputum-
cytology examinations as a screening tool for lung cancer in a high-
risk group, male smokers 45 years of age and older. The two studies
included the Johns Hopkins Lung Project [Ex. 1-3] and the Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Lung Project [Ex. 1-4], both part of the National
Cancer Institute Cooperative Early Lung Cancer Detection Program.
Together, the studies included 20,427 male smokers. These men were
assigned at random to a dual-screen group (in which subjects underwent
an annual chest radiograph, and sputum-cytologic study every 4 months)
or to a single-screen group (in which annual chest radiographic
screening was performed).
For both studies, there were no significant survival differences
between the dual-screen and single-screen groups in the total number of
lung-cancer cases, the number of late-stage lung-cancer cases, the
number of resectable lung cancers, five year (Sloan Kettering) and
eight year (Johns Hopkins) survival rates and the number of lung-cancer
deaths. Therefore, sputum-cytology did not add any benefit to a lung
cancer screening program that already included annual chest x-rays.
Other evaluations of the same studies, (Chest X-ray Screening Improves
Outcome in Lung Cancer, A Reappraisal of Randomized Trials on Lung
Cancer Screening) (Ex. 1-1), and (The National Cancer Institute
Cooperative Early Lung Cancer Detection Program) (Ex. 1-2), reached the
same conclusion.
There are no controlled studies on the impact of sputum-cytology
directly on inorganic arsenic and coke oven emission exposed workers.
But inorganic arsenic and coke oven emission exposed workers are
similar to the smokers studied in that both groups include older males
that are placed at higher risk of lung cancer through inhalation.
The American Cancer Society's recommendations for early detection
of cancer in asymptomatic persons do not include the use of sputum-
cytology examinations [Ex. 1-7]. The Society's decision in this regard
was based on the lack of epidemiological evidence that would support
the use of sputum-cytology screening, and the risks and costs
associated with false positive exams (Ex. 1-8).
OSHA solicited comments on these conclusions with respect to the
value of sputum-cytology exams, and requested submission of other data
and views that would support or dispute the Agency's proposed findings
and conclusions.
OSHA received no comments objecting to this proposed action.
Comments were submitted which support the Agency's proposal and
conclusions with respect to the questionable value of sputum-cytology
as a useful lung cancer screening technique (Exs. 4-2, 4-7, 4-17, 4-22,
4-27).
James Craner, MD, MPH, and a Board-Certified Occupational Medicine
physician stated:
I fully concur with the proposal to eliminate sputum cytology
examinations for the reasons that OSHA has cited. In my experience,
I have also found this test to be inaccurate with a significant
false positive rate, particularly in smokers. The test is expensive
for employers, uncomfortable for employees, and generates
unacceptable costs and anxiety for all involved in chasing (false)
positive results. [Ex. 4-17]
Newport News Shipbuilding's Director of Environmental Health and
Safety (Ex. 4-27) commented that:
In the 17 years since this regulation was established there has
been considerable further experience with cytology and screening
techniques in general. This experience and the scientific literature
published since 1978 established that bronchial cytology is of no
added value in the protection of industrial workers against the
health hazards of arsenic.
[[Page 33459]]
An analysis of the NNS experience of bronchial cytology revealed
that since inception of the program well over 1000 cytological
examinations have been done. No case of dysplasia has been detected.
This contrasts with the 16 per 1000 found in the Mayo lung project
which used multiple screening techniques for cancer in high risk
persons.
Also in support of OSHA's proposal, The American Iron and Steel
Institute (AISI) commented that:
As OSHA points out, sputum cytology examinations were originally
included in the [coke oven emissions] standard based on the belief
that they ``were useful in screening for lung cancer.'' See 61 Fed.
Reg. at 37855-56. Studies and information that have become available
since the standard was promulgated show this belief to have been
incorrect. Two large-scale studies (the Johns Hopkins and Sloan-
Kettering Lung Projects) of male smokers 45 years of age or older (a
high risk group) found that sputum cytology had no significant value
as a screening tool for lung cancer when used in addition to annual
x-ray screening. [Ex. 4-22]
AISI further indicated that:
Experience in the steel industry is consistent with the results
of the Johns Hopkins and Sloan-Kettering Studies. From 1977 through
1990, the cytology laboratory at Shadyside Hospital in Pittsburgh,
PA, performed almost 71,000 sputum cytology examinations of coke
oven workers from various steel companies. Only two definite
malignancies were detected in all of these examinations, for a
detection rate of 0.000028 [Ex. 4-22]
Based on their experience, AISI asserts that ``* * * sputum
cytology has not been of any more benefit in terms of lung cancer
screening under the Coke Oven Emissions Standard than it was in the
Johns Hopkins and Sloan-Kettering studies.'' (Ex. 4-22)
The studies indicate the sputum-cytology screening does not appear
to improve survival rates of groups at higher risk of lung cancer
beyond that which would be accomplished through annual chest x-rays.
Arsenic and coke-oven emission exposed workers fit in this category.
The commenters support this analysis and have provided additional data
which tends to support these conclusions. Since the studies and
analysis do not indicate survival benefits, OSHA is deleting the
requirements for sputum-cytology in the inorganic arsenic and coke oven
emission standards as proposed.
X-Rays. As noted above, OSHA proposed to revise the requirements in
the inorganic arsenic and coke oven standards for chest x-rays from
semi-annual to annual for higher risk workers covered by those
standards. The basis for the proposal was studies that indicate that
semi-annual x-rays did not improve lung cancer survival rates over
annual x-rays.
This evidence continues to show that employees at a higher risk of
lung cancer from exposures to inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions
profit from a medical surveillance program, including annual chest x-
rays, for the early detection of lung cancer.
As discussed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), two
recent randomized controlled studies were conducted on a group at high
risk for developing lung cancer (namely, male smokers 45 years of age
or older), and were evaluated with respect to the utility of periodic
x-rays. These studies, which included the Mayo Lung Project [Ex. 1-9]
and the Czechoslovak Study [Ex. 1-10], were designed specifically to
assess the efficacy of chest x-rays in detecting early-stage lung
cancer among the members of this group. The studies compared a number
of outcomes between experimental groups that were assessed using chest
x-rays administered at periodic intervals (4 months in the Mayo Lung
Project and 6 months in the Czechoslovak Study) and control groups
receiving less infrequent or, in some cases, no chest x-rays.
(Participants in both the experimental and control groups were
administered chest x-rays at the beginning of each study to ensure that
they had no detectable lung tumors that would bias the research
outcomes.)
These studies (Exs. 1-9, 1-10) found that periodic chest x-rays led
to enhanced detection of early-stage lung cancer and, consequently,
higher rates of resectability for this cancer. As demonstrated by a
subsequent analysis of these studies (Lung Cancer Detection, Results of
Randomized Prospective Study in Czechoslovakia) (Ex. 1-11), lung-
cancer-specific survival based on fatality rate (i.e., number of deaths
per diagnosed cases) improved significantly. This analysis also showed
that the lower fatality rate among the experimental groups was not the
result of over diagnosis for lung cancer or lead-time bias. For the
Mayo Lung Project and the Czechoslovak Study, respectively, fatality
rates of persons diagnosed with lung cancer were found to be 59% and
78% in the experimental groups, and 72% and 95% in the control group.
The efficacy of chest x-rays was also demonstrated by analyzing the
outcomes for the few experimental group participants who did not
undergo surgery when diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer, either
because they refused surgery or surgery was contraindicated. This
analysis was part of the research described in Exhibit 1-11, which
combined the outcomes for experimental group participants in the Mayo
Lung Project with similar experimental group participants from two
other groups (the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Project and the Johns
Hopkins Lung Project). The 5 year fatality rate for the nonsurgery
participants was about 90 percent, compared with a 30-percent fatality
rate for those participants who underwent cancer surgery. This
comparison provides strong support for the efficacy of chest x-rays in
detecting early-stage lung cancer and enhancing the survival of those
participants who undergo subsequent surgery for removal of a detected
tumor. Additionally, this comparison indicates that over-diagnosis and
lead-time biases did not contribute significantly to the fatality-rate
differences obtained between the experimental and control groups in the
Mayo Lung Project and Czechoslovak Study.
Based on this discussion, OSHA concludes that employees exposed to
inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions continue to need medical
surveillance to detect lung cancer, and that periodic chest x-rays are
a necessary part of the medical surveillance to improve detection and
survival from lung cancer. OSHA proposed reducing the frequency of
chest x-rays from semi-annually to annually for older persons with
higher risk exposures.
This frequency is based, in part, on an analysis described in
Exhibit 1-11 showing that the 5-year fatality rate (about 30-35
percent) for persons diagnosed with lung cancer was the same for the
experimental-group participants in the Mayo Lung Project, which
administered chest x-rays every 4 months, and the experimental-group
participants in the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Project and Johns Hopkins
Lung Project, which performed chest x-rays once a year. [See also Exs.
1-12 and 1-13] This analysis demonstrates that fatality rates did not
differ in any practical or statistically significant fashion across
these three major studies. Frequent chest x-rays very slightly increase
cancer rates from radiation and therefore should not be given more
frequently than necessary from a health perspective.
In summary, large randomized controlled studies demonstrate that
semi-annual chest radiography screenings show no benefit over annual
screenings. The studies also demonstrate that annual chest radiography
screening of high-risk individuals, including workers exposed to
inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions results in earlier detection
of lung cancer and improved survival.
Several commenters (Exs. 4-17, 4-22) suggested that intervals
between x-rays
[[Page 33460]]
for high-risk workers could be longer than 1 year; however, the Agency
is aware of no data to demonstrate with reasonable confidence what
longer interval, if any, would not reduce survival rates. In addition,
no such data were received by OSHA in response to the proposal. OSHA
therefore concludes that an annual x-ray provision is reasonable for
the reasons set forth in the proposal and this final notice. Moreover,
if the Agency has erred in this instance, it has done so on the side of
over-protection rather than under-protection, as sanctioned by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum
Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980).
OSHA solicited comments and data in the proposal to reduce the
frequency of chest x-rays from semi-annual to annual for certain
workers exposed to inorganic arsenic and coke oven emissions. OSHA
received no comments objecting to this proposed action. Comment was
received supporting the proposal (Exs. 4-7, 4-17, 4-22, 4-27).
AISI commented that:
* * * the requirement for semiannual x-rays originally was
included in the Coke Oven Emissions Standard ``in the belief that
semiannual examinations were valid for screening for lung cancer.''
See 61 Fed. Reg. At 37856/2. Since then, the results of several
large randomized control studies have become available. These
studies, the Mayo Lung Project and Czechoslovak Study, indicate that
periodic chest x-rays do lead to enhanced detection of early-stage
lung cancer. See 61 Fed. Reg. At 37856/3. However, when the results
of the Mayo Lung Project (where chest x-rays were taken every four
months) were compared to the results of the Johns Hopkins and Sloan-
Kettering studies described above (where chest x-rays were taken
only once a year), it was found that the fatality rates ``did not
differ in any practical or statistically-significant fashion across
these three major studies.'' See 61 Fed. Reg. At 37856/1.
What this demonstrates, as OSHA correctly points out, is that
``semiannual chest radiography screenings show no benefit over
annual screenings.'' Id. That being the case, OSHA clearly is
justified in finding that ``an annual chest x-ray satisfies the
purpose of the medical surveillance program required under the
standard.'' See 61 Fed. Reg. At 37856/1. A contrary conclusion not
only would impose unjustified burdens on coke oven employers, it
also would continue to expose coke oven employees to an increased
risk of cancer associated with the performance of unnecessary
diagnostic x-rays. For that reason, the Energy Technology Committee
of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
has cautioned against the routine administration of chest x-rays and
stated that for individuals at increased risk of lung disease or
cancer, such as persons exposed to pulmonary irritants or
carcinogens, ``a chest x-ray every 12-24 months may be justified.''
(See American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Guidelines for Use of Routine X-Ray Examinations in Occupational
Medicine; ACOEM Membership Directory 1995/1996: Addendum at 517.)
The semiannual chest x-rays currently required under the
standard do not provide a significant benefit over annual chest x-
ray screening in terms of early lung cancer detection...Chest x-rays
under the Coke Oven Emissions Standard should, therefore, be
required no more often than annually.'' (Ex. 4-22)
With respect to the arsenic standard, James Craner, MD, MPH stated
that ``* * * I agree with the proposal to reduce the frequency of chest
x-ray examinations' (Ex. 4-17).
In summary, available data do not indicate that semi-annual x-rays
provide additional protection than do annual x-rays in improving the
detection of and survival from lung cancer for higher risk persons. The
record strongly supports this analysis and OSHA's proposal to reduce
the x-ray frequencies from semi-annual to annual for certain workers
exposed to inorganic arsenic and coke oven emission. OSHA concludes
that this final action will not reduce the health of affected workers
and accordingly finalizes the changes proposed.
Amendments to Part 1910 That Received Varied Comments
O. Explosives and blasting agents (Sec. 1910.109)
In 1978 OSHA published a final rule (43 FR 49726) which revoked
certain requirements that were called ``nuisance standards'' because
they did not deal directly with workplace safety and health or were
within the jurisdiction of some other regulatory agency. Among the
requirements revoked were the three columns of Table H-21 (American
Table of Distances for Storage of Explosives)(ATD)that specified
minimum distances between explosive storage magazines and inhabited
buildings, passenger railways, and public highways because they dealt
with public and property protection and not employee protection.
Paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of Sec. 1910.109 was inadvertently overlooked
during the 1978 rulemaking and still makes reference to the three
columns of Table H-21 which were revoked. Therefore, OSHA proposed to
delete the phrase in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) which made reference to these
three revoked columns. OSHA also proposed to delete the word
``manufacture'' from footnote number 5 of Table H-21 to clarify that
the Table applies only to the storage of explosives in magazines.
In response to the proposal, the Institute of Makers of Explosives
(IME) objected to OSHA making changes to Table H-21, which is a revised
version of the American Table of Distances (ATD) that is published by
the IME. The IME (Ex. 4-10) asserted that the portion of the ATD
published as Table H-21 comes from an outdated version of the ATD; 1991
is the current publication date for the ATD. This commenter also stated
that Table H-21 only provides the distances applicable to barricaded
magazines, and that OSHA fails to provide the unbarricaded distances,
which are significantly greater, and which are necessary to fully
protect on-site workers.
In expressing its concern, the IME (Ex. 4-10, pg.2) stated:
The ATD, in its entirety, provides anyone storing explosives
with all of the key parameters for maintaining sufficient distances
between magazines and buildings on-site, as well as between on-site
magazines and inhabited buildings, passenger railways, and public
highways. IME is adamant that an understanding of, and adherence to,
all of the distances is necessary to maintain the safety of every
explosives manufacturing and storage site. IME thus requires that
those who use the copyright protected ATD must publish the entire
ATD, with all its footnotes and columns, verbatim. In the interest
of promoting overall safety, the IME suggests that OSHA publish the
entire ATD.
OSHA is appreciative of the comment expressed by IME; however,
after a careful evaluation of this issue, OSHA has concluded that IME's
suggestion to publish the entire ATD will require additional study. In
addition, the public, and specifically the user community has not had
notice or an opportunity to comment on this suggestion. Therefore, more
extensive opportunity is needed for public comment to be expressed on
this issue. Rather than holding up the deregulatory changes in this
document, OSHA will consider this suggestion in its next proposal on
technical amendments to the OSHA standards. However OSHA will make the
minor corrections proposed so the existing language will be consistent
and correct.
P. Medical Services and First Aid (Sec. 1910.151)
Section 1910.151 states the employer's obligation to have medical
services available to provide advice on workplace health matters, and
for use by employees if needed.
Paragraph (b), in particular, requires the availability of first
aid services for workplaces that do not have medical providers nearby.
This paragraph also requires that employers have on hand first aid
supplies approved by the consulting physician.
[[Page 33461]]
OSHA proposed amending Sec. 1910.151(b) so that the approval of
first aid supplies by the consulting physician is no longer required,
although the standard would continue to require that adequate supplies
be available. Commercial first aid kits that meet the needs of most
employers and most work sites are readily available. If the workplace
had unusual hazards or posed special problems that would require
modifying a commercial first aid kit or developing a specialized kit,
the Agency expected the employer to provide those special items. An
employer who was unsure whether a commercially available kit was
sufficient could seek professional advice. Such advice, however, would
not have been required by OSHA as a matter of course.
Two commenters, Occupational Health Network and Gundersen Clinic
Ltd. (Exs. 4-18, 4-23) opposed this amendment. One of the commenters
(Ex. 4-23) said:
While indeed commercial first aid kits are readily available and
often meet the needs of many employers and many work sites, such
first aid kits have been available for many years. We find that
employers need improved first aid attention and protocols for use of
specific first aid supplies that are in tune with the types of
problems identified on their incident reports and OSHA 200 logs.
American Pulpwood Association, Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company, Bell Atlantic, and Nynex (Ex. 4-5, 4-6, 4-19, 4-20,
respectively) urged OSHA to adopt the proposed amendment. For example,
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company said:
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company provides employees' vehicles
and work locations with the most up-to-date and well-stocked first
aid kits available. We continually monitor their use and revise the
kits accordingly.
Nynex stated:
The wide variety of commercially available first aid kits have
proven to be adequate for occupational settings.
After a review of the comments, OSHA concludes that workers will
continue to be well protected after the change. Employers still must
provide adequate first aid supplies for their workplace and can be
cited if they fail to do so. As discussed below, there are many sources
of information on appropriate supplies such as that provided by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society
For Testing and Materials (ASTM). The employer may also consult with
appropriate medical professionals, emergency rooms, and local fire/
rescue departments if the employer prefers. If there are unique hazards
in the employer's workplace, the requirement for providing adequate
first aid supplies means that the employer must provide adequate
supplies for those professionals who would determine what additional
supplies are needed. Accordingly, OSHA is adopting the proposed
amendment to Sec. 1910.151(b).
Since some employers may find it useful to refer to a list of basic
first aid supplies, OSHA is providing a reference to this information
in a new non-mandatory Appendix A to Sec. 1910.151. The Appendix refers
to ANSI standard ANSI Z308.1-1978, ``Minimum Requirements for
Industrial Unit-type First-aid Kits.'' OSHA is aware that ANSI Z308.1
is currently under revision. When ANSI issues its revision to the
Z308.1 standard, OSHA may revise Appendix A to reference the revised
ANSI standard, if the Agency determines that the new edition is as
effective as the earlier edition. In addition, at that time OSHA will
consider adding other consensus standards on first aid kits as
references in the Appendix.
In providing references to applicable voluntary consensus
standards, OSHA is complying with Section 12(d)(1) of the National
Technology Transfer Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-113) which states that all
Federal agencies shall use applicable technical standards that are
developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies as a means to carry
out their policy objectives or activities.
Q. Telecommunications (Sec. 1910.268)
Paragraph (f) of existing Sec. 1910.268 contains requirements for
rubber insulating equipment (gloves and blankets) used at
telecommunications centers and field installations. In the notice of
proposed rulemaking, OSHA presented several reasons why it believed
that Sec. 1910.268(f) was unnecessary. First, the general industry
standard found at 29 CFR 1910.137, Electrical Protective Equipment,
addresses all rubber insulating equipment, and removing
Sec. 1910.268(f) would eliminate this duplication of standards and the
associated compliance problems. Second, Sec. 1910.137 provides more
comprehensive employee protection, since it covers requirements for
manufacture and marking, electrical proof tests, test and maximum use
voltages, test intervals, workmanship, and in-service care and use.
Third, Sec. 1910.137 is written in performance language that provides
employers with flexibility in meeting the standard. Thus, OSHA believed
that paragraph (f) of Sec. 1910.268 could be removed without
diminishing employee safety and health.
OSHA received seven comments from the telecommunications industry
objecting to the proposed removal of this paragraph (Exs. 4-4, 4-6, 4-
8, 4-9, 4-14, 4-19, 4-20). These commenters argued that applying
Sec. 1910.137 to their rubber gloves would increase the frequency with
which the gloves had to be tested from every 9 months under
Sec. 1910.268(f) to every 6 months under Sec. 1910.137. The commenters
stated that this would increase the cost of testing rubber gloves
without a commensurate increase in safety. Mr. James M. Degen of NYNEX
(Ex. 4-20) worded the industry's arguments as follows:
NYNEX does not agree, however, with OSHA's proposal to revoke
the requirements for rubber insulating equipment used at
telecommunications centers and field installations [29 CFR
1910.268(f)] . . . Specifically, 1910.268(f) requires the electrical
testing of rubber insulating gloves on a nine month interval, while
1910.137 requires that these tests be conducted on a six month
interval. NYNEX finds that the test interval in 1910.268(f) is
adequate for the telecommunications industry and should be
maintained for the following reasons:
1. In contrast to the electric utility industry,
telecommunications workers do not work with or otherwise handle live
electric lines. Rubber insulating gloves are used as a precautionary
measure against an unintentional contact with energized conductors
or equipment.
2. The national consensus standard that is referenced as a
source of the requirements of 1910.137, ASTM F496-93b, Standard
Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating Gloves and Sleeves,
recognizes this difference between the electric utility industry and
telecommunications in paragraph 7.3, which states:
``Industries, such as telecommunications, that utilize
insulating gloves as precautionary protection against unintentional
contact with energized conductors, may increase the maximum interval
between issue and retest to nine months.''
3. NYNEX has not experienced any work-related injuries or
fatalities as a result of the failure of rubber insulating gloves.
4. Finally, shortening the retest interval from nine months to
six months would result in a fifty percent increase of direct costs
to NYNEX amounting to $165,000 per year, as well as a fifty percent
increase of indirect costs attributed to the administrative and lost
productive time associated with exchanging, testing and reissuing of
insulating gloves. These increased costs to NYNEX, as well as the
rest of the telecommunications industry, will not result in any
demonstrable improvement in employee safety.
OSHA agrees with this commenter's rationale. Paragraph (f)(5) of
Sec. 1910.268 reads as follows:
(5) The employer is responsible for the periodic retesting of
all insulating gloves,
[[Page 33462]]
blankets, and other rubber insulating equipment. This retesting
shall be electrical, visual and mechanical. The following maximum
retesting intervals shall apply:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gloves, blankets, and other insulating Natural Synthetic
equipment rubber rubber
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)Months
-------------------------
New........................................... 12 18
Re-issued..................................... 9 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By contrast, Table I-6 in Sec. 1910.137 sets intervals for testing
rubber insulating equipment that differ from the intervals for such
equipment in the telecommunications. Table I-6 requires rubber blankets
to be tested before first use and every 12 months thereafter. It
requires rubber insulating gloves to be tested before first use and
every 6 months thereafter. No distinction is made between natural and
synthetic rubber.
As noted by the commenters, removing Sec. 1910.268(f) in its
entirety would effectively increase the amount of testing performed by
telecommunications employers on rubber gloves.1 This would
consequently increase the industry's testing costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The testing intervals for synthetic rubber insulating
blankets would also be shorter. However, the commenters did not
object on that basis. Additionally, the national consensus standard
for this equipment, American Society for Testing and Materials F479
Specification for In-Service Care of Insulating Blankets, which
formed the basis for the test intervals in Sec. 1910.137, provides a
maximum interval of 12 months between tests, regardless of whether
the rubber is natural or synthetic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employees performing telecommunications work wear rubber insulating
gloves to protect them against accidental contact with energized parts.
These employees use specific work practices required in Sec. 1910.268,
including maintaining minimum approach distances from energized parts,
to protect them against electric shock hazards. The gloves provide
secondary protection in case the work practices are not followed. This
contrasts with the way rubber insulating gloves are used for other
types of electrical work, such as electric power transmission and
distribution work. In this type of work, employees wearing rubber
insulating gloves handle energized conductors directly, and the gloves
provide the primary form of protection for the worker.
All the commenters on this issue maintained that they had
experienced no injuries as a result of the failure of rubber insulating
gloves. For these reasons, OSHA has decided not to remove
Sec. 1910.268(f)(5).
OSHA is also retaining paragraph (f)(6) of Section 1910.268 because
of its connection with paragraph (f)(5). This paragraph requires that
rubber gloves and blankets be marked to indicate compliance with the
test schedule required under paragraph (f)(5) and that rubber gloves be
destroyed if they fail the tests or if they are otherwise found to be
defective.
OSHA continues to believe that the remaining provisions contained
in existing Sec. 1910.268(f) unnecessarily duplicate requirements in
Sec. 1910.137. None of the interested persons who commented on
Sec. 1910.268(f) presented reasons why any paragraphs other than
Sec. 1910.268 (f)(5) and (f)(6) should be retained. Therefore, the
Agency is revising paragraph (f)(1), removing paragraphs (f)(2) through
(f)(4) and (f)(7) through (f)(9) and redesignating paragraphs (f)(5)
and (f)(6) as (f)(2) and (f)(3) of Sec. 1910.268. Paragraph (f)(1) as
revised explains that 1910.137 applies to telecommunications except for
Table I-6.
Amendments to Part 1926 That Received No Comments or Positive Comments
Only
A. Incorporation by reference (Sec. 1926.31)
This final rule amends Sec. 1926.31 to clarify that only mandatory
provisions of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as OSHA
standards.
As stated in the proposal, based on its ongoing review of
compliance and enforcement activities and recommendations from its
Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH), OSHA is
aware that difficulties have arisen regarding certain provisions of
part 1926 that were adopted under section 6(a) of the Act. Many of the
standards adopted under Section 6(a) were American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) or National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
consensus standards which were incorporated by reference and contained
advisory provisions (e.g., use the word ``should'' rather than
``shall'').
In the past, OSHA maintained that all standards, regardless of
whether the term ``should'' or ``shall'' is used, created mandatory
compliance responsibilities. Employers have consistently challenged
this position on the basis that Section 6(a) of the Act only gave OSHA
the authority to adopt ANSI standards verbatim. In ANSI standards,
using the term ``should'' means that the provision is only advisory.
Therefore, employers maintained that ANSI ``should'' standards could
only be advisory when adopted or incorporated by reference by OSHA
under Section 6(a).
OSHA's ability to enforce ``should'' standards has been denied by
the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and by most of the
appellate courts in which contested cases have been heard. For example,
in Marshall v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company, 584 F.2d 638, 643-
44 (1978), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined that
``should'' standards were merely advisory because the consensus
organization had reached ``substantial agreement'' that these
provisions be viewed only as recommendations, and not as mandatory
standards.
The courts have also ruled that failure to adopt an ANSI provision
verbatim renders the resulting OSHA Section 6(a) provision invalid and
unenforceable [see Usery v. Kennecott Copper Corporation, 577 F.2d
1113, 1117 (10th Cir. 1977)].
Although the ``should'' standards have not been enforceable in and
of themselves, OSHA has used them to help demonstrate the existence of
``recognized hazards'' under the general duty clause [Section 5(a)(1)]
of the Act. However, the Review Commission has ruled that, as long as
the ``should'' provision remains in effect as an OSHA standard, OSHA
may not issue a general duty clause citation for the hazard it
addresses (see A. Prokosch & Sons Sheet Metal and Mid Hudson Automatic
Sprinkler, 1980 CCH OSH para. 24,840).
In order to address these issues, the Agency is revising
Sec. 1926.31(a) to clarify that only the mandatory requirements of
incorporated consensus standards are adopted as OSHA standards. The
removal of the advisory provisions will also simplify and streamline
the existing Part 1926 standards.
In 1984, OSHA conducted a rulemaking for 29 CFR part 1910 (General
Industry Standards) that was similar to the one described above for the
construction standards in part 1926. At that time, paragraph (a)(1) of
Sec. 1910.6 was revised to clarify that ``only the mandatory provisions
* * * of standards incorporated by reference are adopted as standards
under the Occupational Safety and Health Act'' (49 FR 5318).
In the present rule making, OSHA proposed to revise paragraph (a)
of Sec. 1926.31 to read the same as Sec. 1910.6 by adding a sentence to
existing Sec. 1926.31(a) to read as follows: ``Only the mandatory
provisions (i.e., provisions containing the word ``shall'' or other
mandatory language) of standards incorporated by reference are adopted
as standards under the
[[Page 33463]]
Occupational Safety and Health Act.'' No comments were received on the
proposed revision, and this paragraph (Sec. 1926.31(a)) is therefore
being revised as proposed.
B. Flammable and combustible liquids (Sec. 1926.152)
Paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1926.152 requires employers to use a
safety can, which is defined as a container with a capacity of 5
gallons or less that is equipped with a spring-closing lid and spout
cover, a means to relieve internal pressure, and a flash arresting
screen, for the storage, use, and handling of flammable and combustible
liquids. As stated in the proposal, while approved metal safety cans
are still acceptable, various nationally recognized testing
laboratories have also approved the use of plastic safety cans for
flammable liquids. The Agency has determined that Department of
Transportation (DOT) approved containers of 5 gallon capacity or less
that are not equipped with a spring closing lid, spout cover, and
flash-arresting screen are also acceptable for the storage, use, and
handling of flammable and combustible liquids because they sufficiently
reduce the risk from fire, spills and explosions.
Furthermore, the Agency has determined that it is sufficient to
require the use of the original container only for quantities of
flammable liquids that are one gallon or less because that will
adequately protect against the risk of fire and explosion. Where the
original container is available, the employer may choose to use it
instead of an approved safety can for quantities of one gallon or less.
If the original container is not available, an approved safety can must
be used.
One comment was received on the proposed revision to
Sec. 1926.152(a)(1), (Ex. 4-2). This commenter supported the proposed
revision as written. Based on the reasons stated above, OSHA is
revising Sec. 1926.152(a)(1) as proposed.
C. Initiation of explosive charges--Electric blasting (Sec. 1926.906)
OSHA proposed revising paragraph (q) of Sec. 1926.906 to allow the
use of other types of specifically designed instruments, in addition to
those equipped with silver chloride cells, when testing circuits to
charged holes.
The general industry standard, Sec. 1910.109(e)(4)(vii), Explosives
and Blasting Agents, states that ``Blasters, when testing circuits to
charged holes, shall use only blasting galvanometers designed for this
purpose.'' The standard does not specifically require using silver
chloride cells. In addition, the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) currently allows for the use of a blasting galvanometer or other
instruments that are specifically designed for testing blasting
circuits (30 CFR CH.1 Sec. 56.6407). The revision of Sec. 1926.906(q)
will correct the inconsistency with the above mentioned standards.
One comment was received on the proposed revision to
Sec. 1926.906(q). This commenter (Ex. 4-10) substantially supported the
proposed revision to Sec. 1926.906(q). OSHA is therefore revising
Sec. 1926.906(q) as proposed.
Amendments to Part 1926 That Received Varied Comments
D. Medical services and first aid (Sec. 1926.50)
OSHA proposed revising paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of Sec. 1926.50
to eliminate the requirement for physician approval of first aid
supplies. As stated in the proposal, since first aid kits that are
commercially available will meet the needs of most employers, it is
unnecessary for most employers to have a physician approve the contents
of a first aid kit. However, if the workplace has unusual hazards or
special situations which would require modification of a commercial
first aid kit, or the development of a specialized kit, the Agency
expects that the employer will provide these special items. If the
employer is unsure whether a commercially available kit is sufficient,
professional advice should be obtained. Such advice, however, would not
be required as a matter of course. The Agency believes that this change
will allow the employer more flexibility in meeting the first aid
requirements without affecting employee safety.
No comments were received on this proposed revision; however, nine
comments were received addressing the proposal to revise the identical
provision in the General Industry standard Sec. 1910.151(b) (Exs. 4-5,
4-6, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-23, 4-26, 4-28 and 4-30). Those comments are
discussed in the General Industry section above. In addition, as stated
in the Sec. 1910.151(b) discussion, OSHA is providing a reference for
basic first aid supplies and their use in a new non-mandatory Appendix
A to Sec. 1910.151. In order to be consistent with the General Industry
standards, and for the reasons stated in the discussion of the General
Industry standard, this final rule revises Sec. 1926.50 in the same
manner as Sec. 1910.151 with the addition of a non-mandatory Appendix A
to Sec. 1926.50.
Appendix A for Sec. 1910.151 includes a statement that employers
are to follow the provisions of Sec. 1910.1030(d)(3) of the OSHA
standard on occupational exposure to blood borne pathogens (56 FR
64175). As that standard is not applicable to employers in the
construction industry, this statement is not repeated in Appendix A to
Sec. 1926.50. Additional First aid supplies (other than those
referenced in Appendix A) may be necessary to address specific work
hazards and prevalent injuries.
OSHA is revising Paragraph (f) of Sec. 1926.50 to limit the
requirement for posting the telephone numbers of physicians, hospitals
or ambulances to those areas where the 911 emergency number is not
available. OSHA believes that requiring all employers to post the
numbers where the 911 emergency number is available could lead to
confusion and might slow emergency response, and would place an
unnecessary burden on the employers.
IV. Summary of the Final Economic Analysis Introduction
Based on the record of this rulemaking, this final rule eliminates
a number of provisions in OSHA standards that are duplicative,
unnecessary, or potentially in conflict with the rules of other Federal
agencies. All of the changes OSHA is making are expected to benefit the
regulated community by making the rules clearer, simple and easier to
understand and apply. Quantifiable economic benefits can be estimated
only for four of these changes, however.2 By eliminating
these ``problem provisions'' from its standards, this Standards
Improvement rule will lessen the burden employers currently experience,
and will, in turn, generate cost savings. No commenters disputed these
findings, reported by OSHA in the Preliminary Economic Analysis that
accompanied the proposed rule. The following paragraphs discuss the
Final Economic Analysis in detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, the Duke Power Company [Ex. 4-2] applauded
OSHA's elimination of a provision (Sec. 1926.152) on storage cans
for flammable and combustible liquids that conflicts with a DOT
requirement on the same topic. Unfortunately, the Agency does not
have sufficient data to estimate the apparent cost savings from this
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Aid Kits
The final rule eliminates the requirements in Sec. 1910.151(b) and
Sec. 1926.50(d)(1) that employers must have certain first aid supplies
approved by a consulting physician before they are used. This
requirement applied only in cases where no infirmary, clinic, or
hospital was in close proximity to the worksite and the employer
intended to treat first aid injuries at the site.
[[Page 33464]]
Although the number of establishments meeting these criteria is not
known, the Agency believes that its estimate of 10 percent of
establishments is reasonable, and no commenter disagreed with this
estimate. The provisions being eliminated did not specify how the
physician was to provide this consultation, but OSHA assumed that, at
most, five minutes of a physician's time, valued at $100/
hr,3 would be required to approve the contents of the first
aid kit at these establishments. For purposes of this analysis, OSHA
also assumed that the physician provided five minutes of his or her
time at an hourly wage rate, i.e., at a cost of $8.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Opportunity cost measured as the market price for
occupational physical exams, i.e., at the rate of about $100 an
hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis further assumed that the physician would need to
approve the first aid supplies once every 10 years, after which time
the development of new kinds of medical supplies and the possibility of
new hazards at the worksite would make a new consultation necessary.
The cost of five minutes of a physician's time annualized over 10 years
is $1.19 per year.
The Agency estimates that approximately 6.4 million employers fall
under OSHA jurisdiction and will be affected by this change [County
Business Patterns, 1993]. Of these, 10% would be affected by the
change; the annualized cost for employers to comply with these
provisions in the past was approximately $761,600 ((6.4 million x
10%) x $1.19). By eliminating the requirement for a physician's
approval of an establishment's first aid kit, OSHA will eliminate this
burden.
Coke Oven Emissions
The final rule will eliminate the requirement at Sec. 1910.1029(j)
for employers to conduct semiannual sputum cytology tests and will
reduce the frequency at which they must supply chest x-rays from twice
a year to once a year for workers who are 45 years of age or older or
who have five or more years of employment in areas defined by the
standard as regulated areas. Regulated areas encompass the coke oven
battery, including topside and its machinery, pushside and its
machinery, cokeside and its machinery, and battery ends; the wharf; the
screening station; and the beehive oven and its machinery.
The Inflationary Impact Statement developed by OSHA in support of
the Coke Oven standard (Sec. 1910.1029), [Inflationary Impact
Statement: Coke Oven Emissions, 1976] estimated total employment in
coke ovens at 29,600 workers. The same analysis estimated that 75
percent of these employees worked in regulated areas. The 1992 Census
of Manufacturers (Industry Series) indicated total employment for SIC
33121 (Coke Oven and Blast Furnace Products) at 8,600 and total
production person-hours at 15.7 million. A separate Census Industry
Series count specific to coke ovens indicates a total of 11.2 million
production person-hours, which constitutes approximately 71 percent of
SIC 3312's productive person-hours, suggesting a current total number
of 6,135 coke oven workers.
Assuming that the proportion of coke oven employees working in
regulated areas has remained constant, approximately 4,600 coke oven
employees currently work in regulated areas. Approximately 30 percent
of the workforce in 1994 was over 45 years of age [BLS data presented
in Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1995, p. 402]. Turnover
rates in SIC 33, which includes coke ovens, are estimated at 5 percent
annually [National Occupational Exposure Survey: Analysis of Management
Interview Responses, 1988]. Thus, approximately 77 percent of the
current regulated area workforce will have been exposed to coke oven
emissions for five years or more.4 Adjusting this percentage
to reflect the assumption that 30 percent of employees are over 45
years of age yields an estimate of 84 percent 5 of coke oven
employees (3,864 workers) potentially affected by the revocation or
revision of these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ (1-0.05)5 = 0.77 This calculation assumes an
equal probability of turnover in each year thereafter.
\5\ ((0.77) x (1-0.30)) + (0.30) = 0.84 All other things
equal, at least 30 percent of those with 5 or more years of exposure
would be over 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data for 1994 obtained from the Physician Payment Review Commission
[E-mail from Christopher Hogan, PPRC, to Tom Mockler, OSHA] indicate
that the average x-ray charge nationally is $54.40 and the average lab
charge for cytological examination of bodily fluids is $51.90. (OSHA
assumes that the additional average charge of $19.00 for sputum
specimen collection is included in the fee for the medical exam
required by the standard.) Therefore the savings associated with the
elimination of one chest x-ray and two sputum cytologies annually is
$158.20 per worker ($54.40 for one x-ray, and $103.80 for two sputum
cytology tests). For the group of 3,864 employees, the annual savings
is thus $611,285.
The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) [Ex. 4-22] agreed with
the Preliminary Economic Analysis's finding that this change would save
employers money. AISI's analysis, which assumed higher wage rates and a
larger affected population than OSHA's analysis, estimated a cost
savings of $925,000 per year. Thus, the Agency's cost savings estimate
for this regulatory action may be understated.
Inorganic Arsenic
As in the case of the coke oven standard, OSHA is eliminating the
requirement for sputum cytology and reducing the frequency of chest x-
ray exams from semi-annual to annual for workers exposed above the
inorganic arsenic action level of 5g/m3 (29 CFR
1910.1018). Paragraph (n) of Sec. 1910.1018 formerly required employees
exposed above the action level for 30 days per year to receive these
medical surveillance elements semi-annually if they were 45 years of
age or older or had had more than 10 years of exposure above the action
level.
The Federal Register notice for the inorganic arsenic rulemaking
[May 5, 1978, p. 19585] indicated that, of 660,000 workers exposed to
inorganic arsenic, 7,400 were exposed above an 8-hour TWA 4g/
m3, i.e., close to or above the action level. Although
arsenic uses and related exposures have shifted over time, the level of
inorganic arsenic use in the U.S. appears to be approximately the same
as it was at the time of the original rulemaking. 6
Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the Agency assumes that
the size of the exposed population is unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Based on the estimated level of raw arsenic trioxide
consumed in the U.S. [Arsenic: Industrial, Biomedical, Environmental
Perspectives, 1983, p. 7; Bureau of Mines, Mineral Commodity
Summary, 1995].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of the original rulemaking, the Inflationary Impact
Statement [Inflationary Impact Statement: Inorganic Arsenic, 1976]
estimated that 50% of employees exposed above the action level would
need the semi-annual x-ray exams, based on OSHA's analysis of age, job
tenure and turnover. Using the same assumptions, the Agency estimates
that approximately 3,700 workers will be affected by the final rule's
revision to this provision. This change will eliminate the need for x-
ray and sputum cytology testing valued at $158.20 (see the explanation
above for coke ovens for cost details) for 3,700 employees, for an
annual cost savings of $584,340.
Pulp and Paper
OSHA's existing pulp and paper standard, Sec. 1910.261, contains
paragraph (b)(5), ``vessel entering,'' which states:
[[Page 33465]]
Lifelines and safety harness shall be worn by anyone entering
closed vessels, tanks, chip bins, and similar equipment, and a
person shall be stationed outside in a position to handle the line
and to summon assistance in the case of emergency.
Paragraph (b)(5) also prescribes other safety precautions for similar
confined spaces in pulp and paper mills.
OSHA is eliminating these specific separate requirements for
confined space entry in pulp and paper mills and instead is cross-
referencing Sec. 1910.146, OSHA's generic permit-required confined
space standard. In other words, employers in the pulp and paper
industry will no longer have to comply with Sec. 1910.261(b)(5) but
will instead be required to comply with Sec. 1910.146. Sec. 1910.146
requires employers to assess the hazards associated with their confined
spaces and take appropriate safety precautions to deal with those
hazards. Although Sec. 1910.146 may require employers under certain
circumstances to complete additional checklists, conduct training, and
plan for rescue, depending on the hazard(s) present, pulp and paper
mill employers will in some cases no longer need to require employees
to wear lifelines or provide for outside ``attendants'', 7
as was required by Sec. 1910.261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, Sec. 1910.146(c)(5) states that, if an employer
can certify that ventilation alone can reliably control atmospheric
hazards in a space, and that is the only hazard posed by the space,
the employer is exempt from many requirements of the standard,
including the need for an outside attendant. Similarly, in
Sec. 1910.146(k)(3), employers are expressly exempt from using a
lifeline if such usage is either valueless or counterproductive from
a safety standpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs of complying with Sec. 1910.146 in the pulp and paper
industry were included in OSHA's supporting Regulatory Impact Analysis
[Final Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
of the Final Permit-Required Confined Spaces Standard, December 1992].
They were estimated to be approximately $4 million. No economic or
technological feasibility problems were identified.
By deleting the more rigid confined space requirements of the pulp
and paper industry-specific standard and requiring employers to comply
with the more performance-oriented requirement for attendants and
lifelines of the permit-required confined spaces standard, OSHA is
simultaneously relieving a burden and enhancing safety. Based on the
underlying analysis used by OSHA in producing the RIA for
Sec. 1910.146, a comparison of the costs associated with the
requirement that an attendant be present (Sec. 1910.261 (b)(5)) with
the more flexible requirements in Sec. 1910.146 indicates a savings to
employers of approximately 450,000 person-hours annually. Given the
hourly compensation rate of $17 used in the RIA, this represents an
annual savings of $7.7 million.
In summary, by revoking or revising these four unnecessary or
duplicative requirements, the Agency is reducing annual employer
burdens related to first aid kits by $761,000, to medical surveillance
for coke oven emission workers by $611,285 and inorganic arsenic
workers $584,340, and to confined space entry in pulp and paper mills
by $7.7 million, for a total annualized employer savings of $9,656,625.
Technological Feasibility
OSHA could not identify any provision of the final rule that raised
technological feasibility problems for employers. OSHA therefore
concludes that technological feasibility is not an issue for the
changes made to these standards in this regulatory action.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as
amended, requires that the Agency examine its regulatory actions to
determine if they have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As stated at the time of the proposal, and
confirmed by this final economic analysis and comments to the record,
these modifications to existing regulations are expected to reduce the
regulatory burden on all affected employers, large and small. No
commenters disputed this conclusion. For that reason, the Agency hereby
certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
VI. Environmental Assessment
The final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR part 1500), and DOL NEPA procedures
(29 CFR part 11). As a result of this review, OSHA has concluded that
the rule will have no significant environmental impact.
VII. International Trade
This revision and revocation of OSHA standards is not likely to
have a significant effect on international trade, since the changes
involve the revocation of obsolete provisions, consolidation of
repetitious provisions, and clarification of confusing language.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in the final ``Standards
Improvement For General Industry and Construction Standards'' standard.
OMB has approved the collections of information contained in the
Inorganic Arsenic standard and has assigned the OMB Control Number of
1218-0104 to these collections. OMB has also approved the collections
of information contained in the Coke Oven Emissions standard and has
assigned the OMB Control Number of 1218-0128 to them. Both approvals
expire on 3/31/2000. Under 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an agency may not conduct
or sponsor a collection of information unless: (1) the collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB control number; and (2) the
agency informs the potential persons who are to respond to the
collection of information that such persons are not required to respond
to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
IX. Federalism
This revision and revocation of OSHA standards has been reviewed in
accordance with Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987),
regarding Federalism. This Order requires that agencies, to the extent
possible, refrain from limiting State policy options, consult with
States prior to taking any actions which would restrict State policy
actions, and take such actions only when there is clear constitutional
authority and the presence of a problem of national scope. The Order
provides for preemption of State law only if there is a clear
Congressional intent for the Agency to do so. Any such preemption is to
be limited to the extent possible.
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)
expresses Congress' intent to preempt State laws relating to issues on
which Federal OSHA has promulgated occupational safety and health
standards. Under the OSH Act, a State can avoid preemption in issues
covered by Federal standards only if it submits, and obtains Federal
approval of, a plan for the development of such standards and their
enforcement. Occupational safety and health standards developed by such
Plan States must, among other things, be at least as effective in
providing safe and healthful employment and places of employment as the
Federal standards.
The revision and revocation of standards is meant to reduce the
volume and complexity of OSHA standards, and
[[Page 33466]]
to improve compliance by employers, without diminishing worker safety
and health. Those States which have elected to participate under
Section 18 of the OSH Act are not preempted by the revocation and
revision of these standards and will be able to address any special
conditions within the framework of the Federal Act while ensuring that
the State standards are at least as effective as the Federal standard.
X. State Plan Standards
The States with their own approved occupational safety and health
plans must have at least as effective standards in place within 6
months of the publication date of the final standard. These States are:
Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut (for State and local
government employees only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York (for State and local
government employees only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands,
Washington, and Wyoming.
XI. Authority and Signature
This document was prepared under the direction of Charles N.
Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210.
List of Subjects
29 CFR Part 1910
Business and industry, Coke oven emission, Explosives, Fire
prevention, Hazardous substances, Inorganic arsenic, Occupatioal safety
and health.
29 CFR Part 1926
Construction industry, Electric power, First-aid, Fire prevention
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 11th day of June 1998.
Charles N. Jeffress,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, 6(b) (7) and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657),
section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40
U.S.C. 333) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 6-96 (62 FR 111), 29 CFR
Parts 1910 and 1926 are amended as set forth below.
PART 1910--[AMENDED]
Subpart H--Hazardous Materials
1. The authority citation for subpart H is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable, and 29 CFR part 1911.
1a. Remove the phrase, ``from inhabited buildings, passenger
railways, and public highways and'' from paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of
Sec. 1910.109.
2. Remove the words, ``manufacture and'' from the first sentence in
footnote number 5, of Table H-21, of Sec. 1910.109.
3. Revise paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) and (e)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.109 to
read as follows:
Sec. 1910.109 Explosives and blasting agents.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Blasting caps or electric blasting caps shall not be
transported over the highways on the same vehicles with other
explosives, unless packaged, segregated, and transported in accordance
with the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations
(49 CFR parts 177-180).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Empty containers and paper and fiber packing materials which
have previously contained explosive materials shall be disposed of in a
safe manner, or reused in accordance with the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 177-
180).
Sec. 1910.110 [Amended]
1. Remove paragraphs (b)(15)(vi) through (b)(15)(viii) of
Sec. 1910.110, and redesignate paragraph (b)(15)(ix) as (b)(15)(vi).
2. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) through (c)(2)(iv) of Sec. 1910.110
and redesignate paragraph (c)(2)(i) as (c)(2).
3. Remove and reserve paragraph (e)(10) of Sec. 1910.110.
4. Remove and reserve paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.110.
Sec. 1910.111 [Amended]
5. Remove and reserve paragraphs (f)(7) and (f)(8) of
Sec. 1910.111.
Subpart J--General Environmental Controls
1. The authority citation for subpart J is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable, 29 CFR Part 1911.
Sec. 1910.141 [Amended]
2. Remove paragraph (a)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.141 and all paragraph
designations for the definitions within paragraph (a)(2) of
Sec. 1910.141.
Sec. 1910.142 [Amended]
3. Remove paragraph (a)(4) of Sec. 1910.142.
Subpart K--Medical and First Aid
1. The authority citation for subpart K is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable, 29 CFR part 1911.
2. Revise the final sentence in paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.151 to
read as follows:
Sec. 1910.151 Medical services and first aid.
* * * * *
(b) * * * Adequate first aid supplies shall be readily available.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 1910.151, add Appendix A to read as follows:
Appendix A to Sec. 1910.151--First aid kits (Non-Mandatory)
First aid supplies are required to be readily available under
paragraph Sec. 1910.151(b). An example of the minimal contents of a
generic first aid kit is described in American National Standard
(ANSI) Z308.1-1978 ``Minimum Requirements for Industrial Unit-Type
First-aid Kits.'' The contents of the kit listed in the ANSI
standard should be adequate for small worksites. When larger
operations or multiple operations are being conducted at the same
location, employers should determine the need for additional first
aid kits at the worksite, additional types of first aid equipment
and supplies and additional quantities and types of supplies and
equipment in the first aid kits.
In a similar fashion, employers who have unique or changing
first-aid needs in their workplace may need to enhance their first-
aid kits. The employer can use the OSHA 200 log, OSHA 101's or other
reports to identify these unique problems. Consultation from the
local fire/rescue department, appropriate medical professional, or
local emergency room may be helpful to employers in these
circumstances. By assessing the specific needs of their workplace,
employers can ensure that reasonably anticipated supplies are
available. Employers should assess the specific needs of their
worksite periodically and augment the first aid kit appropriately.
If it is reasonably anticipated that employees will be exposed
to blood or other potentially infectious materials while using first
aid supplies, employers are required to provide appropriate personal
protective equipment (PPE) in compliance with the provisions of the
Occupational Exposure to Blood borne Pathogens standard,
[[Page 33467]]
Sec. 1910.1030(d)(3) (56 FR 64175). This standard lists appropriate
PPE for this type of exposure, such as gloves, gowns, face shields,
masks, and eye protection.
Subpart L--Fire Protection
1. The authority citation for subpart L is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 6-96 (62 FR 111) as applicable; 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1910.156 [Amended]
2. Remove paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1910.156.
Subpart N--Materials Handling and Storage
1. The authority citation for subpart N is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1910.183 [Amended]
2. Remove and reserve paragraph (a) of Sec. 1910.183.
Subpart R--Special Industries
1. The authority citation for subpart R is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
Sec. 1910.261 [Amended]
2. Remove the following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261: (a)(3) (ii),
(iv) through (vi), (ix), (xi) through (xiii), (xv), (xvii) through
(xix), (xx), (xxii), (xxiv) through (xxvii).
3. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as
follows:
a. paragraph (a)(3)(iii) as paragraph (a)(3)(ii),
b. paragraph (a)(3)(vii) as paragraph (a)(3)(iii),
c. paragraph (a)(3)(viii) as paragraph (a)(3)(iv),
d. paragraph (a)(3)(x) as paragraph (a)(3)(v),
e. paragraph (a)(3)(xiv) as paragraph (a)(3)(vi),
f. paragraph (a)(3)(xvi) as paragraph (a)(3)(vii),
g. paragraph (a)(3)(xxi) as paragraph (a)(3)(viii),
h. paragraph (a)(3)(xxiii) as paragraph (a)(3)(ix).
4. Remove paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3), (b)(5), and (b)(6) of
Sec. 1910.261.
5. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(1) and paragraph
(b)(7) as paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 1910.261.
6. Remove the following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261: (c) (2)(vi),
(2)(vii), (6)(ii), and (7)(ii).
7. Remove and reserve the following paragraphs of Sec. 1910.261:
(c) (3)(i), (8)(i), and (11).
8. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as
follows:
a. paragraph (c)(2)(viii) as paragraph (c)(2)(vi),
b. paragraph (c)(6)(i) as paragraph (c)(6),
c. paragraph (c)(7)(i) as paragraph (c)(7),
d. paragraph (d)(1)(i) as paragraph (d)(1).
9. Remove paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261.
10. Remove and reserve paragraphs (e)(3), (e)(7), and (e)(9) of
Sec. 1910.261.
11. Remove paragraphs (g)(1)(iv) and (g)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.261.
12. Remove paragraphs (g)(15)(iv) and (g)(15)(vi) of Sec. 1910.261.
13. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as
follows:
a. paragraph (g)(1)(v) as paragraph (g)(1)(iv),
b. paragraph (g)(2)(ii) as paragraph (g)(2)(i),
c. paragraph (g)(2)(iii) as paragraph (g)(2)(ii),
d. paragraph (g)(15)(v) as paragraph (g)(15)(iv).
14. Remove paragraph (h)(2)(iii) of Sec. 1910.261, and redesignate
(h)(2)(iv) as (h)(2)(iii).
15. Remove paragraphs (j)(1)(iv), (j)(4)(ii), (j)(5)(iv) and
(j)(6)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261.
16. Remove and reserve paragraph (j)(3) of Sec. 1910.261.
17. The following paragraphs in Sec. 1910.261 are redesignated as
follows:
a. paragraph (j)(4)(iii) through paragraph (j)(4)(vi) as paragraph
(j)(4)(ii) through paragraph (j)(4)(v),
b. paragraph (j)(6)(iii) as paragraph (j)(6)(ii).
18. Remove paragraph (k)(2)(i) of Sec. 1910.261, and redesignate
paragraphs (k)(2)(ii) through (k)(2)(vi) as paragraphs (k)(2)(i)
through (k)(2)(v), respectively.
19. Remove and reserve paragraphs (k)(4) and (k)(16) of
Sec. 1910.261.
20. Remove and reserve paragraphs (m)(2) and (m)(4) of
Sec. 1910.261.
21. Remove paragraphs (m)(5)(i) and (m)(5)(ii) of Sec. 1910.261.
22. Redesignate paragraph (m)(5)(iii) of Sec. 1910.261 as paragraph
(m)(5), and add a heading to paragraph (m)(5) to read ``Unloading
Cars.''
Sec. 1910.262 [Amended]
23. Remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of
Sec. 1910.262.
24. Remove and reserve paragraph (gg) of Sec. 1910.262.
25. Remove paragraphs (ll)(1), (qq), and (rr) of Sec. 1910.262.
26. Redesignate paragraph (ll)(2) of Sec. 1910.262 as paragraph
(ll).
Sec. 1910.265 [Amended]
27. Remove paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 1910.265.
28. Redesignate paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 1910.265 as paragraph (a).
29. Remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(3)(i), (c)(10), (c)(14), and
(c)(16) of Sec. 1910.265.
30. Remove and reserve paragraph (c)(17) of Sec. 1910.265.
31-32. Remove and reserve paragraph (c)(22) of Sec. 1910.265.
33. Remove paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(a) of Sec. 1910.265 and
redesignate paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(b) as paragraph (c)(24)(iv).
34. Remove paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(c) of Sec. 1910.265.
35. Remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(26)(i), (c)(30)(vi),
(c)(30)(x), and (e)(3)(ii)(d) of Sec. 1910.265.
36. Remove paragraphs (f)(9), (g), (h), and (i) of Sec. 1910.265.
Sec. 1910.267 [Removed and Reserved]
37. Remove and reserve Sec. 1910.267.
Sec. 1910.268 [Amended]
38. Revise paragraph (f)(1), remove paragraphs (f)(2) through
(f)(4) and (f)(7) through (f)(9) and redesignate paragraphs (f)(5) and
(f)(6) as (f)(2) and (f)(3) as follows:
Sec. 1910.268 Telecommunications.
* * * * *
(f) Rubber insulating equipment. (1) Rubber insulating equipment
designed for the voltage levels to be encountered shall be provided and
the employer shall ensure that they are used by employees as required
by this section. The requirements of Sec. 1910.137, Electrical
Protective Equipment, shall be followed except for Table I-6.
* * * * *
Subpart Z--Toxic and Hazardous Substances
1. The authority citation for subpart Z is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
All of subpart Z issued under sec. 6(b) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act, except those substances that have exposure
limits listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of 29 CFR 1910.1000. The
latter were issued under sec. 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).
[[Page 33468]]
Section 1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 553, Section 1910.1000 Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 not issued
under 29 CFR part 1911 except for the arsenic (organic compounds),
benzene, and cotton dust listings.
Section 1910.1001 also issued under section 107 of the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 333) and 5 U.S.C.
553.
Section 1910.1002 not issued under 29 U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part
1911; also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.
Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029 and 1910.1200 are also issued
under 29 U.S.C. 653.
Sec. 1910.1017 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 1910.1017, remove paragraph (g)(5).
3. Redesignate paragraphs (g)(6) and (g)(7) of Sec. 1910.1017 as
paragraphs (g)(5) and (g)(6), respectively.
4. In Sec. 1910.1018, remove paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(C); redesignate
paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(D) as (n)(2)(ii)(C); add the word ``and'' after
paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(B); and revise the reference in paragraph
(n)(3)(i) that reads ``(n)(2)(ii)(A) (B) and (D)'' to read
``(n)(2)(ii)''; and revise paragraph (n)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.1018 Inorganic arsenic.
* * * * *
(n) * * * *
(3) * * * *
(ii) The employer shall provide the examinations specified in
paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(2)(ii)(B) and (C) of this section at least
semiannually, and the x-ray requirement specified in paragraph
(n)(2)(ii)(A) of this section at least annually, for other covered
employees.
* * * * *
Sec. 1910.1018 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 1910.1018, remove paragraphs (q)(2)(iii)(F),
(q)(2)(iii)(G), and (q)(2)(iii)(H); and insert the word ``and'' after
paragraph (q)(2)(iii)(D).
6. In Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1018, revise paragraph VI to read as
follows:
Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1018--Inorganic Arsenic Substance
Information Sheet
* * * * *
VI. MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
If your exposure to arsenic is over the Action Level (5 mg/m3)--
(including all persons working in regulated areas) at least 30 days
per year, or you have been exposed to arsenic for more than 10 years
over the Action Level, your employer is required to provide you with
a medical examination. The examination shall be every 6 months for
employees over 45 years old or with more than 10 years exposure over
the Action Level and annually for other covered employees. The
medical examination must include a medical history; a chest x-ray;
skin examination and a nasal examination. The examining physician
will provide a written opinion to your employer containing the
results of the medical exams. You should also receive a copy of this
opinion. The physician must not tell your employer any conditions he
detects unrelated to occupational exposure to arsenic but must tell
you those conditions.
Appendix C--[Amended]
* * * * *
7. In Appendix C to Sec. 1910.1018, Section I, General, remove
paragraph (4) which reads ``(4) A Sputum Cytology examination;''
redesignate paragraph (5) as paragraph (4); and insert the word ``and''
after paragraph (3).
8. In Appendix C to Sec. 1910.1018, remove the entire section
entitled ``III. Sputum Cytology''.
9. In Sec. 1910.1029, remove paragraph (j)(2)(vii) and redesignate
paragraph (j)(2)(viii) as paragraph (j)(2)(vii) and insert the word
``and'' after paragraph (j)(2)(vi).
10. In paragraph (j)(3)(ii) of Sec. 1910.1029, the reference
``(j)(2)(i)-(viii)'' is revised to read ``(j)(2)(i) and (j) (2)(iii)
through (vii).''
11. In paragraph (j)(3)(iii) of Sec. 1910.1029, the reference
``(j)(2)(i)-(viii)'' is revised to read ``(j)(2)(i) and (j)(2)(iii)
through (vii).''
12. In Sec. 1910.1029, redesignate paragraph (j)(3)(iv) as
paragraph (j)(3)(v), and add a new paragraph (j)(3)(iv) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1910.1029 Coke oven emissions.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) The employer shall provide the x-ray specified in paragraph
(j)(2)(ii) of this section at least annually for employees covered
under paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
13. In Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1029, paragraph VI is revised to
read as follows:
Appendix A to Sec. 1910.1029--Coke Oven Emissions Substance
Information Sheet
* * * * *
VI. MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
If you work in a regulated area at least 30 days per year, your
employer is required to provide you with a medical examination every
year. The medical examination must include a medical history, a
chest x-ray, pulmonary function test, weight comparison, skin
examination, a urinalysis, and a urine cytology exam for early
detection of urinary cancer. The urine cytology exam is only
included in the initial exam until you are either 45 years or older,
or have 5 or more years employment in the regulated areas when the
medical exams including this test, but excepting the x-ray exam, are
to be given every six months; under these conditions, you are to be
given an x-ray exam at least once a year. The examining physician
will provide a written opinion to your employer containing the
results of the medical exams. You should also receive a copy of this
opinion.
14. In Appendix B to Sec. 1910.1029, Section II, paragraph A is
revised to read as follows:
Appendix B to Sec. 1910.1029--Industrial Hygiene and Medical
Surveillance Guidelines
* * * * * *
II. Medical Surveillance Guidelines
A. General. The minimum requirements for the medical examination
for coke oven workers are given in paragraph (j) of the standard.
The initial examination is to be provided to all coke oven workers
who work at least 30 days in the regulated area. The examination
includes a 14'' x 17'' posterior-anterior chest x-ray reading and
a ILO/UC rating to assure some standardization of x-ray reading,
pulmonary function tests (FVC and FEV 1.0), weight, urinalysis, skin
examination, and a urinary cytologic examination. These tests are
needed to serve as the baseline for comparing the employee's future
test results. Periodic exams include all the elements of the initial
exams, except that the urine cytologic test is to be performed only
on those employees who are 45 years or older or who have worked for
5 or more years in the regulated area; periodic exams, with the
exception of x-rays, are to be performed semiannually for this group
instead of annually; for this group, x-rays will continue to be
given at least annually. The examination contents are minimum
requirements; additional tests such as lateral and oblique x-rays or
additional pulmonary function tests may be performed if deemed
necessary.
15. In Appendix B to Sec. 1910.1029, Section II, the paragraphs
entitled ``C. Sputum Cytology,'' are removed.
PART 1926--[AMENDED]
Subpart C--General Safety and Health Standards
1. The authority citation for subpart C is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
2. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec. 1926.31 to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.31 Incorporation by reference.
(a) The standards of agencies of the U.S. Government, and
organizations which are not agencies of the U.S. Government which are
incorporated by reference in this part, have the same
[[Page 33469]]
force and effect as other standards in this part. Only the mandatory
provisions (i.e., provisions containing the word ``shall'' or other
mandatory language) of standards incorporated by reference are adopted
as standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The
locations where these standards may be examined are as follows:
(1) Offices of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, Washington, DC
20210.
(2) The Regional and Field Offices of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, which are listed in the U.S. Government Manual.
* * * * *
Subpart D--Occupational Health and Environmental Controls
1. The authority citation for subpart D is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
2. Revise paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) and (f) of Sec. 1926.50 to read
as follows:
Sec. 1926.50 Medical services and first aid.
* * * * *
(d)(1) First aid supplies shall be easily accessible when required.
(2) The contents of the first aid kit shall be placed in a
weatherproof container with individual sealed packages for each type of
item, and shall be checked by the employer before being sent out on
each job and at least weekly on each job to ensure that the expended
items are replaced.
* * * * *
(f) In areas where 911 is not available, the telephone numbers of
the physicians, hospitals, or ambulances shall be conspicuously posted.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 1926.50, add Appendix A to read as follows:
Appendix A to Sec. 1926.50--First aid Kits (Non-Mandatory)
First aid supplies are required to be easily accessible under
paragraph Sec. 1926.50(d)(1). An example of the minimal contents of
a generic first aid kit is described in American National Standard
(ANSI) Z308.1-1978 ``Minimum Requirements for Industrial Unit-Type
First-aid Kits''. The contents of the kit listed in the ANSI
standard should be adequate for small work sites. When larger
operations or multiple operations are being conducted at the same
location, employers should determine the need for additional first
aid kits at the worksite, additional types of first aid equipment
and supplies and additional quantities and types of supplies and
equipment in the first aid kits.
In a similar fashion, employers who have unique or changing
first-aid needs in their workplace, may need to enhance their first-
aid kits. The employer can use the OSHA 200 log, OSHA 101's or other
reports to identify these unique problems. Consultation from the
local Fire/Rescue Department, appropriate medical professional, or
local emergency room may be helpful to employers in these
circumstances. By assessing the specific needs of their workplace,
employers can ensure that reasonably anticipated supplies are
available. Employers should assess the specific needs of their
worksite periodically and augment the first aid kit appropriately.
If it is reasonably anticipated employees will be exposed to
blood or other potentially infectious materials while using first-
aid supplies, employers should provide personal protective equipment
(PPE). Appropriate PPE includes gloves, gowns, face shields, masks
and eye protection (see ``Occupational Exposure to Blood borne
Pathogens'', 29 CFR 1910.1030(d)(3)) (56 FR 64175).
Subpart F--Fire Protection and Prevention
1. The authority citation for subpart F is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, and 8, Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR
35736), or 6-96 (62 FR 111) as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
2. In Sec. 1926.152, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.152 Flammable and combustible liquids.
(a) * * * (1) Only approved containers and portable tanks shall be
used for storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids.
Approved safety cans or Department of Transportation approved
containers shall be used for the handling and use of flammable liquids
in quantities of 5 gallons or less, except that this shall not apply to
those flammable liquid materials which are highly viscid (extremely
hard to pour), which may be used and handled in original shipping
containers. For quantities of one gallon or less, the original
container may be used, for storage, use and handling of flammable
liquids.
Subpart U--Blasting and Use of Explosives
1. The authority citation for subpart U is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 107, Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards
Act (40 U.S.C. 333); secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or
6-96 (62 FR 111), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911.
2. Revise paragraph (q) of Sec. 1926.906 to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.906 Initiation of explosive charges--electric blasting.
* * * * *
(q) Blasters, when testing circuits to charged holes, shall use
only blasting galvanometers or other instruments that are specifically
designed for this purpose.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-15936 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
