95-25954. Grain Handling Facilities  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 202 (Thursday, October 19, 1995)]
    [Proposed Rules]
    [Pages 54047-54051]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-25954]
    
    
    
    ========================================================================
    Proposed Rules
                                                    Federal Register
    ________________________________________________________________________
    
    This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
    the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
    notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
    the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
    
    ========================================================================
    
    
    Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 202 / Thursday, October 19, 1995 / 
    Proposed Rules
    
    [[Page 54047]]
    
    
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
    
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration
    
    29 CFR Part 1910
    
    [Docket No. H-117-B]
    
    
    Grain Handling Facilities
    
    AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule; technical amendment.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: OSHA's standard for grain handling facilities applies to 
    employees entering bins, silos, or tanks. At present, it does not apply 
    to employees entering ``flat storage buildings or tanks'' unless entry 
    is made from the top of the structure. It was entended to provide 
    protection from the hazards faced by employees who walk on or 
    underneath accumulations of grain within a grain storage facility. 
    These hazards include engulfment and entrapment in the grain and grain 
    handling equipment, which can result in asphyxiations crushing 
    injuries, and amputations. OSHA intended the exception for flat storage 
    buildings or tanks only to apply to entries that did not expose 
    employees to these hazards; the point of entry into the storage area is 
    not the critical factor in determining whether the entering employee is 
    exposed to the hazards addressed in the standard. In this notice, OSHA 
    is proposing to revise the exception for flat storage buildings or 
    tanks and to add a new provision that applies to entry into flat 
    storage facilities which do not have atmospheric hazards. The new 
    provision would provide employees entering flat storage facilities with 
    protection against entrapment, engulfment, and mechanical hazards, 
    regardless of their point of entry. A definition for ``flat storage 
    facility'' would be added to indicate more clearly the important 
    elements which distinguish flat storage facilities from other grain 
    storage structures.
        In addition, for the same reasons, OSHA proposes to amend the 
    provision which requires specific rescue equipment for entries from the 
    tops of bins, silos or tanks. The proposal would clarify this 
    requirement to include all entries from above the level of the grain, 
    or wherever employees walk or stand on stored grain which poses an 
    engulfment hazard.
    
    DATES: Comments and requests for hearings must be postmarked no later 
    than November 20, 1995.
    
    ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for hearings must be submitted in 
    quadruplicate to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H-117-B, Room N-
    2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 
    Washington, DC 20210. (Telephone: 202-219-7894) Comments of 10 pages or 
    less may be faxed to the Docket Office, if followed by hard copy mailed 
    within two days. The OSHA Docket Office fax number is (202) 219-5046.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Ms. Anne Cyr, OSHA Office of Information and Consumer Affairs, Room N-
    3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
    Washington, DC 20210. Telephone (202) 219-8148.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA's standard for grain handling 
    facilities, 29 CFR 1910.272, was published on December 31, 1987 (52 FR 
    49625), after a lengthy and extensive rulemaking effort. These 
    standards were challenged in the Fifth Circuitry Court of Appeals, and 
    were upheld in pertinent part by that court in National Grain and Feed 
    Association v. OSHA, 866 F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1989).
    
    Entries Into Flat Storage Facilities
    
        Paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.272 covers employee entry into grain 
    bins, silos or tanks. It provides protection against the wide range of 
    hazards that employees may encounter during such entries. These hazards 
    include engulfment by grain, entrapment in draw-offs and mechanical 
    equipment used to move the grain, and asphyxiation from oxygen-
    deficient atmospheres, among others.
        The requirements of paragraph (g) apply, in general, to all bin, 
    silo and tank entries. However, an exception is provided in paragraph 
    (g) for entries into so-called ``flat storage buildings or tanks where 
    the diameter of such structures is greater than the height.'' Entries 
    into these structures are currently covered by paragraph (g) only when 
    such entries are made from the top of the structure. Entries from other 
    parts of the structure are excepted from coverage under paragraph (g).
        In the preamble to the final rule (at 52 FR 49604-49605), OSHA 
    explained its intentions as to the scope of the exception for flat 
    storage:
    
        Many bins connected with grain facilities, e.g., flat storage 
    and large diameter steel or concrete bins with ground level entry, 
    present no entry hazards * * * Bin[s], silo[s] and tanks should be 
    more clearly defined so as to exclude flat storage buildings with no 
    bottom draw-off. The dangers represented in this section do not 
    exist in conventional flat storage buildings which usually have 
    large doorways and are at ground level * * *
        OSHA agrees that those large diameter tanks and flat storage 
    buildings which are not entered from the top do not pose the same 
    hazards as taller, cylindrical structures where ingress and egress 
    are difficult, and where the quality of the atmosphere within such 
    structures may be uncertain.
    
        The final rule assumed that hazards from entry into flat storage 
    structures only arise when the entry is made from the top, because 
    employees who enter in that manner would do so in order to stand or 
    walk on the stored grain. The text of the standard did not directly 
    address situations in which the very same hazards would be encountered 
    during entries from lower levels.\1\
    
        \1\ It should be noted that Appendix A to Sec. 1910.272 
    discusses the hazards faced by an employee who stands or walks on 
    stored grain, without regard to the method or point of entry into 
    the grain storage area.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In the seven years since the grain handling standard was issued, 
    OSHA has learned that many entries take place from such levels lower 
    than the top of the structure, in facilities whose dimensions (i.e., 
    diameter greater than height) could be misconstrued to bring them 
    within the definition of ``flat storage structures or tanks.'' At 
    present, if such entries are made at points below the top of a 
    qualifying flat storage structure or tank, they would be excepted from 
    paragraph (g)'s requirements. However, it is clear to OSHA (and should 
    be clear to employers) that employees making these entries are exposed 
    to the same hazards of entry as if they were entering from the top.
        Data collected by OSHA since the effective date of the grain 
    handling 
    
    [[Page 54048]]
    standard clearly indicate that engulfment and mechanical injuries and 
    fatalities continue to occur in these types of entries. One tragic 
    example occurred on October 22, 1993, when 19-year-old employee and two 
    other workers were instructed to enter a corn storage structure in 
    order to ``walk down'' the corn. The structure's diameter was greater 
    than its height if measured to the eaves, although the diameter was 
    less than the height if measured to the peak of the roof. The workers 
    entered the facility not at the top of the structure, but through an 
    opening several feet above the ground.
        The three men walked down the corn for 30-45 minutes while an auger 
    at the base of the structure was running. At that point, the 19-year-
    old employee sank into the corn up to his knees. The two other workers 
    began trying to pull him out, but he kept sinking as the corn began to 
    avalanche, covering him and pushing him in the direction of the auger. 
    One co-worker left to shut off the auger while the other continued to 
    try to pull him from the corn. Rescue efforts were unsuccessful, and he 
    suffocated. No rescue equipment, observers, lock-out procedures, or 
    other precautions had been taken to protect the workers during the 
    entry.
        The present structure of paragraph (g) would benefit from further 
    clarification to assure that these and other employees have the 
    protection that this standard was intended to provide during entry. 
    Accordingly, OSHA has determined that there is a compelling need to 
    amend the standard to be in accord with its original intent: to provide 
    appropriate protection to all grain handling employees, including those 
    who walk on or under stored grain in flat storage facilities.
        When the grain handling standard was promulgated, OSHA intended 
    that the exception to paragraph (g) be a narrow one, provided relief 
    only for situations where the hazards of entry were not significant. 
    Since that time, the Agency has learned that the exception has been 
    misinterpreted in a manner broader than its original intent. There are 
    two basic problems with the exception to paragraph (g): First, as noted 
    above, entries into flat storage-type structures can be hazardous even 
    if they are not executed from the top of the structure; and, second, 
    the current regulatory text places the emphasis on type and dimensions 
    of the storage facility rather than on the hazards posed to the 
    employee making the entry. OSHA believes that it is necessary to 
    clarify the original intent more explicitly by making three amendments 
    to Sec. 1910.272: first, by revising the exception to paragraph (g) for 
    flat storage to emphasize the hazards being addressed by the standard; 
    second, by providing appropriate coverage for entries into flat storage 
    facilities, in a new paragraph (h); and third, by adding a definition 
    of ``flat storage facility'' to clarify OSHA's intentions as to the 
    types of facilities which are to be covered in most cases by paragraph 
    (h) instead of paragraph (g). The new paragraph (h) would assure that 
    the standard provides protection for employees who are exposed to the 
    hazards of entry into flat storage, regardless of where they enter the 
    facility. Unlike the coverage in paragraph (g), however, paragraph (h) 
    would be directed at engulfment and equipment hazards exclusively, 
    rather than the broader range of confined space hazards addressed by 
    paragraph (g).\2\
    
        \2\ At present, entries from the top of flat storage facilities 
    are covered by paragraph (g). Paragraph (g) addresses a wide range 
    of hazards which are unique to confined spaces, including not only 
    engulfment and equipment hazards, but also such hazards as toxic, 
    flammable and explosive atmospheres. By contrast, wide-open, 
    warehouse-type flat storage operations, which do not have restricted 
    access and egress, would not normally be expected to generate or 
    expose employees to the panoply of potential hazards that entries 
    into silos and other confined spaces do. Thus, it is not necessary 
    to apply all of the requirements of paragraph (g) to flat storage 
    entries if atmospheric hazards are not present; instead, only the 
    provisions which address engulfment and equipment hazards need to be 
    added. New paragraph (h) would provide this coverage for all such 
    flat storage entries, regardless of the point of entry. The proposed 
    amendment and definition would bring the regulatory text into line 
    with the OSHA's original intent in providing the current exception 
    to paragraph (g).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Paragraph (h) would only apply to flat storage facilities where 
    there are none of the atmospheric hazards that might otherwise be 
    encountered in the confined spaces of a grain storage facility. 
    Facilities which are truly ``flat storage'' are warehouse-type storage 
    structures, having doorways at ground level through which motorized 
    vehicles such as front-end loaders and trucks can drive to move grain 
    in and out of the structure. Because of their basic configuration, 
    openness, and access to the outside, these facilities would not 
    generally be expected to have restricted ventilation, confinement, or 
    toxic or flammable materials that might be expected to produce 
    atmospheric hazards for employees entering the structure. For these 
    facilities, the employer should have no difficulty establishing that 
    atmospheric hazards are not present, and that engulfment, entrapment, 
    and mechanical equipment are the only entry hazards that need to be 
    addressed. Proposed paragraph (h) is designed to handle these 
    circumstances. By contrast, the proposed revision to the paragraph (g) 
    exception makes clear that if atmospheric hazards are present, it is 
    paragraph (g), and not paragraph (h), that applies to entries into the 
    grain storage structure, regardless of the type of structure being 
    entered.
        The grain standard's present coverage of engulfment hazards is not 
    sufficiently protective. Whereas entries (other than from the top) into 
    flat storage structures are exempted from the confined spaces 
    provisions of the standard, the standard does not provide alternative 
    coverage for those entries. For example, an employee may enter a flat 
    storage structure from a side or bottom entrance. If that employee 
    walks on the grain, nothing in the current standard protects the 
    employee from the hazards associated with that activity. If mechanical 
    equipment, such as an auger, is used to draw off grain from the bottom, 
    the employee is exposed to that equipment; if the surface of the grain 
    were to collapse under the employee, the employee could be engulfed and 
    asphyxiated; and if there were bridged grain above the employee, it 
    could collapse upon the employee and cause asphyxiation. It is clear 
    that the standard needs to be amended to provide protection from these 
    hazards.
        Accordingly, OSHA is proposing to revise the exception currently in 
    paragraph (g), and to add a new paragraph (h) which addresses the 
    requirements to be followed for all entries into flat storage 
    structures where the employee may be exposed only to engulfment or 
    mechanical equipment hazards.
        In the amended standard, paragraph (g) would be revised to cover 
    all grain storage structures; the current exception to paragraph (a) 
    would be revised to except those flat storage facilities which only 
    have engulfment, entrapment or mechanical hazards. As noted above, 
    entries into these types of flat storage facilities would be covered by 
    paragraph (h) instead. This change will assure that between paragraphs 
    (g) and (h), all entrants who are exposed to engulfment, entrapment, or 
    mechanical hazards will be protected, regardless of the type or 
    structure of the facility being entered, and regardless of the point of 
    entry.
        A new definition of ``flat storage facility'' would be added to 
    paragraph (c) of the standard, in order to indicate more clearly what 
    types of grain storage structures would qualify for coverage by 
    paragraph (h). In brief, a ``flat storage facility'' is, for all 
    intents and purposes, a grain ``warehouse.'' The structure has doorways 
    at ground level, through which motorized grain handling vehicles can be 
    driven. Operators of these vehicles drive through the doorways to move 
    grain into and out of the facility. A structure meeting the 
    
    [[Page 54049]]
    definition of flat storage facility, qualifies for coverage under 
    paragraph (h) if the only entry hazards are engulfment, entrapment, or 
    mechanical; if there are atmospheric hazards present, the limited 
    provisions of paragraph (h) will not be sufficient to provide entering 
    employees with protection, and paragraph (g) applies.
        The purpose of these revisions is to provide protection against 
    engulfment by any employee who enters a grain storage facility and 
    walks or stands on stored grain, regardless of the type of structure 
    being entered. The revised standard would also prohibit the employer 
    from exposing an employee to bridging conditions, whether or not the 
    employee is walking or standing on the stored grain. In addition, the 
    standard would require that the employer disconnect, lock and tag out, 
    block off, or use another equally effective method to prevent operation 
    of all equipment which presents a danger to employees, such as an auger 
    or other mechanical equipment used to draw off grain. Similar 
    requirements currently apply to entries into bins, silos or tanks under 
    paragraph (g), and they would be extended to all grain storage entries 
    under amended paragraph (g) and new paragraph (h).
        Paragraph (g)(1)(ii) is the corresponding requirement to proposed 
    paragraph (h)(2), relating to the deactivation of equipment. In 
    conjunction with the requirement in proposed paragraph (h)(2), OSHA is 
    also proposing to revise the text of paragraph (g)(1)(ii) to specify 
    the need for deenergization, which is a necessary step in the 
    procedures used to prevent the equipment from operating. This revision 
    would provide additional consistency and clarify to the two provisions.
        Most flat storage facilities are entered by walking in through a 
    door at ground level, and grain is loaded and unloaded by conveyors, 
    trucks and other vehicles, and other equipment. Entry into flat storage 
    may present engulfment and mechanical hazards; however, the entrant 
    would not normally be exposed to the unique hazards presented by entry 
    into confined spaces. Therefore, where such hazards do not exist, the 
    detailed permit and control requirements in paragraph (g) are not 
    necessary or appropriate for flat storage entries. Entrants into flat 
    storage facilities need to be protected from engulfment and equipment 
    hazards, and the revised standard would provide the necessary 
    protection.
        Paragraph (h) would contain three requirements for flat storage: 
    first, an employee walking or standing on grain would need to be 
    equipped with a body harness and lifeline which will prevent the 
    employee from sinking more than waist-deep into the grain. This 
    provision would apply to any entry, from any point of entry, in which 
    the employee walks on the grain. Second, any equipment which could 
    endanger an entrant must be deenergized and prevented from operating 
    during and for the duration of the entry. This provision would usually 
    be directed at equipment located within the storage area; however, it 
    would also address the engulfment hazard faced by an employee who is in 
    the storage area when grain is being loaded into the area. The standard 
    would not allow the equipment to expose the employee to this hazard. 
    Third, no employee is to be exposed to a bridging condition or other 
    buildup of grain which could fall on and engulf the employee.
        As noted above, the revised language would not provide a blanket 
    exception for entries into a grain handling structure based solely on 
    its dimensions or points of entry. Where employees in any type of grain 
    storage structure walk or stand on or under accumulations of grain or 
    grain products which could engulf them, asphyxiate them, or entrap them 
    in draw-off or mechanical equipment, the standard's protective 
    requirements would apply.
        In developing the final rule in 1987, OSHA determined that 
    employees who enter grain storage bins, tanks, and other structures and 
    who walk or stand on or under the stored grain are exposed to 
    significant risks from a wide range of hazards. These hazards, 
    particularly those of engulfment, asphyxiation, and entrapment, are not 
    dependent on how or where the employee enters the structure. Rather, 
    they relate directly to the employee's placement on top of and in the 
    stored grain, regardless of how the employee reached that position. The 
    significant risk being addressed by this proposed technical amendment 
    (i.e., involving employees who enter flat storage structures from areas 
    other than the top of the structure) is the residual risk that OSHA 
    previously believed was adequately addressed in the final rule. Indeed, 
    as noted earlier, as long as the employee's entry places that employee 
    on top of or in the stored grain, the exact point of entry into the 
    grain storage structure has no bearing on the hazards addressed by this 
    part of the standard.
    
    Rescue Equipment for Entries Into Grain Storage Facilities
    
        Paragraph (g)(2) of Sec. 1910.272 currently requires that specific 
    types of rescue equipment be provided whenever entry is made from the 
    ``top'' of a bin, silo, or other grain storage structure. As noted 
    earlier, the hazards of entry onto the grain do not relate to the 
    specific point of entry into the storage area; rather, they arise any 
    time the entrant must walk on the grain, regardless of whether the 
    entry was from the top, or from the side, or at or above the level of 
    the grain. Accordingly, it is appropriate to amend paragraph (g)(2) to 
    cover all such entries. OSHA notes that there is currently a provision 
    in paragraph (g)(4) which requires that rescue equipment be provided 
    for entries other than from the top; however, this requirement is less 
    specific than paragraph (g)(2). For example, paragraph (g)(4) requires 
    selection of rescue equipment to suit the particular situation. 
    Clearly, when applied to entries from above or at grain level but not 
    from the top, paragraph (g)(4) would usually require the use of the 
    same types of rescue equipment as are mandated for top entries by 
    paragraph (g)(2). However, the performance language of paragraph (g)(4) 
    may have left the issue open to question in some situations, and OSHA 
    wishes to eliminate any doubts about what rescue equipment is necessary 
    for all entries from levels at or above the level of the grain. For 
    reasons discussed above, OSHA believes that the protections of the 
    standard should be the same for all entries at or above the level of 
    the grain, and should not depend on whether the entry is from the top 
    of the structure. In addition, these protections need to be provided 
    whenever employees walk on or in stored grain of a depth which could 
    cause engulfment, regardless of where the employee entered the storage 
    structure. The hazards of walking the grain relate to the practice 
    itself and not to the point or method of entry. Therefore, OSHA is 
    proposing to amend paragraph (g)(2) to extend the specific requirements 
    on rescue equipment to all entries at or above the level of the grain, 
    and to all entries where employees walk on or in grain that is deep 
    enough to cause an engulfment hazard. Paragraph (g)(4) would continue 
    to apply to other types of entries under paragraph (g). In addition, in 
    accordance with the scope of proposed paragraphs (g) and (h), the term 
    ``grain storage structure'' is used in place of ``bins, silos and 
    tanks.''
        The Agency solicits public comment on the proposed changes to 
    paragraph (g) and the proposed addition of a new paragraph (h) to 
    Sec. 1910.272. In particular, OSHA welcomes suggested alternative 
    clarifying language for the exception which would better implement the 
    Agency's original intent.
    
    [[Page 54050]]
    
        This rulemaking is limited to the regulatory text discussed in this 
    notice. The rest of $1910.272 is not affected by this notice or this 
    rulemaking action. The proposed change would also apply to employment 
    in marine terminals (see 29 CFR 1917.1(a)(2)(ix), which incorporates 
    Sec. 1910.272 in its entirety.)
    
    Summary of Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility 
    Analysis
    
        The regulatory action being undertaken in this notice is not a 
    ``significant regulatory action'' for the purposes of Executive Order 
    12866. The proposed changes to paragraph (g) of Sec. 1910.272 are 
    designed to bring that paragraph into line with the Agency's original 
    intentions in issuing the final rule in 1987. The Regulatory Impact 
    Analysis performed for Sec. 1910.272 at that time was based primarily 
    on an assumption that the flat storage exception as drafted was as 
    narrow as the Agency intended it to be. For that reason, any impacts 
    associated with the proposed amendment to Sec. 1910.272 were evaluated 
    as part of the original final rule. OSHA has reviewed the earlier 
    economic analysis and has determined that it accounts for any costs and 
    impacts associated with the proposed change in the rule, and that no 
    additional economic data or analyses are needed.
        The Agency's intention in the final rule, in specifying particular 
    types of rescue equipment for entries from the top of the structure, 
    was that such equipment also be required for other entries which 
    presented the same hazards, without regard to whether the employee 
    entered from the side or other point of access at or above the level of 
    the grain. However, as tragic experience has shown, the use of the term 
    ``from the top'' has not always been interpreted in practice to mean 
    the entire class of entries which OSHA intended these provisions to 
    cover. Nevertheless, the regulatory impact analysis developed by OSHA 
    in 1987 evaluated costs and benefits according to the Agency's 
    regulatory intent, i.e., the analysis assumed that all entries would be 
    covered, and that rescue equipment would be provided in all cases. OSHA 
    has also reviewed the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared in 1987 
    and reaffirms its determination that this rule will not have a 
    significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        The costs of the proposed technical amendment have already been 
    accounted for in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the 1987 
    final rule. The data on entries developed for the RIA included all 
    entries, regardless of point of entry or type of structure. These data 
    had been collected in response to the original proposed rule, which did 
    not contain an exception for flat storage.
        The data available to OSHA indicate that several fatalities per 
    year could be prevented by the proposed technical amendment. As 
    discussed below, fatalities and injuries have continued to occur as a 
    result of entries made from points other than the top of grain storage 
    structures. The prevention of these fatalities and injuries would not 
    involve compliance costs beyond those already calculated at the time of 
    the final rule; hence, while the benefit of this proposal would be 
    significant, the compliance burden would be minimal.
        In the Final RIA, the Agency estimated that there were 14,000 grain 
    elevators with 118,011 full-time and seasonal employees, and 9,922 
    grain mills with 129,068 full-time and part-time employees [Tables II-
    3, III-3, RIA (Exhibit 223)]. As noted at the time of the final rule, 
    although all grain facilities have upright structures, only a portion 
    only have flat storage structures [ADL (Exhibit 10); Stivers (Exhibit 
    193)]. Flat storage structures are typically add-ons, constructed 
    quickly to handle excess grain. Although entries into such structures 
    are common, the Agency believes that most such entries do not involve 
    the hazards of walking on grain [ADL; Stivers]. An industry cost 
    analysis relied upon in the RIA indicated that ``side entries'' add no 
    additional costs [Stivers, pp. 3-15 through 3-17]. OSHA's analysis 
    agrees with the industry on this point, i.e., the RIA's cost estimates 
    for entries include costs for both top and side entries [RIA, pp. VI-12 
    to VI-17, and VI-63 to VI-68].
        The Agency estimated in the final RIA that the final standard would 
    prevent 80% of all grain handling engulfments. Based on more recent 
    Agency data from its IMIS database, as many as 2 to 4 engulfment 
    fatalities annually could be prevented by this technical amendment. 
    Based on the same data, the Agency believes that a similar number of 
    equipment-related accidents could also be prevented.
        The original costs provided in the RIA for compliance with 
    paragraph (g) of the standard, which addressed all kinds of entries for 
    all types of grain storage structures, were estimated to be $12.7 
    million, as compared to the total cost estimates for Sec. 1910.272 of 
    between $41.4 and $68.8 million. Based on these figures, the Agency 
    determined that the standard was economically feasible for the grain 
    handling industry. The impacts of the amendment to paragraph (g) and 
    the new paragraph (h) in this notice are incorporated into that 
    analysis.
        This proposed rule imposes no recordkeeping or reporting 
    requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. It has no 
    impacts on Federalism beyond those evaluated at the time of the final 
    rule in 1987.
    
    Public Participation
    
        Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and 
    arguments on all issues with respect to this proposed standard. These 
    comments must be postmarked on or before November 20, 1995. Comments 
    are to be submitted in quadruplicate, or in 1 original (hard copy) and 
    1 disk (3\1/2\''or 5\1/4\'') in WordPerfect 5.0, 5.1, or 6.0, or ASCII, 
    to the Docket Office, Docket No. H-117-B, Room N2625, U.S. Department 
    of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210. All 
    written comments, data, views, and arguments that are received within 
    the specified comment period will be made a part of the record and will 
    be available for public inspection and copying at the above Docket 
    Office address.
        Requests for an informal public hearing on objections to the 
    proposed rule, pursuant to Sec. 6(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and 
    Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(3)), must be submitted to the Docket 
    Office at the above address, and postmarked no later than November 20, 
    1995. Hearing requests must comply with the following requirements: 
    they must include the name and address of the objector; they must 
    specify with particularity the provision of the proposed rule to which 
    the objection is taken, and must state the grounds therefore; and they 
    must be accompanied by a summary of the evidence proposed to be adduced 
    at the requested hearing.
    
    State Plan States
    
        The 25 States and Territories with their own OSHA-approved 
    occupational safety and health plans must revise their existing 
    standard within six months of the publication date of the final 
    standard or show OSHA why there is no need for action, e.g. because an 
    existing State standard covering this area is already ``at least as 
    effective'' as the revised Federal standard. These States are: Alaska, 
    Arizona, California, Connecticut (State and local government employees 
    only), Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, 
    Nevada, New Mexico, New York (State and local government employees 
    only), North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
    Utah, Vermont, Virginia, 
    
    [[Page 54051]]
    Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wyoming.
    
    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
    
        Grain handling, Grain elevators, Occupational safety and health, 
    Protective equipment.
    
    Authority
    
        This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear, 
    Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 
    Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
    20210.
        Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational 
    Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of 
    Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033), and 29 CFR Part 1911, it is hereby 
    proposed to amend 29 CFR part 1910 as set forth below.
    
        Signed at Washington, D.C., this 16th day of October, 1995.
    Joseph A. Dear,
    Assistant Secretary of Labor.
    
        29 CFR part 1910 would be amended as follows:
    
    PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS
    
        1. The Authority citation for subpart R of 29 CFR part 1910 would 
    continue to read as follows:
    
        Authority: Secs. 4, 6, 8, Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
    1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 12-71 
    (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), or 1-90 (55 FR 
    9033), as applicble.
    
        Sections 1910.261, 1910.262, 1910.265, 1910.266, 1910.267, 
    1910.268, 1910.269, 1910.272, 1910.274, and 1910.275 also issued under 
    29 CFR part 1911.
    
    
    Sec. 1910.272  [Amended]
    
        2. The paragraph designations of the Definitions in paragraph (c) 
    of Sec. 1910.272 would be removed.
        3. A new definition of ``Flat storage facility'' would be added in 
    alphabetical order in paragraph (c) of Sec. 1910.272, to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.272  Grain handling facilities.
    
    * * * * *
        (c) Definitions.
    * * * * *
        Flat storage facility means a building or structure that is used to 
    store grain, and that has large doorways at ground level through which 
    motorized vehicles are driven in order to move grain.
    * * * * *
        4. Paragraphs (h) through (p) of Sec. 1910.272 would be 
    redesignated as new paragraphs (i) through (g), respectively.
        5. The heading and introductory text of paragraph (g), and 
    paragraphs (g)(1)(ii) and (g)(2) of Sec. 1910.272, would be revised, 
    and a new paragraph (h) would be added, to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 1910.272  Grain handling facilities.
    
    * * * * *
        (g) Entry into grain storage structures. This paragraph applies to 
    employee entry into bins, silos, tanks, and other grain storage 
    structures. Exception: Entry into flat storage facilities in which 
    there are no toxicity, flammability, oxygen-deficiency, or other 
    atmospheric hazards is covered by paragraph (h) of this section.
        (1) * * *
        (ii) All mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic equipment 
    which could present a danger to employees inside grain storage 
    structures shall be deenergized and shall be disconnected, locked-out 
    and tagged, blocked-off, or otherwise prevented from operating by other 
    equally effective means or methods.
    * * * * *
        (2) When an employee enters a grain storage structure from a level 
    at or above the level of the stored grain, or whenever an employee 
    walks or stands on or in stored grain of a depth which poses an 
    engulfment hazard, the employer shall equip the employee with a body 
    harness with lifeline, or a boatswaian's chair that meets the 
    requirements of subpart D of this part. The lifeline shall be so 
    positioned, and of sufficient length, to prevent the employee from 
    sinking further than waist-deep in the grain.
    * * * * *
        (h) Entry into flat storage facilities. (1) The employee shall be 
    equipped with a body harness with lifeline when walking or standing on 
    or in stored grain, where the depth of the grain poses an engulfment 
    hazard. The lifeline shall be so positioned, and of sufficient length, 
    to prevent the employee from sinking further than waist-deep in the 
    grain.
        (2) All mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic equipment 
    which could present a danger to an employee inside a flat storage 
    facility (such as an auger or other grain transport equipment when an 
    employee is standing on stored grain) shall be deenergized, and shall 
    be disconnected, locked-out and tagged, blocked-off, or otherwise 
    prevented from operating by other equally effective means or methods.
        (3) No employee shall be permitted to be either underneath a 
    bridging condition, or in any other location where an accumulation of 
    grain on the sides or elsewhere could fall and engulf that employee.
    * * * * *
    [FR Doc. 95-25954 Filed 10-18-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4510-26-M
    
    

Document Information

Published:
10/19/1995
Department:
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Proposed rule; technical amendment.
Document Number:
95-25954
Dates:
Comments and requests for hearings must be postmarked no later than November 20, 1995.
Pages:
54047-54051 (5 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. H-117-B
PDF File:
95-25954.pdf
CFR: (2)
29 CFR 1910.272
29 CFR 1910.272